Jump to content

"Increasingly Substantiated BS" rumor thread- 2014 Edition

WildCard

By WildCard
in The Aud Club

 Share

  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. Sabre's Trade Partners

  2. 2. Team With The Largest Acquisition

    • Anaheim Ducks
      0
    • Chicago Blackhawks
      3
    • St. Louis Blues
      16
    • San Jose Sharks
      1
    • LA Kings
      12
    • Pittsburgh Penguins
      6
    • Boston Bruins
      0
    • Montreal Canadiens
      1
    • Washington Capitals
      5
    • Tampa Bay Lightening
      2
    • Toronto Maple Leafs
      3
    • Ottawa Senators
      1
    • Other
      4

Recommended Posts

Bob Malooga Top Prospect

Bob Malooga

Posted
Posted

There's a report that Spencerport native and Senators prospect Shane Prince may go to the KHL if he's not moved. He grew up a huge Sabres fan and I've been saying id love to have him in Buffalo.

http://www.the6thsens.com/2014-articles/february/has-shane-prince-asked-for-a-trade.html

 

"Prince is actually one of the few forwards on the Binghamton Senators who, to this point, hasn’t had a cup of coffee with the parent team over the past few seasons. Names like Mike Hoffman, Stephane Da Costa, Andre Petersson, Jean-Gabriel Pageau, Jim O’Brien, Derek Grant and David Dziurzynski have all spent time in the NHL.

 

I suppose it’s plausible that getting persistently passed over could wear on the psyche of a prospect, but he’s only 47 games into his second season at the AHL level. It’s not like he’s been languishing on the farm for a disproportionate amount of time."

 

Certainly seems reasonable! (Ps. sorry if I didn't respond to any of my posts last week, I just got out of the hospital.)

 

dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted

There's a report that Boston is using Malcolm Subban as bait for a top four dman. Ehrhoff, would you like Boston?

I'd love to add Subban to the system, but Ehrhoff only goes in a package for a bigger fish.

dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted

Because Ehrhoff is a first-pairing defenceman on a long term deal with a low cap hit.

They aren't that easy to come by.

We can get a Malcolm Subban with one of our second rounders.

carpandean First Liner

carpandean

Posted
Posted

Thanks Lanny and Drunkard for helping me understand the recapture penalty. What's the maximum if he's traded and he retires before his last year, 10m or 9m caphit?

$10 mill if he retires the summer before the last year of his deal. It's not above $5 mill before then, I think.

 

Having read the CBA, it's not clear that this is correct. CapGeek seems to think that it is, but I'm not convinced. The CBA itself says that when such a player retires or defects early, then the difference between the total salary spent and the total cap hit incurred is calculated as the cap to be recaptured. So, for example, if he retires one year early, then the difference is $39M - 9($4M) = $3M. On this, both CapGeek and I agree. Where we differ is how this is split once he is traded.

 

They say that the Sabres would incur a $10M penalty because they spent $18M, but had a cap hit total of $8M (2 x $4M), while the other team would incur no penalty at all. In fact, they would have a -$7M difference (salary to cap), but wouldn't actually receive a credit. However, that's not the spirit of the rule.

 

By ending the contract one year early, the actual cap hit should have been $39M/9 = $4.33M. So, the Sabres should have had a total of 2 x $4.33M = $8.67M. Thus, they should be penalized $8.67M - $8M = $0.67M, because that's the benefit that they got by having that year on the contract, but not realized. Likewise, the other team should have had a total cap hit of 7 x $4.33M = $30.33M, but actually incurred a total of $28M, so they should be penalized $2.33M.

 

Now, maybe the rule is only designed to screw the team that signed the contract, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

WildCard Hall of Famer

WildCard

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Because Ehrhoff is a first-pairing defenceman on a long term deal with a low cap hit.

They aren't that easy to come by.

We can get a Malcolm Subban with one of our second rounders.

I could be wrong, and correct me if I am, but last I heard the Bruins weren't keen on shopping Subban last year, I doubt they ship him for 2nd round picks; he's, from what I've gathered, I highly touted goalie prospect, something we don't have (minus Ulmark).

 

Sorry, I missed your comment that you'd only do it for "bigger fish," not straight up. Do you not want Subban at all our are you referring to a bigger package from the Bruins?

Edited by WildCard
bobs0108 Top Prospect

bobs0108

Posted
Posted

There's a report that Boston is using Malcolm Subban as bait for a top four dman. Ehrhoff, would you like Boston?

