deluca67 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 Kotalik? Campbell? I didn't mean to cause confusion. I'll dumb it down so even Shrader can understand. When was the last time the Sabres released a player under contract? Not trade a pending UFA, simply place a player under contract on waivers with the intention of releasing the player not sending them down to the AHL.
SabresFan526 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 I didn't mean to cause confusion. I'll dumb it down so even Shrader can understand. When was the last time the Sabres released a player under contract? Not trade a pending UFA, simply place a player under contract on waivers with the intention of releasing the player not sending them down to the AHL. Just for clarification's sake, both Tallinder and Lydman are both impending UFAs. They are both in the last year of their four year contract. Carry on with the argument at hand. On a sidenote, if Tallinder were to be waived and not picked up by any team on the way down, I find it highly unlikely that he will be recalled on re-entry waivers. First, the Sabres would be on the hook for half his salary this year if a team picks him up on re-entry waivers, which I'm certain they do not want to be on the hook for since they are generally pretty cheap. Second, guys like Myers, Weber, Gragnani, and maybe even Brennan would be called up before they'd ever think about pulling the trigger on re-entry waivers for Tallinder. If he's waived, then I firmly believe he would have fallen that low on the depth chart to where they wouldn't even have to use re-entry waivers for him. Just my opinion.
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 Just for clarification's sake, both Tallinder and Lydman are both impending UFAs. They are both in the last year of their four year contract. Carry on with the argument at hand. On a sidenote, if Tallinder were to be waived and not picked up by any team on the way down, I find it highly unlikely that he will be recalled on re-entry waivers. First, the Sabres would be on the hook for half his salary this year if a team picks him up on re-entry waivers, which I'm certain they do not want to be on the hook for since they are generally pretty cheap. Second, guys like Myers, Weber, Gragnani, and maybe even Brennan would be called up before they'd ever think about pulling the trigger on re-entry waivers for Tallinder. If he's waived, then I firmly believe he would have fallen that low on the depth chart to where they wouldn't even have to use re-entry waivers for him. Just my opinion. But if he's sent down and clears waivers, they have to pay the entire salary, right? So if they bring him back up and someone claims him, they could save half the salary (I think). Wouldn't a cheapskate team want to try to save $1.7MM?
SabresFan526 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 But if he's sent down and clears waivers, they have to pay the entire salary, right? So if they bring him back up and someone claims him, they could save half the salary (I think). Wouldn't a cheapskate team want to try to save $1.7MM? You are correct, but if he's sent down, he doesn't count against the cap while he is in the minors. If, however, he is picked up on re-entry waivers by another team, I believe half his cap hit would still count against the Sabres cap, which is a waste of cap space. I believe Darcy refers to this as "burning money." So, I imagine the most likely scenario is that Tallinder is traded or stays with Buffalo and is maybe a healthy scratch in an 8 man defenseman rotation, much like last year. Or he is waived and if no team picks him up, he'll just stay in Portland since the Sabres would not run the risk of "burning money."
shrader Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 I didn't mean to cause confusion. I'll dumb it down so even Shrader can understand. When was the last time the Sabres released a player under contract? Not trade a pending UFA, simply place a player under contract on waivers with the intention of releasing the player not sending them down to the AHL. You won't find any one post lockout since the new CBA guaranteed contracts. You may as well ask the same exact question about every team in the league though. You're not going to find many anywhere that fit the scenario your presenting. It's not just a Sabres thing, it's an NHL thing. Just for clarification's sake, both Tallinder and Lydman are both impending UFAs. They are both in the last year of their four year contract. Carry on with the argument at hand. On a sidenote, if Tallinder were to be waived and not picked up by any team on the way down, I find it highly unlikely that he will be recalled on re-entry waivers. First, the Sabres would be on the hook for half his salary this year if a team picks him up on re-entry waivers, which I'm certain they do not want to be on the hook for since they are generally pretty cheap. Second, guys like Myers, Weber, Gragnani, and maybe even Brennan would be called up before they'd ever think about pulling the trigger on re-entry waivers for Tallinder. If he's waived, then I firmly believe he would have fallen that low on the depth chart to where they wouldn't even have to use re-entry waivers for him. Just my opinion. A team can place a player on re-entry waivers without actually calling them back up to the big club. It's basically a way of putting up a giant sign that says "this player half price". If they clear, they can still stay in the minors.
