Sabres “salary cap space is a mirage” per Yerdon in Athletic

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Sure because a pick in 2021 outside the top 10 means they aren't an NHL forward until at least 2023 and probably not impactful until 2024.

As to the rest, you can keep listing out players below an age as though it means we have depth, it doesn't. We don't have depth in the system, we have a lot of bottom 6 players with some middle 6 potential. We need to fix that.

How many teams in/ coming out of rebuilds have a lot of top end talent in the pipeline?  Those teams have their high potential young talent toiling away in the NHL.  The Sabres have Cozens in the system who certain seems to be a top 6 talent when he matures and Mittelstadt who also could still realistically be a top 6 talent as well.

And truthfully, if those 2 are then this team is set at forward in 1-2 seasons (which doesn't help this coming year).  Use a RHD + to get a 2C this year & the top 6 is fine: (not necessarily these lines but they have) Olofsson- Eichel-Reinhart; Skinner-New Guy-Kahun/Johansson/Thompson.  (Most likely Kahun, but Johansson will be minimally serviceable there.)  Keep from blowing up the Larsson line and even if the other line is Cozens-Mittelstadt-Thompson (or Lazar or Asplund rounding out the line), they can be sheltered and effective enough.

[Thorner]

On 4/28/2020 at 3:31 PM, mjd1001 said:

I don't see a major cap problem here like some do...it all depends on how you fill the holes you have.

It is up to you right now whether you want to pay/overpay Sam, he is not on the books for next year yet.

Jacks contract is fine.  Okposo and Skinner are overpayed for what they looked like this year....but not much more than what most other teams have in bad contracts (almost everyone has a few).

Montour? like Sam above...don't 'calculate' an estimate for him against the cap until you work something out...and if you don't like what he is asking..then don't sign him.

This team might be a disaster against the cap if a bunch of bad decisions are made in the offseason...but right now they have more flexibility to stay out of trouble (or get back into it) than most teams.

Goal posts are moving. 

The idea was never that we'd have a "major cap problem" this offseason. It was the opposite - that we'd be in prime position to vault into playoffs/contender status due to J-Bott's clean slate cap offseason. This offseason was THE PLAN. 

It might be possible to maintain the status quo. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

On 4/28/2020 at 4:51 PM, Curt said:

I can’t read the article.

Dang!  That a Reinhart projection is terrible!  He isn’t getting that.  No way!  I think that is about $2M high.

The rest seem pretty close, depending on term.  Some maybe just a tad high (~$0.5M), but reasonable.

With contract projections like these, no wonder his article paints a cap doom picture.  It’s not nearly that bad in reality.

 

I'm sure he'll get a reasonable AAV like Skinner. Yes, I know, UFA, but on the other end, Botterill isn't good at signing contracts. 

[Thorner]

On 4/29/2020 at 11:18 AM, GASabresIUFAN said:

or 11th best

*But*we* were* sold* on* the* idea* that*  we* had* to* be* a* bottom* of* the* league* team* for* years* to* get* to* this* miraculous* off-season* of* wondrous* cap* space*

Getting there and having a mid-third ranking for available space is worth it? It's a joke. I repeat - there isn't a cap problem. But it was supposed to be a *strength*, SO much so that it made pissing away SEASONS of Jack worth it. Wasn't that the narrative? That Botts was building to THIS offseason?

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

*But*we* were* sold* on* the* idea* that*  we* had* to* be* a* bottom* of* the* league* team* for* years* to* get* to* this* miraculous* off-season* of* wondrous* cap* space*

Getting there and having a mid-third ranking for available space is worth it? It's a joke. I repeat - there isn't a cap problem. But it was supposed to be a *strength*, SO much so that it made pissing away SEASONS of Jack worth it. Wasn't that the narrative? That Botts was building to THIS offseason?

I have never seen the Sabres selling this plan, particularly as “miraculous” or “wondrous.” I’ve only really seen it talked about here, and the only people I can recall endorsing it were Triumph and to a lesser extent GA. 