I just watched Malcolm play on Sunday and we definitely would need more than him back for the Hoff. He was fighting the puck the few times he faced shots. I really liked the way Strome(sp?) Looked for the tigers(islanders ahl team) looked thou.

Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nobody said anything about getting just Subban, but keys also not overvalue our own players (which is understandably hard to do).

 

Teams don't trade top prospects often.

Edited by Tankalicious
WildCard Hall of Famer

WildCard

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Nobody said anything about getting just Subban, but keys also not overvalue our own players (which is understandably hard to do).

 

Teams don't trade top prospects often.

I wouldn't do that.

I suppose I'm confused, can you elaborate, Benedict?

Edited by WildCard
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted

 

I could be wrong, and correct me if I am, but last I heard the Bruins weren't keen on shopping Subban last year, I doubt they ship him for 2nd round picks; he's, from what I've gathered, I highly touted goalie prospect, something we don't have (minus Ulmark).

 

You're not wrong, Subban is one of the higher rated goalie prospects out there.

As LGR is fond of pointing out, top-rated goalies don't get picked high. In recent drafts they generally go between pick 20 and pick 40.

Subban went at 24 and it's not like he's suddenly become something no one was expecting.

 

I'm pretty confident we can get a prospect as strong as Subban with our second pick, or a late first obtained by trading one of our UFAs.

LGR4GM Hall of Famer

LGR4GM

Posted
Posted

You're not wrong, Subban is one of the higher rated goalie prospects out there.

As LGR is fond of pointing out, top-rated goalies don't get picked high. In recent drafts they generally go between pick 20 and pick 40.

Subban went at 24 and it's not like he's suddenly become something no one was expecting.

 

I'm pretty confident we can get a prospect as strong as Subban with our second pick, or a late first obtained by trading one of our UFAs.

I would agree with you. If we really wanted a 2nd (I love Ullmark, sorry) good goalie prospect than either pick 30 or our late 1st rounder (which we already discussed) would be more than adequate to satisfy that need. Thatcher Demko could be there at 30 and would most definitely be there are 20

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

How come?

 

Malcolm Subban a promising but unproven prospect goalie for a proven top 4 puck mover in Erhoff?

 

I don't think that starts a conversation if those are the principal pieces.

Edited by X. Benedict
TrueBlueGED Hall of Famer

TrueBlueGED

Posted
Posted

Having read the CBA, it's not clear that this is correct. CapGeek seems to think that it is, but I'm not convinced. The CBA itself says that when such a player retires or defects early, then the difference between the total salary spent and the total cap hit incurred is calculated as the cap to be recaptured. So, for example, if he retires one year early, then the difference is $39M - 9($4M) = $3M. On this, both CapGeek and I agree. Where we differ is how this is split once he is traded.

 

They say that the Sabres would incur a $10M penalty because they spent $18M, but had a cap hit total of $8M (2 x $4M), while the other team would incur no penalty at all. In fact, they would have a -$7M difference (salary to cap), but wouldn't actually receive a credit. However, that's not the spirit of the rule.

 

By ending the contract one year early, the actual cap hit should have been $39M/9 = $4.33M. So, the Sabres should have had a total of 2 x $4.33M = $8.67M. Thus, they should be penalized $8.67M - $8M = $0.67M, because that's the benefit that they got by having that year on the contract, but not realized. Likewise, the other team should have had a total cap hit of 7 x $4.33M = $30.33M, but actually incurred a total of $28M, so they should be penalized $2.33M.

 

Now, maybe the rule is only designed to screw the team that signed the contract, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Having not read the CBA, I was always under the impression that the purpose of the cap recapture penalty was, in fact, to punish the team that signed the contract for "circumventing" the CBA. Any team that trades for the contract is less guilty as far as the NHL is concerned. I could absolutely be wrong, but that was always my understanding of the intent of the penalty.

rakish Third Liner

rakish

Posted
Posted (edited)

Having read the CBA, it's not clear that this is correct. CapGeek seems to think that it is, but I'm not convinced. The CBA itself says that when such a player retires or defects early, then the difference between the total salary spent and the total cap hit incurred is calculated as the cap to be recaptured. So, for example, if he retires one year early, then the difference is $39M - 9($4M) = $3M. On this, both CapGeek and I agree. Where we differ is how this is split once he is traded.

 

They say that the Sabres would incur a $10M penalty because they spent $18M, but had a cap hit total of $8M (2 x $4M), while the other team would incur no penalty at all. In fact, they would have a -$7M difference (salary to cap), but wouldn't actually receive a credit. However, that's not the spirit of the rule.