SabresFan526 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 A team can place a player on re-entry waivers without actually calling them back up to the big club. It's basically a way of putting up a giant sign that says "this player half price". If they clear, they can still stay in the minors. That's true, but I imagine Tallinder has some value to other NHL teams to where he would get picked up on re-entry waivers. While we think lowly of him here, I do believe that he has some value to some NHL team and just needs a change of scenery with different guys around him. Darcy doesn't want to make a trade because he always wants the better end of the deal. Either way, I'm not sure the Sabres are interested in running the risk of having Tallinder claimed on re-entry waivers as they don't like to "burn money."
inkman Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 It's basically a way of putting up a giant sign that says "this player half price". OOOH, I wish they could just hand him a big card board sign and have him hang out in front of the arena with that quote.
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 You are correct, but if he's sent down, he doesn't count against the cap while he is in the minors. If, however, he is picked up on re-entry waivers by another team, I believe half his cap hit would still count against the Sabres cap, which is a waste of cap space. I believe Darcy refers to this as "burning money." So, I imagine the most likely scenario is that Tallinder is traded or stays with Buffalo and is maybe a healthy scratch in an 8 man defenseman rotation, much like last year. Or he is waived and if no team picks him up, he'll just stay in Portland since the Sabres would not run the risk of "burning money." I think when Darcy says "burning money" he's referring to wasting actual cash, not cap space. The Sabres are a bottom-line organization. Wasting cap space won't add $1.7MM to their bottom line, but getting someone to pick up Hank on re-entry waivers will.
inkman Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 How do you define "much longer"? The difference between me and you.
korab rules Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 I think when Darcy says "burning money" he's referring to wasting actual cash, not cap space. The Sabres are a bottom-line organization. Wasting cap space won't add $1.7MM to their bottom line, but getting someone to pick up Hank on re-entry waivers will. Won't getting someone to pick up Hank actually relieve them of paying Hank half his salary, rather than eating the whole damn thing if no one claims him, or eating 2/3 of his cap hit if they buy him out? I don't see it as the Sabres eating half his contract, I see it as them being FREED of half his contract. I agree with the above posters, its the bottom line that matters, not the cap hit. Apparently TG has abnormally short arms. Obviously, trading his worthless ass for a bag of pucks and a used condom is choice #1, but Hank getting claimed off waivers, on the way back up isn't the worst of our choices. I'm not sure what happens if someone claims him off waivers before being assigned to PORTLAND (see, I learn from my mistakes). The claiming team then assumes his full salary, right?
LabattBlue Posted September 25, 2009 Author Report Posted September 25, 2009 The difference between me and you. :lol: I always have to double check my posts when you are around!
FogBat Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 Contract year... stranger things have happened. Just because it's a contract year doesn't mean that the player will improve. Maxim Afinogenov is a more recent case study which proves that "contract year work ethic" doesn't always work. As far as I am concerned, every player that literally (not figuratively) shows up to play should be paid a base salary (like I am at my job) and rewarded whenever he goes above and beyond (like I do). (IMO, that would not only scrap the CBA, but the NHLPA as well and get rid of worthless "talent".)
Stoner Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 I read your charts. I cherish them. However, I think the Sabres are more focused on avoiding the flushing of actual cash than on avoiding the flushing of cap space. Your chart, as powerful and concise as it is, tragically focuses on the cap hit and not salary. Carry on. Speaking of all that, has Regier exceeded that self-imposed budget of $51 million you spoke of? I'm not gloating. I really don't know. I wouldn't know where to look to find out.
carpandean Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 Speaking of all that, has Regier exceeded that self-imposed budget of $51 million you spoke of? I'm not gloating. I really don't know. I wouldn't know where to look to find out. I'd say so:
nfreeman Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 Speaking of all that, has Regier exceeded that self-imposed budget of $51 million you spoke of? I'm not gloating. I really don't know. I wouldn't know where to look to find out. I knew this chicken would come home to roost. Unless something happens in the near term, you are and were correct, sir.
stenbaro Posted September 26, 2009 Report Posted September 26, 2009 How do you define "much longer"? They want to keep Myers up. He is the odd man out. I would have to say barring any GIANT lapses (plural) in his defensive end this weekend by Myers I would be shocked if Tallinder was in a Sabre uniform to start the season.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.