TrueBlueGED Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Look what happens if they do that, though: http://capgeek.com/recapture-grid EDIT: There still is a recapture penalty, just not the same penalty. Sorry my original answer was imprecise! I must be daft. That grid is for player retirement and retirement after a trade recapture penalties. If we kept Ehrhoff and he wanted to retire at 35, couldn't we just buy him out before he retired and avoid it entirely? I suppose he could just file the papers and not cooperate with the team, but aside from that, I don't see the issue. Quote
MDFan Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Assuming they have tried to trade him, and there is no reason to believe they have not been doing so for months, this makes the most sense. They are trying to build a team, and having an unhappy, underperforming player as the veteran of your blue line is not the way to do it. I am sure the Sabres are capable of managing the cap implications so I am unconcerned about the " how will we possibly reach the floor" talk. Better to cut and run from this now. He was clearly not part of the future. He sulked and played very poorly last year. Let's move on. Quote
Huckleberry Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 that 3 million x 3 is just to much to risk when you are supposed to be good. But this is a very good asset we are throwing away. Quote
WildCard Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 that 3 million x 3 is just to much to risk when you are supposed to be good. But this is a very good asset we are throwing away. Great news for the tanks fans! Quote
26CornerBlitz Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 For the record: @BuffaloSabres The #Sabres confirm compliance buyout on Christian Ehrhoff. Quote
Hoss Posted June 29, 2014 Author Report Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) For the record: @BuffaloSabres The #Sabres confirm compliance buyout on Christian Ehrhoff. That's a strange way to word that... Why not the typical "BREAKING: The Buffalo Sabres have bought out the contract of Christian Ehrhoff" type post? It's like an awkward third-person tweet. Edited June 29, 2014 by Tankalicious Quote
Iron Crotch Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 that 3 million x 3 is just to much to risk when you are supposed to be good. But this is a very good asset we are throwing away. Yep. He is a 24-minute a night, all situation defenseman who is in his prime and we just threw him on the scrap heap. Hopefully Murray has a plan to get us a couple of veteran defensemen to hold down the fort while the youngsters develop. Quote
biodork Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 that 3 million x 3 is just to much to risk when you are supposed to be good. But this is a very good asset we are throwing away. Yep. He is a 24-minute a night, all situation defenseman who is in his prime and we just threw him on the scrap heap. Hopefully Murray has a plan to get us a couple of veteran defensemen to hold down the fort while the youngsters develop. This. I would have rather seen them trade him for something in return at the deadline than just get nothing back for a very good player. Maybe GMTM really did want to send a message ("If you don't want to be here, you can GTFO."). Quote
Derrico Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Those upset by the quality of our d next year I say this helps the tank. I know you can't put all faith in one young prospect but there are a couple potential franchise guys sitting at the top of the 2015 draft. This helps us get there after watching one more terrible season. Besides I like the attitude of Tim. If you don't want to be here then don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Quote
beerme1 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Adios Ehrhoff. Enjoy your money and for the sake of your profession I hope you are able to play at a higher level and show some passion for your next team and hope you don't rip them off as well by going through the motions.. Quote
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) This. I would have rather seen them trade him for something in return at the deadline than just get nothing back for a very good player. Maybe GMTM really did want to send a message ("If you don't want to be here, you can GTFO."). Had they kept him, whatever they get in return at the deadline INCLUDES either a 1 year $10MM reduction in SC or a 2 year $5MM reduction in SC in all likelihood because Ehrhoff ISN'T going to finish that contract. What do they get back in trade that makes it worth keeping him for 8 more months? (Keeping in mind also, that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo.) EDIT: recapture on front loaded contracts is nasty when the player stays w/ the team he signed with if he retires. It is downright evil if he's traded and then retires. Edited June 29, 2014 by Taro T Quote
biodork Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Had they kept him, whatever they get in return at the deadline INCLUDES either a 1 year $10MM reduction in SC or a 2 year $5MM reduction in SC in all likelihood because Ehrhoff ISN'T going to finish that contract. What do they get back in trade that makes it worth keeping him for 8 more months? (Keeping in mind also, that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo.) Stupid question: what's SC? Quote
