shrader Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 But it seemed to work for Connolly when he was out for a while and changed his treatment. He hasn't had many, if any serious concussion issues since, its everything else. The other thing I see from this is that it could be a way for teams to get around the rules for keeping players out due to concussion, by saying its a neck injury and not a head injury And that right there is just plain scary.
nobody Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I think he would do well in Lindy's 'system'. He is a playmaker and a center. Per Twitter: TSNBobMcKenzie Bob McKenzie PHX's Cal O'Reilly on re-entry waivers.
Samson's Flow Posted January 31, 2012 Report Posted January 31, 2012 I think he would do well in Lindy's 'system'. He is a playmaker and a center. Per Twitter: TSNBobMcKenzie Bob McKenzie PHX's Cal O'Reilly on re-entry waivers. Not a bad name to bring up. IMO we have to start making speculative moves like this one. Good find nobody
nobody Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Oh well - would have been nice if the Sabres thought about it. Another reason the Sabres should be looking at Jason Botterill for GM? Per Twiiter: StevenEllisNHL Steven Ellis Former Pred Cal O'Reilly has been claimed off waivers from Phoenix by Pittsburgh DarrenDreger Darren Dreger O'Reilly's salary $1.05 mil. Penguins pay half of what remains on the CAP # aprox $375,000...so Pitt is on the hook for half of that.
apuszczalowski Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Oh well - would have been nice if the Sabres thought about it. Another reason the Sabres should be looking at Jason Botterill for GM? Per Twiiter: StevenEllisNHL Steven Ellis Former Pred Cal O'Reilly has been claimed off waivers from Phoenix by Pittsburgh DarrenDreger Darren Dreger O'Reilly's salary $1.05 mil. Penguins pay half of what remains on the CAP # aprox $375,000...so Pitt is on the hook for half of that. Probably too much work for Darcy to have to make that move.
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Posted February 1, 2012 Probably too much work for Darcy to have to make that move. We're already at the roster limit. He'd have to literally trade someone away either on Sabres or Amerks roster to take on another contract.
nobody Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 We're already at the roster limit. He'd have to literally trade someone away either on Sabres or Amerks roster to take on another contract. We wouldn't want him to actually do that now; would we?
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 We wouldn't want him to actually do that now; would we? Not for a 3rd-4th line center.
nobody Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Not for a 3rd-4th line center. Because the team is overloaded with centers? I'd prefer the team trade away one of those 50 contracts that is in the AHL and will never get a sniff of the NHL (contract and a 5th round pick for a 6th round pick in return if you have to). Pick up a 3rd line center and then you can send Luke Adam down to the Amerks (he still can be sent down; correct?) since Lindy doesn't want him on the roster. Of course your GM would have to be on good terms with other GMs that would be willing to help you out.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Because the team is overloaded with centers? I'd prefer the team trade away one of those 50 contracts that is in the AHL and will never get a sniff of the NHL (contract and a 5th round pick for a 6th round pick in return if you have to). Pick up a 3rd line center and then you can send Luke Adam down to the Amerks (he still can be sent down; correct?) since Lindy doesn't want him on the roster. Of course your GM would have to be on good terms with other GMs that would be willing to help you out. He would have to trade a current Sabre in order to dump salary for him to get in under the cap. With the current situation I think fans would be calling for Darcy's head if he finally made a trade and it was to dump salary to bring in a bottom line center off waivers. IF the D gets healthy enough the only salary dumping we'll see in order to create a roster spot is to get rid of somebody so McNabb can stay up. As far as Luke Adam, if I remember correctly he wasn't even supposed to be up this year full time. Only reason he made the opening day roster was because Hecht was hurt. I think Lindy has plans for him, I just don't think he's ready to give Adam a ton of responsibility yet. Not saying I agree with that reasoning, but that's the way I see it. A 3rd line center isn't a solution we need right now. But, that's just my opinion.
