Sabres sign Montador

[R_Dudley]

Your post really goes to the discussion I was having in another thread in comparing that Connolly contract to that of Scott Gomez. Free agency shows that the Sabres are financially not a part of the NHL anymore. While other teams continue to spend and rebuild they do so without the fear of the ramifications or financial implications because there are simply none to be found. Though the contracts of Connolly, Tallinder and Hecht maybe half the value of that of a Gomez, Drury or Briere they are devastating to the Sabres financial landscape while the larger contracts have little or no effect on the larger markets ability to do business. Teams like Montreal, New York and Philly can simple trade those large contracts to another team, buyout the contract or simple send the player to the minors and pay the salary to get the amount off of the cap.

 

To a couple of your other points:

 

Would a new GM be able to clean up this mess in one day like Montreal did? No, I would like to believe he would have at least recognized it's need to be done and start the process.

 

We should wait until the end of the off-season? The NHL's or the Sabres. I fear, as many do, that the Sabres off-season is pretty much complete.

 

Good Post

 

Well I can't argue with that. It has always been a myth that the salary cap leveled the playing field, we just didn't see the effects in the first couple years because no one was going to buy their way out of a bad deal that soon. But it will happen more and more as guys get older ... it will be another tool other teams can use that the Sabres (and several other lower-revenue teams) can't. That's frustrating, but it's really just another reason NOT to overspend on big names. The problem isn't that they aren't players in the open market so much as they made mistakes with their own players. The bad choices like Hecht/Max/Connolly over Drury/Briere/Dumont/Grier ... not saying they should have had a crystal ball and kept all four over the other three but if they still had even two of those four guys instead of the other three, they would still be a playoff team. They'd be a little older but nothing outrageous ... Everyone says DR falls in love with players, but really he just made bad choices. Drury/Briere/Dumont/Grier were all brought in by him, they were feathers in his cap, he could have "fallen in love" with them too. Whatever the case, you are right, they can't afford to make the mistakes other teams do ... they try to avoid these mistakes by not getting involved with UFAs, but they still make them with the players they should know best.

Maybe, but my point was in response to the Montreal comparison. The situations are just too different.

Believe me, i fear it, too. But given that the only way to fix it is for them to trade away some bad contracts, I think it is unrealistic to think that can be done on July 1. Like I said, I am no more or less frustrated than I was on June 30 ... but I will be on Aug. 30, one way or the other.

 

Now this is why I like it here two good reasoned posts that really frame the heart of the matter... so does that put Deluca between the pipes ;)

[deluca67]

Good Post

Now this is why I like it here two good reasoned posts that really frame the heart of the matter... so does that put Deluca between the pipes ;)

I have in the past been accused or "crease violations" if that counts. :thumbsup:

[carpandean]

Teams like Montreal, New York and Philly can simple trade those large contracts to another team, buyout the contract or simple send the player to the minors and pay the salary to get the amount off of the cap.

- So far, it seems like those teams have simply traded with each other (e.g., Gomez going to Montreal.) It will be interesting to see what happens when these big, declining contracts get to their latter years. Teams like the Sabres that have an internal budget as their de facto cap will be able to take these players since their salaries will be significantly lower than their cap hits.

 

- Buyouts are far from cheap. In actual salary, the team is still on the hook for 2/3 of the remaining money. In terms of cap hit, each one has a long term (twice the remaining years) affect on the team's cap. For example, buying out Hecht's contract would cost $6.8 million of $10.5 million in actual salary paid and would result in cap hits ranging from $800k to $1.6 million (averaging $1.19 million) in each of the next six years. As such, while teams may choose to buyout the occasional contract, it hasn't been and won't become common practice. You, especially, won't see big (in years and salaries) contracts bought out by teams, mostly because of those long-term affects on the cap.

 

- Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure that your last suggestion (sending to minors to remove cap hit) is an option for players on one-way (NHL only) SPCs, as most of the big players that we are talking about would have. I believe that, for those players, their salaries continue to count against the cap even if they are assigned to the minors. Only players on two-way (NHL/AHL) can be assigned to the minors to take their salaries off of the books. This does not include conditioning assignments for players coming off of LTIR, of course, but there are big restrictions on when and how long you can do that.

 

Certainly, those true big-market teams will have some options that small and mid-market teams won't, but how much of a benefit they really are is questionable. Plus, as we have seen, when teams know that they have these options, they tend to be less concerned with making smart decision, in effect reducing the benefit of having those additional options and larger budgets.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, I believe that Darcy is on the extreme opposite end, not willing to even consider some available options and being afraid to make some of the hard decisions. He can't afford to be fast-and-loose, but as we have seen, he also can't afford too set in his decisions. He does make mistakes, as any GM will, but he has to work harder to find ways to rectify them. For example, two offseasons of not replacing the depth at center is unforgivable. It didn't need to be a big name, July 1st UFA, but it did need to be someone.