Inflate the salaries of Reinhart etc. as much as you want, the Sabres are 3rd in actual cap space, with nearly $3 million available per roster spot in a league where my quick look seems to show most teams will struggle to find $2.

Pending pandemic-related weirdness, our cap flexibility is a strength this summer. Its our GM’s ability to capitalize that is a question.

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I have never seen the Sabres selling this plan, particularly as “miraculous” or “wondrous.” I’ve only really seen it talked about here, and the only people I can recall endorsing it were Triumph and to a lesser extent GA. 

Inflate the salaries of Reinhart etc. as much as you want, the Sabres are 3rd in actual cap space, with nearly $3 million available per roster spot in a league where my quick look seems to show most teams will struggle to find $2.

Pending pandemic-related weirdness, our cap flexibility is a strength this summer. Its our GM’s ability to capitalize that is a question.

Oh man I've seen it talked about endlessly from the usual suspects on twitter, online, everywhere. That the plan was to build to this offseason. 

The space available is not NEARLY enough to justify it being the focal point of the GM's plan. They'll have a small bit to work with after Reinhart signs for 8 mil and the other RFAs are taken care of. In a weak UFA year. Wicked. 

If it's a strength, and I don't believe it is, what we went through to get here is not even in the stratosphere of being worth it. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Oh man I've seen it talked about endlessly from the usual suspects on twitter, online, everywhere. That the plan was to build to this offseason. 

The space available is not NEARLY enough to justify it being the focal point of the GM's plan. 

I think it was originally part of the plan to have not a lot of players under contract, cap space and roster flexibility this offseason because it was supposed to be the expansion draft.  The Sabres would have been set up pretty sweet for it, but that got blown to heck when they pushed it back a year.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

I think it was originally part of the plan to have not a lot of players under contract, cap space and roster flexibility this offseason because it was supposed to be the expansion draft.  The Sabres would have been set up pretty sweet for it, but that got blown to heck when they pushed it back a year.

Build a *bad* roster, with tons of holes, so as to not lose a good player in expansion draft. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

Botterill’s plan for this year had at least three other elements that I could see last summer:

1) flipping our “rich” class of UFAs at the deadline

2) leveraging our “wealth” of defenceman

3) sliding our developing young “talent” into key roles over the course of the season.

Can you imagine how much better things would look right now if our GM had been savvy enough to make these things happen?

Oh well, he managed to add Kahun.

Edited April 30, 2020 by dudacek

[Curt]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Build a *bad* roster, with tons of holes, so as to not lose a good player in expansion draft. 

Yeah, I don’t think they were trying to be bad though.  The team is set up to have maximum roster flexibility this offseason though.  I feel that, with this nearly blank slate, if the team is not a playoff team next season there is absolutely zero excuse.  Everyone should be fired, including Sidney the dog.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, I don’t think they were trying to be bad though.  The team is set up to have maximum roster flexibility this offseason though.  I feel that, with this nearly blank slate, if the team is not a playoff team next season there is absolutely zero excuse.  Everyone should be fired, including Sidney the dog.

But they don't have a nearly blank slate. 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, I don’t think they were trying to be bad though.  The team is set up to have maximum roster flexibility this offseason though.  I feel that, with this nearly blank slate, if the team is not a playoff team next season there is absolutely zero excuse.  Everyone should be fired, including Sidney the dog.

Jason should be fired now. His apologists might buy into Thorny’s view of deliberate badness, but I am damn sure that was never Botterill’s intent.

He thought Vesey would help. He thought Sheary would help. He thought he was going to be able to flip a defenceman for his missing forward. He thought Casey and Tage were going to help. He thought Linus and Carter would provide good enough goaltending. He thought Mojo could fill the hole at centre.

He thought a lot of things and was wrong about them all. That’s how you lose your job.

Edited April 30, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Botterill’s plan for this year had at least three other elements that I could see last summer:

1) flipping our “rich” class of UFAs at the deadline

2) leveraging our “wealth” of defenceman

3) sliding our developing young “talent” into key roles over the course of the season.