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Posted February 1, 2012 He would have to trade a current Sabre in order to dump salary for him to get in under the cap. With the current situation I think fans would be calling for Darcy's head if he finally made a trade and it was to dump salary to bring in a bottom line center off waivers. IF the D gets healthy enough the only salary dumping we'll see in order to create a roster spot is to get rid of somebody so McNabb can stay up. As far as Luke Adam, if I remember correctly he wasn't even supposed to be up this year full time. Only reason he made the opening day roster was because Hecht was hurt. I think Lindy has plans for him, I just don't think he's ready to give Adam a ton of responsibility yet. Not saying I agree with that reasoning, but that's the way I see it. A 3rd line center isn't a solution we need right now. But, that's just my opinion. DR doesn't need to dump players because of the cap. He could add a 3 million cap hit player right now. The problem is you can only have 50 signed players total for the organ-eye-zation. They have 50 right now.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 DR doesn't need to dump players because of the cap. He could add a 3 million cap hit player right now. The problem is you can only have 50 signed players total for the organ-eye-zation. They have 50 right now. Then why aren't they going to be able to keep McNabb up if/when the defense is completely healthy? Hamilton was saying MAG and McNabb will not be able to stay up here at the same time if all our D are healthy. Both those guys are already part of those 50 that are signed. Even if they are healthy scratches, he said they can't afford to keep them both up.
apuszczalowski Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 DR doesn't need to dump players because of the cap. He could add a 3 million cap hit player right now. The problem is you can only have 50 signed players total for the organ-eye-zation. They have 50 right now. The guy Pittsburgh just claimed from Phoenix has $375,000 left on his contract for this season, and the Coyotes are picking up half of it. If Darcy doesn't have that kind of money free from the cap, this team is in far worse trouble then even "Team Storm Cloud" thought........ Is this guy the answer at Centre for the Sabres? No. Would it help this team to have another actual Centre, even a 3rd or 4th line Centre, on this team instead of converting wingers to Centre cause they have no other options? I would think it wouldn't hurt. Then why aren't they going to be able to keep McNabb up if/when the defense is completely healthy? Hamilton was saying MAG and McNabb will not be able to stay up here at the same time if all our D are healthy. Both those guys are already part of those 50 that are signed. Even if they are healthy scratches, he said they can't afford to keep them both up. Bigger contracts, or it may put them over the NHL roster limit (most likely). The 50 number is just total number of players sign to the organisation, weither playing in the NHL or the minors
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 The guy Pittsburgh just claimed from Phoenix has $375,000 left on his contract for this season, and the Coyotes are picking up half of it. If Darcy doesn't have that kind of money free from the cap, this team is in far worse trouble then even "Team Storm Cloud" thought........ Is this guy the answer at Centre for the Sabres? No. Would it help this team to have another actual Centre, even a 3rd or 4th line Centre, on this team instead of converting wingers to Centre cause they have no other options? I would think it wouldn't hurt. Bigger contracts, or it may put them over the NHL roster limit (most likely). The 50 number is just total number of players sign to the organisation, weither playing in the NHL or the minors Either way, MAG and McNabb are both already signed. Hamilton said it is financially impossible to keep McNabb up when he gets healthy and all our D are playing. Even if MAG was sent down. To me that implies they are against the cap and have no room even for a $375,000 contract. If McNabb is to stay up, somebody will have to go.
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Posted February 1, 2012 Then why aren't they going to be able to keep McNabb up if/when the defense is completely healthy? Hamilton was saying MAG and McNabb will not be able to stay up here at the same time if all our D are healthy. Both those guys are already part of those 50 that are signed. Even if they are healthy scratches, he said they can't afford to keep them both up. Active NHL roster limit breached.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 You guys might be right, they may be at their 50 maximum. But even of they did have less than 50, they still couldn't afford another contract.
apuszczalowski Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Either way, MAG and McNabb are both already signed. Hamilton said it is financially impossible to keep McNabb up when he gets healthy and all our D are playing. Even if MAG was sent down. To me that implies they are against the cap and have no room even for a $375,000 contract. If McNabb is to stay up, somebody will have to go. Doesn't matter that they are already signed, they count against the cap if they are up for the Sabres even as healthy scratches, if sent down they won't count. Seeing as how McNabb and Adams were brought up asfill-ins for injuries at the begining of the year, players will need to be sent down to get below the roster limit when everyones heathy. no one is saying they couldn't bring in this guy and waive/send down McCormick or Ellis to make room on the roster and the cap. Obviously a corrisponding move would have to be made to fit this player in. You guys might be right, they may be at their 50 maximum. But even of they did have less than 50, they still couldn't afford another contract. yes they could, if they added someone new, someone would have to go, which would free up that cap space. if they were at less then 50 contracts right now and they just brought in this player, then they may not be able to afford it
korab rules Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 You guys might be right, they may be at their 50 maximum. But even of they did have less than 50, they still couldn't afford another contract. Doesn't matter that they are already signed, they count against the cap if they are up for the Sabres even as healthy scratches, if sent down they won't count. Seeing as how McNabb and Adams were brought up asfill-ins for injuries at the begining of the year, players will need to be sent down to get below the roster limit when everyones heathy. no one is saying they couldn't bring in this guy and waive/send down McCormick or Ellis to make room on the roster and the cap. Obviously a corrisponding move would have to be made to fit this player in. You guys should really quit arguing with chz on this stuff.
apuszczalowski Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 You guys should really quit arguing with chz on this stuff. How am I arguing? I'm agreeing with her and arguing with JJ
darksabre Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 You guys should really quit arguing with chz on this stuff. I wanna know why some turd from PHO is actually worth discussing in the first place.