[deluca67]

- So far, it seems like those teams have simply traded with each other (e.g., Gomez going to Montreal.) It will be interesting to see what happens when these big, declining contracts get to their latter years. Teams like the Sabres that have an internal budget as their de facto cap will be able to take these players since their salaries will be significantly lower than their cap hits.

 

- Buyouts are far from cheap. In actual salary, the team is still on the hook for 2/3 of the remaining money. In terms of cap hit, each one has a long term (twice the remaining years) affect on the team's cap. For example, buying out Hecht's contract would cost $6.8 million of $10.5 million in actual salary paid and would result in cap hits ranging from $800k to $1.6 million (averaging $1.19 million) in each of the next six years. As such, while teams may choose to buyout the occasional contract, it hasn't been and won't become common practice. You, especially, won't see big (in years and salaries) contracts bought out by teams, mostly because of those long-term affects on the cap.

 

- Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure that your last suggestion (sending to minors to remove cap hit) is an option for players on one-way (NHL only) SPCs, as most of the big players that we are talking about would have. I believe that, for those players, their salaries continue to count against the cap even if they are assigned to the minors. Only players on two-way (NHL/AHL) can be assigned to the minors to take their salaries off of the books. This does not include conditioning assignments for players coming off of LTIR, of course, but there are big restrictions on when and how long you can do that.

 

Certainly, those true big-market teams will have some options that small and mid-market teams won't, but how much of a benefit they really are is questionable. Plus, as we have seen, when teams know that they have these options, they tend to be less concerned with making smart decision, in effect reducing the benefit of having those additional options and larger budgets.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, I believe that Darcy is on the extreme opposite end, not willing to even consider some available options and being afraid to make some of the hard decisions. He can't afford to be fast-and-loose, but as we have seen, he also can't afford too set in his decisions. He does make mistakes, as any GM will, but he has to work harder to find ways to rectify them. For example, two offseasons of not replacing the depth at center is unforgivable. It didn't need to be a big name, July 1st UFA, but it did need to be someone.

Regarding being dent o the minors. They were talking about it on the NHL network. Mogilny was sent to the minors for cap relief and they did say Redden could be sent down for cap relief. I'm not sure what type of contracts they have or if it's 100% relief.

 

As far as buyouts, I don't think the money is a real consideration for the larger market teams.

[spndnchz]

Case in point: Yashin still costing Islanders for 6 more years 3.235, 4.755, 2.204, 2.204, 2.204, 2.204 million

[Taro T]

- So far, it seems like those teams have simply traded with each other (e.g., Gomez going to Montreal.) It will be interesting to see what happens when these big, declining contracts get to their latter years. Teams like the Sabres that have an internal budget as their de facto cap will be able to take these players since their salaries will be significantly lower than their cap hits.

 

- Buyouts are far from cheap. In actual salary, the team is still on the hook for 2/3 of the remaining money. In terms of cap hit, each one has a long term (twice the remaining years) affect on the team's cap. For example, buying out Hecht's contract would cost $6.8 million of $10.5 million in actual salary paid and would result in cap hits ranging from $800k to $1.6 million (averaging $1.19 million) in each of the next six years. As such, while teams may choose to buyout the occasional contract, it hasn't been and won't become common practice. You, especially, won't see big (in years and salaries) contracts bought out by teams, mostly because of those long-term affects on the cap.

 

- Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure that your last suggestion (sending to minors to remove cap hit) is an option for players on one-way (NHL only) SPCs, as most of the big players that we are talking about would have. I believe that, for those players, their salaries continue to count against the cap even if they are assigned to the minors. Only players on two-way (NHL/AHL) can be assigned to the minors to take their salaries off of the books. This does not include conditioning assignments for players coming off of LTIR, of course, but there are big restrictions on when and how long you can do that.

 

Certainly, those true big-market teams will have some options that small and mid-market teams won't, but how much of a benefit they really are is questionable. Plus, as we have seen, when teams know that they have these options, they tend to be less concerned with making smart decision, in effect reducing the benefit of having those additional options and larger budgets.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, I believe that Darcy is on the extreme opposite end, not willing to even consider some available options and being afraid to make some of the hard decisions. He can't afford to be fast-and-loose, but as we have seen, he also can't afford too set in his decisions. He does make mistakes, as any GM will, but he has to work harder to find ways to rectify them. For example, two offseasons of not replacing the depth at center is unforgivable. It didn't need to be a big name, July 1st UFA, but it did need to be someone.

You're thinking about older players signing contracts that have to stay on the books.