Can you imagine how much better things would look right now if our GM had been savvy enough to make these things happen?

Oh well, he managed to add Kahun.

True, but we've kinda been here before with regards to plan. Semantics (love me some semantics), but to me it's not a good plan if you don't have the aptitude to execute it properly. And Botterill clearly didn't. Run-and-gun 4 line hockey with a strong forecheck is also a good strategy if you have the players to implement it. Play to your strengths. 

In Botterill's defense, when you have no strengths, it's tough to play to them. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, I don’t think they were trying to be bad though.  The team is set up to have maximum roster flexibility this offseason though.  I feel that, with this nearly blank slate, if the team is not a playoff team next season there is absolutely zero excuse.  Everyone should be fired, including Sidney the dog.

It has recently been reported that the owner is upset with the GM because of a lack of a plan.  Do we really think that we were set up for maximum roster flexibility by design?

Flexibility or blank slate aside, if there is not a playoff game including the Sabres next year there needs to be a housecleaning that includes the GM and probably some core players.

[Thorner]

18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Jason should be fired now. His apologists might buy into Thorny’s view of deliberate badness, but I am damn sure that was never Botterill’s intent.

He thought Vesey would help. He thought Sheary would help. He thought he was going to be able to flip a defenceman for his missing forward. He thought Casey and Tage were going to help. He thought Linus and Carter would provide good enough goaltending. He thought Mojo could fill the hole at centre.

He thought a lot of things and was wrong about them all. That’s how you lose your job.

It's not deliberate badness. I've never suggested that in sincerity.* It's the lack of will to be good, now. To set that base-level expectation. 

He's all too willing to actively punt the goal of winning as far back as he can. I'm not saying that winning hasn't been a *part* of his plan. I'm saying setting winning as the hopeful by-product of other things, say, "culture", is a recipe for disaster. And that's what he's been doing.

He fancied himself a good enough, first time GM to be able to make a bunch of smaller moves that would result in building a long term winner while at the same time never putting prime focus on winning in the moment. He thought he could achieve a winning roster without putting winning now above all else. He failed. 

Winning has never been *the* goal under Botts. Apparently that's what was supposedly coming this offseason. Just get ready for the punt. Warned you last offseason, all offseason. Not a "we are tanking this season" punt. No, the more disguised ""young" team still building, it's not about winning quite yet", sneaky, job security based punt. 

The stop-gap 2C punt. 

The "We like our forward group" punt. 

*I've clearly done an absolutely terrible job of articulating my point for a year or two if you think the root of my argument was that he was blatantly tanking. Urgh. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

It has recently been reported that the owner is upset with the GM because of a lack of a plan.  Do we really think that we were set up for maximum roster flexibility by design?

Flexibility or blank slate aside, if there is not a playoff game including the Sabres next year there needs to be a housecleaning that includes the GM and probably some core players.

I do think so.

[Eleven]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

It has recently been reported that the owner is upset with the GM because of a lack of a plan.  Do we really think that we were set up for maximum roster flexibility by design?

Flexibility or blank slate aside, if there is not a playoff game including the Sabres next year there needs to be a housecleaning that includes the GM and probably some core players.

Botterill is not up to the task and the Sabres need to replace him now.

As for core players, are there even any?  There are three guys on this team that I'd be reluctant to see the Sabres not keep (9, 23, 26), and I'd even let them go for the right deal.  Yes, I still like Skinner, yes I still like Ristolainen, etc. but they aren't part of the "core" of any successful NHL team.

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

But they don't have a nearly blank slate. 

Eichel, Skinner, Okposo, Johansson (just 1 yr remaining), Risto, Miller, McCabe (just 1 yr remaining), Dahlin Jokiharju, Hutton (just 1 yr remaining)

Just 10 NHL players under contract, three of which have just one year remaining.  That’s as close to a clean slate as you can get in the NHL.

[dudacek]

51 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's not deliberate badness. I've never suggested that in sincerity.* It's the lack of will to be good, now. To set that base-level expectation. 