thewookie1 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Stupid question: what's SC? Salary Cap Quote
Eleven Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Stupid question: what's SC? Probably salary cap. Quote
biodork Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Salary Cap Ahhh, thank you. Knew I was missing something obvious. And Taro, you're probably right... it just kind of sucks they couldn't find some way to get something (anything) back for him. But GMTM is the man with a plan, so hopefully he's got something up his sleeves for the coming week. Probably salary cap. And thanks to you as well. :) Quote
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Salary Cap Probably salary cap. Correct. Not referring to Lord Stanley's Chalice in this discussion. ;) Ahhh, thank you. Knew I was missing something obvious. And Taro, you're probably right... it just kind of sucks they couldn't find some way to get something (anything) back for him. But GMTM is the man with a plan, so hopefully he's got something up his sleeves for the coming week. And thanks to you as well. :) Agreed. Unfortunately when you sign contracts that extend into the next CBA, you are taking a chance the new rules might bite your bippy. Quote
Eleven Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 I must be daft. That grid is for player retirement and retirement after a trade recapture penalties. If we kept Ehrhoff and he wanted to retire at 35, couldn't we just buy him out before he retired and avoid it entirely? I suppose he could just file the papers and not cooperate with the team, but aside from that, I don't see the issue. I don't think you're daft, but I don't exactly get your question. If they use an ordinary course buyout, they have a cap hit of $4M annually. If he retires, they have the cap hit in the first chart in the link provided. If he is traded and then retires, they have the cap hit in the second chart. There is no way to keep him and avoid some sort of salary cap consequence down the road. Quote
matter2003 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) Haha yup. Remember when Philly wouldn't ever win a Cup because Carter and Richards liked to party? Yeah, and one was banging the other one's wife and they wouldn't even look at each other in the locker room, lol Edited June 29, 2014 by matter2003 Quote
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) I don't think you're daft, but I don't exactly get your question. If they use an ordinary course buyout, they have a cap hit of $4M annually. If he retires, they have the cap hit in the first chart in the link provided. If he is traded and then retires, they have the cap hit in the second chart. There is no way to keep him and avoid some sort of salary cap consequence down the road. Yep. The rule is correcting an oversight and a misprognostication from the last CBA. The oversight is no accounting for players retiring that were under 35 when they signed their contracts. The other is expecting contracts avoiding/negotiating the cap to be backloaded, not front loaded. Edited June 29, 2014 by Taro T Quote
matter2003 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Yep. The rule is correcting an oversight and a misprognostication from the last CBA. The oversight is no accounting for players retiring that were under 35 when they signed their contracts. The other is expecting contracts avoiding/negotiating the cap to be backloaded, not front loaded. I think it would have been enough to just prevent this from happening anymore instead of punishing teams retroactively when it was legal to do so... Quote
Stoner Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Ehrhoff ran for the bus at the end of the season? Was no one paying attention in October and November? He was pretty brutal the whole way. Quote
LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Ehrhoff ran for the bus at the end of the season? Was no one paying attention in October and November? He was pretty brutal the whole way. Yea but this buyout really has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the Sabres 5 years from now. Quote
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 I think it would have been enough to just prevent this from happening anymore instead of punishing teams retroactively when it was legal to do so... Not saying it's right or wrong but the owners and their negotiators and a majority of the PA and their reps apparently didn't think it's enough. Quote
Eleven Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Ehrhoff ran for the bus at the end of the season? Was no one paying attention in October and November? He was pretty brutal the whole way. No, he wasn't. He was good until the Olympics at least. Not saying it's right or wrong but the owners and their negotiators and a majority of the PA and their reps apparently didn't think it's enough. Yes. It was bargained for. So "fairness" really shouldn't come into it. Quote
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Posted June 29, 2014 Yea but this buyout really has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the Sabres 5 years from now. You think this had NOTHING to do with his play last season (and its subsequent influence on this season) and is only about 5 years from now? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.