 

1 way contracts only mean that the player gets his full NHL salary regardless of where he plays. They also mean the player will have to clear waivers on the way back up as well.

[wonderbread]

Case in point: Yashin still costing Islanders for 6 more years 3.235, 4.755, 2.204, 2.204, 2.204, 2.204 million

 

 

That's really a shame... :D

[carpandean]

As far as buyouts, I don't think the money is a real consideration for the larger market teams.

The salary isn't, but the cap hit may be. For teams that are consistently against the cap, buying out a player could add a few million to their cap hit for several years for a non-player. If they did that even every few years, you could see their effective cap (actual cap space available for roster players) looking an awful lot like the Sabres self-imposed cap.

 

1 way contracts only mean that the player gets his full NHL salary regardless of where he plays. They also mean the player will have to clear waivers on the way back up as well.

So, the salary still gets paid at the NHL level, but the cap hit does not apply? Interesting ...

[tom webster]

The salary isn't, but the cap hit may be. For teams that are consistently against the cap, buying out a player could add a few million to their cap hit for several years for a non-player. If they did that even every few years, you could see their effective cap (actual cap space available for roster players) looking an awful lot like the Sabres self-imposed cap.

So, the salary still gets paid at the NHL level, but the cap hit does not apply? Interesting ...

 

It should be noted that most of the "big" contracts have no movement clauses which prevent that player from being sent to the minors.

[shrader]

It should be noted that most of the "big" contracts have no movement clauses which prevent that player from being sent to the minors.

 

I was looking for the specifics on Redden's deal yesterday but couldn't find anything of substance. I found one article that said Redden had to put up a good fight just to get a no trade clause. No mention of a no movement clause. Oh, and one other minor detail about those. Just like a no trade clause, the players has to agree to be sent down.

[X. Benedict]

I was looking for the specifics on Redden's deal yesterday but couldn't find anything of substance. I found one article that said Redden had to put up a good fight just to get a no trade clause. No mention of a no movement clause. Oh, and one other minor detail about those. Just like a no trade clause, the players has to agree to be sent down.

 

If I recall correctly, Redden has one of those weird deals where he gives a list of 8-10 teams every year that he will not accept a trade to.

[shrader]

If I recall correctly, Redden has one of those weird deals where he gives a list of 8-10 teams every year that he will not accept a trade to.

 

Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember seeing that in the article I mentioned.

[tulax]

Well I can't argue with that. It has always been a myth that the salary cap leveled the playing field, we just didn't see the effects in the first couple years because no one was going to buy their way out of a bad deal that soon. But it will happen more and more as guys get older ... it will be another tool other teams can use that the Sabres (and several other lower-revenue teams) can't. That's frustrating, but it's really just another reason NOT to overspend on big names. The problem isn't that they aren't players in the open market so much as they made mistakes with their own players. The bad choices like Hecht/Max/Connolly over Drury/Briere/Dumont/Grier ... not saying they should have had a crystal ball and kept all four over the other three but if they still had even two of those four guys instead of the other three, they would still be a playoff team. They'd be a little older but nothing outrageous ... Everyone says DR falls in love with players, but really he just made bad choices. Drury/Briere/Dumont/Grier were all brought in by him, they were feathers in his cap, he could have "fallen in love" with them too. Whatever the case, you are right, they can't afford to make the mistakes other teams do ... they try to avoid these mistakes by not getting involved with UFAs, but they still make them with the players they should know best.

I don't know if you can necessarily call the players you listed, Hecht, Max, and Connolly, mistakes. Who could have seen Hecht's sudden drop in production following some good seasons of steady two way play? Did anyone really expect Max to fold and become a shell of his old self the past two seasons? Connolly's newest contract, I agree with you, is a mistake because the risk far outweighs the reward IMO. However, the contract he signed right after the 2006 season seemed reasonable given his production of that season. I think that the major mistake Darcy made for many years was refusing to discuss contracts during the season with players who were reaching free agency. That's what led to the loss of Briere, Dumont, and Drury, or at least led to those players being out of the Sabres price range once the season ended and their value could be assessed. To me that showed a complete lack of understanding with the present day league. Rarely do players take hometown discounts once a season ends and free agency is only months away.

Another mistake, or maybe misunderstanding, is that Darcy was some genius to bring in guys like Briere and Drury around the lock out because he had a sense that the rule changes would lead to a more quick, high scoring game. I give him credit for scouting this talent, but to say he looked into the future a outsmarted the rest of the NHL is a lie. Darcy got lucky, and it made him look great. If he did have any gauge on the state of the NHL he should have known that eventually the refs would revert to more occasional calling of boarder line penalties, and therefore, his advantage would become nullified.