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Posted February 1, 2012 You guys might be right, they may be at their 50 maximum. But even of they did have less than 50, they still couldn't afford another contract. Yes they could afford someone who is signed for 3 million per year. Let's run the numbers by everyone for player limits Maximum 90 player reserve list Maximum 50 player contracts signed (18 and 19-year-old players assigned to their team in the CHL do not count against the 50-contract maximum). I'm not sure if we have any of these player, help? Maximum 23 man roster limit (players not on LTIR or in Rachacha) Maximum 20 player game roster. Submitted before every game.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 How am I arguing? I'm agreeing with her and arguing with JJ You should read what I posted, in a way you are agreeing with me and are proving my point. I said somebody would have to go. Your scenario makes sense but with our injuries we will never get to the point where we have the option of sending McCormick or Ellis down. Wishful thinking. Yes they could afford someone who is signed for 3 million per year. Let's run the numbers by everyone for player limits Maximum 90 player reserve list Maximum 50 player contracts signed (18 and 19-year-old players assigned to their team in the CHL do not count against the 50-contract maximum). I'm not sure if we have any of these player, help? Maximum 23 man roster limit (players not on LTIR or in Rachacha) Maximum 20 player game roster. Submitted before every game. No, they can't afford a 3 mil contract unless they dump 3 mil via trades, waivers or demotions. They can't afford to keep McNabb up without finding cap room much less a 3 mil contract.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 Perhaps there's some misunderstandings here. Here is the point I was trying to make in a nutshell. First, regardless of signing another player and regardless of the number of contracts signed, when McNabb comes back salaries will need to be cut through demotions, trades or waivers. If our forwards are healthy enough to send some down.... great. MAG and McNabb are already signed so the 50 max is irrelevant in this case. In their current position with Ellis, McCormick and Adam up McNabb will not be able to stay even if MAG is sent down. If somebody is claimed off waivers and we're already at 50 well the cap issue is a moot point because there isn't room without cutting somebody. If somebody is claimed off waivers and there happens to be less than 50 contracts then somebody will need to be sacrificed in order to free up whatever his contract happens to be. Am I missing something?
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Posted February 1, 2012 Perhaps there's some misunderstandings here. Here is the point I was trying to make in a nutshell. First, regardless of signing another player and regardless of the number of contracts signed, when McNabb comes back salaries will need to be cut through demotions, trades or waivers. If our forwards are healthy enough to send some down.... great. MAG and McNabb are already signed so the 50 max is irrelevant in this case. In their current position with Ellis, McCormick and Adam up McNabb will not be able to stay even if MAG is sent down. If somebody is claimed off waivers and we're already at 50 well the cap issue is a moot point because there isn't room without cutting somebody. If somebody is claimed off waivers and there happens to be less than 50 contracts then somebody will need to be sacrificed in order to free up whatever his contract happens to be. Am I missing something? I think u just combined two scenario's that were being discussed. One was the guy being picked up on re-entry waiver, Sabres can't pick anyone up unless a player LEAVES the Sabres organization completely. Two: When everyone is healthy you can't have more than 23 healthy, non-LTIR players in Buffalo. Period. Discussion of who would go is another conversation. oh yeah, and it's 3 million.
JJFIVEOH Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 I think u just combined two scenario's that were being discussed. One was the guy being picked up on re-entry waiver, Sabres can't pick anyone up unless a player LEAVES the Sabres organization completely. Two: When everyone is healthy you can't have more than 23 healthy, non-LTIR players in Buffalo. Period. Discussion of who would go is another conversation. oh yeah, and it's 3 million. OK, so here is my question regarding the first scenario. Let's say everybody is healthy. If we have 3 mil to play with, why is it McNabb has to be sent down even if MAG was also sent down to create a roster spot for McNabb? I understand the 23 man roster, but McNabb would not be able to stay even if there was a spot. Unless a forward was sent down equal to or greater than McNabb's cap hit. And then we'd have 8 D-men.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.