 

By ending the contract one year early, the actual cap hit should have been $39M/9 = $4.33M. So, the Sabres should have had a total of 2 x $4.33M = $8.67M. Thus, they should be penalized $8.67M - $8M = $0.67M, because that's the benefit that they got by having that year on the contract, but not realized. Likewise, the other team should have had a total cap hit of 7 x $4.33M = $30.33M, but actually incurred a total of $28M, so they should be penalized $2.33M.

 

Now, maybe the rule is only designed to screw the team that signed the contract, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

So I just read the relevant paragraphs. My guess is that gapgeek is correct. I think in reality he retires two years earlier, so they would see a caphit recapture of 9m over 3 years. It's interesting they don't have a good illustration in the CBA and this is a viable disagreement (I think it's very possible you are right)

 

I've changed my mind on this today. I think the best approach would be to buy him out, especially if you live in tank nation, because it would be sad to lose 9m in caproom even if it's spread over 3 years. in 2018-19,19-20, and 20-21

 

On preview, I think Blue is right about the intent

Edited by rakish
Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted

ESPN posted an insider thread on their top 25 trade targets, these are the Sabres players:

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/craig-custance/post?id=1442

 

2. Ryan Miller, G, Buffalo Sabres

 

There was no griping from Miller when Dan Bylsma went with Jonathan Quick in the Olympics after Miller played well in limited action, which is another plus for Miller aside from his strong play on a bad team. He’s the best goalie available, and the best move yet may still be for the Sabres to re-sign him if Miller is willing. There are only a few logical destinations, with the Blues the best fit, and if he’s not dealt, that may open up a secondary goalie market that doesn't currently exist. But Miller is a team changer. He would put the Blues at the same level as the Blackhawks.

 

Provenzano’s price tag: An NHL roster player (like a No. 3-5 defenseman or No. 5-9 forward), plus an A-minus prospect and a third- or fourth-round draft pick.

 

 

7. Matt Moulson, F, Sabres

 

Moulson is a guy you can pencil in for 30 goals every season, but his goal-scoring production has dropped in the move away from John Tavares to Buffalo. Last season, he averaged 0.32 goals per game. That number is down to 0.23 goals in his first 40 games with the Sabres. He’s only shooting 9.3 percent with the Sabres, so that also helps explain the lack of goal scoring. Surround him with better players and his production will increase.

 

Provenzano’s price tag: A first-round pick and a roster player or B-level prospect.

 

14. Steve Ott, F, Sabres

 

Ott loves Buffalo and wants to stay, which gives the Sabres some leverage in trade talks since they can always hang on to him if the offers aren’t good enough. But at this point in their rebuilding process, gaining an additional pick and prospect might be too good to pass up. He brings sandpaper and versatility to a team looking for forward depth and is exactly the kind of player the Penguins could use come playoff time.

 

Provenzano's price tag: A second-round pick plus a B- or C-level prospect.

WildCard Hall of Famer

WildCard

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Malcolm Subban a promising but unproven prospect goalie for a proven top 4 puck mover in Erhoff?

 

I don't think that starts a conversation if those are the principal pieces.

Fair enough, I agree with that. The general consensus seems to be that we could just get him in the second round with our picks, and that Ehroff could be moved for a better deal. I agree Subban for Ehroff, as the principal pieces, is bad for us, but I'm sure the Bruins could throw more in for him

Hoss Hall of Famer

Hoss

Posted
Posted

If you're acquiring Malcolm Subban, he's the most valuable piece you're getting in that trade. Unless you're trading a superstar. Which Ehrhoff isn't.

26CornerBlitz First Liner

26CornerBlitz

Posted
Posted

http://www.senatorsextra.com/main/sc...for-right-deal

 

Murray admitted he has spoken with his nephew, the new Buffalo Sabres GM, Tim Murray, about a possible deal. The rebuilding Sabres have a number of big name players available, including forwards Matt Moulson, Steve Ott and goaltender Ryan Miller.

 

“I made a proposal on one and he said, ‘it’s all business, Bryan, you know that.’ He’s asking high.”

X. Benedict All Star

X. Benedict

Posted
Posted

If you're acquiring Malcolm Subban, he's the most valuable piece you're getting in that trade. Unless you're trading a superstar. Which Ehrhoff isn't.

 

I think you are really underestimating the market value of Ehrhoff's skill set.

 

Or you have something to justify a high estimation of M. Subban.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...