You mention Mike Grier whose departure, I believe, flies far below the radar in terms of ramifications on this club and its ability to sign top talent. When he left for virtually the same amount of money that was offered to him by Buffalo to go to San Jose, because he did not believe Sabres management was committed to winning, I was stunned. Think about it, this guy was willing to move his family across the country to an area whose cost of living is much higher than in Western NY because he felt he'd be wasting his time as a hockey player with Buffalo. This was the same management being praised in most hockey media outlets because of their amazing foresight. I don't think the Sabres had a chance at Mike Grier and I don't think his loss hurt the most of all the players that have since departed, but if a player is willing to call out management publicly I'm sure he has done his share of talking internally to players.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I don't know if you can necessarily call the players you listed, Hecht, Max, and Connolly, mistakes. Who could have seen Hecht's sudden drop in production following some good seasons of steady two way play? Did anyone really expect Max to fold and become a shell of his old self the past two seasons? Connolly's newest contract, I agree with you, is a mistake because the risk far outweighs the reward IMO. However, the contract he signed right after the 2006 season seemed reasonable given his production of that season.

Generally I hate to second-guess, and I am not saying I would necessarily have done anything different at the time. But they would have turned out to be mistakes for me too. Anyone here can tell you I am not one to rip management willy-nilly and if anything I am far more patient than most. But on some level, they chose who they kept and who got away.

Also, the context of the discussion was whether or not they should be out in the market paying for a bigger name or two to get better now and how often teams end up stuck with a guy not worth what they paid. My point was, it is just as easy for that to happen with your own guys. While it's good the Sabres have not made big mistakes in the FA market, they have gotten burned by some of the deals signed by their own guys. There's no way around that, even if we didn't disagree with all the moves at the time.

[carpandean]

To me, you can't look at a single contract, which seemed good at the time, and based on the results, say it was a bad decision. A single contract can be just bad luck. However, if the phenomenon is repeated over and over, it becomes less likely that it is bad luck and more likely that it is a systemic problem. Whether it's the original decisions that are wrong or it's the use/development of those players after they signed, something is probably wrong with the system.

[shrader]

To me, you can't look at a single contract, which seemed good at the time, and based on the results, say it was a bad decision. A single contract can be just bad luck. However, if the phenomenon is repeated over and over, it becomes less likely that it is bad luck and more likely that it is a systemic problem. Whether it's the original decisions that are wrong or it's the use/development of those players after they signed, something is probably wrong with the system.

 

What about a 15 year deal to a goalie with a bad hip?

[carpandean]

What about a 15 year deal to a goalie with a bad hip?

I'd say that violates the "seemed good at the time" part of my statement. Any contract that long has a little bit of "bad idea" in it, but certainly one with any injury concerns is just no good. Besides, there's enough other evidence of a systemic problem there that we didn't need to judge based solely on that one contract.

[shrader]

I'd say that violates the "seemed good at the time" part of my statement. Any contract that long has a little bit of "bad idea" in it, but certainly one with any injury concerns is just no good. Besides, there's enough other evidence of a systemic problem there that we didn't need to judge based solely on that one contract.

 

Come on, you failed miserably with a 10 year contract, so the only logical follow up is a 15 year contract. Kneel before Wang!

 

Wait a second, did I really just type that last line?

[carpandean]

Just noticed that Montador is listed on NHL.com and Sportsnet as #23, his number in Boston. He wore #7 in Florida, which is clearly out. On Sabres.nhl.com, he isn't listed with a number. Would be strange to see another #23 on the ice. I wonder if that would help or hinder people finally moving past that loss ...

 

 

(Yes, you can tell it's a slow offseason when I post about jersey numbers.)

[spndnchz]

Just noticed that Montador is listed on NHL.com and Sportsnet as #23, his number in Boston. He wore #7 in Florida, which is clearly out. On Sabres.nhl.com, he isn't listed with a number. Would be strange to see another #23 on the ice. I wonder if that would help or hinder people finally moving past that loss ...

(Yes, you can tell it's a slow offseason when I post about jersey numbers.)

I could re-use my red-black Drury!

[Calvin]

Just noticed that Montador is listed on NHL.com and Sportsnet as #23, his number in Boston. He wore #7 in Florida, which is clearly out. On Sabres.nhl.com, he isn't listed with a number. Would be strange to see another #23 on the ice. I wonder if that would help or hinder people finally moving past that loss ...

(Yes, you can tell it's a slow offseason when I post about jersey numbers.)

if he turns out to be a real leader then i have no issues with him wearing 23

[repster]

I could re-use my red-black Drury!

 

I had a red-black Drury as well. Won't be using it for Montador. I bought a blue Paille jersey after his 20 goal season a couple years ago. Thought he would turn into a regular tough guy who could score. Hope last season was a mirage.