Stoner Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 http://www.capgeek.com/cap_crunch.php Sabres ahead of the Rangers. Payroll at 55 million plus, approaching the cap. Well above what most thought the team's budget was. What to make of it?
henysgol Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 The Sabres are a little overstocked...Regier HAS to be anticipating trades.
inkman Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Forseeing a trade? With all the suitors he claims aren't making serious offers?
Eleven Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 http://www.capgeek.com/cap_crunch.php Sabres ahead of the Rangers. Payroll at 55 million plus, approaching the cap. Well above what most thought the team's budget was. What to make of it? Not all the teams listed below the Sabres on that site have signed a full roster, yet. Rangers have only 21 signed.
Guru Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 http://www.capgeek.com/cap_crunch.php Sabres ahead of the Rangers. Payroll at 55 million plus, approaching the cap. Well above what most thought the team's budget was. What to make of it? None of this should be news.What I make of it is that most fans like to just repeat what they hear. If someone says Golisano is cheap they pick right up on it. It's been very obvious that they have been right up against the cap but most fans see what they want to see and refuse to listen to reason.
Stoner Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Posted September 13, 2009 None of this should be news. What I make of it is that most fans like to just repeat what they hear. If someone says Golisano is cheap they pick right up on it. It's been very obvious that they have been right up against the cap but most fans see what they want to see and refuse to listen to reason. Right up against the cap the last two years? Sounds like you're right there with the rest of us deaf, dumb and blind.
Guru Posted September 13, 2009 Report Posted September 13, 2009 Right up against the cap the last two years? Sounds like you're right there with the rest of us deaf, dumb and blind. Nope I'm not part of your "deaf dumb and blind", you have that to yourself and your fictional accounts of what I said won't change that. I never said a word about "the last two years" Nice try.
Stoner Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Posted September 14, 2009 Nope I'm not part of your "deaf dumb and blind", you have that to yourself and your fictional accounts of what I said won't change that. I never said a word about "the last two years" Nice try. When were they "right up against the cap" then? You said they HAVE BEEN right up against the cap. Are they right up against it now?
Guru Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 When were they "right up against the cap" then? You said they HAVE BEEN right up against the cap. Are they right up against it now? Yes they are spending 97% of the cap +/- depending on the source. Prior to the Stafford deal they were projected to be just that...right up against the cap. They have been there for weeks, it is not surprising where they rank in payroll. In fact that Stafford contract is less then I expected it to be.
sweeper Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 06 - 07 they were right up against the cap, they had to let Dumont walk after arbitration (as opposed to Kotalik...), and they had to trade Biron just to clear cap space to get Zubris. Last year they were a few million below, but in part because they knew they had several contract extensions kicking in for this year. Those that say they won't spend money for players are just straight up incorrect. Now, whether someone were to question if they are paying the right players is another topic altogether.
Stoner Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Posted September 14, 2009 06 - 07 they were right up against the cap, they had to let Dumont walk after arbitration (as opposed to Kotalik...), and they had to trade Biron just to clear cap space to get Zubris. Last year they were a few million below, but in part because they knew they had several contract extensions kicking in for this year. Those that say they won't spend money for players are just straight up incorrect. Now, whether someone were to question if they are paying the right players is another topic altogether. According to nhlnumbers.com, only four teams spent appreciably less than the Sabres did last year, so I think it's fair to challenge OSP's financial commitment.
Guru Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 According to nhlnumbers.com, only four teams spent appreciably less than the Sabres did last year, so I think it's fair to challenge OSP's financial commitment. They knew that they had contracts expiring, so how were they going to spend to the cap and still have room to sign Stafford McArthur and Sekera? You don't spend to the cap each and every season just for the sake of spending to the cap, they still have to have somne kind of plan going forward. That's not to say that I agree with them on the players they decide to spend it on. I'm not sure it even makes sense to reward a team that finished 10th with a maxed out cap, but they can't tear up contracts.
inkman Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 they still have to have somne kind of plan going forward. Says who?
inkman Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 The Guru. Just like the plan they adopted 2 years too late, when the rest of the league was reverting back to the "old" NHL, but Darcy had his smallish, uber soft squad that we are still seeing the remnants of?
Guru Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 Just like the plan they adopted 2 years too late, when the rest of the league was reverting back to the "old" NHL, but Darcy had his smallish, uber soft squad that we are still seeing the remnants of? To the contrary, that team they had would still be one of the elite teams in the league.
inkman Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 To the contrary, that team they had would still be one of the elite teams in the league. If they still had Drury, Briere, Afinogenov and Campbell? First, Roy and Vanek wouldn't be on the team. Same goes for Rivet. That group of sissies would have gotten curb stomped under the current enforcement of the rules.
wjag Posted September 14, 2009 Report Posted September 14, 2009 If they still had Drury, Briere, Afinogenov and Campbell? First, Roy and Vanek wouldn't be on the team. Same goes for Rivet. That group of sissies would have gotten curb stomped under the current enforcement of the rules. Is that bad?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.