He's all too willing to actively punt the goal of winning as far back as he can. I'm not saying that winning hasn't been a *part* of his plan. I'm saying setting winning as the hopeful by-product of other things, say, "culture", is a recipe for disaster. And that's what he's been doing.

He fancied himself a good enough, first time GM to be able to make a bunch of smaller moves that would result in building a long term winner while at the same time never putting prime focus on winning in the moment. He thought he could achieve a winning roster without putting winning now above all else. He failed. 

Winning has never been *the* goal under Botts. Apparently that's what was supposedly coming this offseason. Just get ready for the punt. Warned you last offseason, all offseason. Not a "we are tanking this season" punt. No, the more disguised ""young" team still building, it's not about winning quite yet", sneaky, job security based punt. 

The stop-gap 2C punt. 

The "We like our forward group" punt. 

*I've clearly done an absolutely terrible job of articulating my point for a year or two if you think the root of my argument was that he was blatantly tanking. Urgh. 

I never thought you believed he was tanking. What you describe fits my perception of your position.

My position is that I disagree with the bolded. The only season he wasn’t focused on winning was the first season, and every single season he began the year believing the group he had assembled was better than it actually was.

In my view, he didn’t think Berglund and Sobotka and Miller and Sheary and Vesey were stop-gaps, he thought they were actual answers to his mid-roster depth problems. He actually thought Hutton was going to be a capable starting goalie for three years and that Montour was a core piece. He actually thought Casey and Tage would be emerging as top six scorers right about now.

I think his “punting” is after-the-fact justification by his apologists for his failures and that you are actually buying in to this false construct more than most us ever did, even as you rail against it. Pro sports is always about winning. It’s not lack of focus on Botterill’s part, it’s an inability to get the job done.

Edited April 30, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

28 minutes ago, Curt said:

Eichel, Skinner, Okposo, Johansson (just 1 yr remaining), Risto, Miller, McCabe (just 1 yr remaining), Dahlin Jokiharju, Hutton (just 1 yr remaining)

Just 10 NHL players under contract, three of which have just one year remaining.  That’s as close to a clean slate as you can get in the NHL.

It's largely a mirage. The large majority of the open spaces will be filled with returning components. It's not, and never was realistic that the turnover would be in an way comparable to the amount potential turnoever. The league just isn't built that way. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

26 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I never thought you believed he was tanking. What you describe fits my perception of your position.

My position is that I disagree with the bolded. The only season he wasn’t focused on winning was the first season, and every single season he began the year believing the group he had assembled was better than it actually was.

In my view, he didn’t think Berglund and Sobotka and Miller and Sheary and Vesey were stop-gaps, he thought they were actual answers to his mid-roster depth problems. He actually thought Hutton was going to be a capable starting goalie for three years and that Montour was a core piece. He actually thought Casey and Tage would be emerging as top six scorers right about now.

I think his “punting” is after-the-fact justification by his apologists for his failures and that you are actually buying in to this false construct more than most us ever did, even as you rail against it. Pro sports is always about winning. It’s not lack of focus on Botterill’s part, it’s an inability to get the job done.

Hard disagree. Didn't we just read an in-depth piece about how a GM's main focus is job security? We've known he had no intention of winning being the absolute focus until it lined up with the Dahlin time frame since Friedman's remarks about Botteril before the 2018 lottery. If a GM can sell ownership on a long term plan, that's absolutely what they'll do. 

He absolutely sold ownership on this team's window opening up sometime in the future rather than right now. We know teams do this, to say it's always about winning is a point we know isn't true. Teams play the long game all the time. 

I still don't think your perception of my position is accurate. It's too black and white, there's so much grey. It's entirely possible, in fact I'm arguing the point, that we "wanted to win" yet the GM still refused to make it his main priority. To your point, he's executed that strategy very poorly, but I also think it was a bad strategy.

Trading away ROR and failing to immediately replace him is proof that winning immediately was not the goal. I can't, and never will believe anyone could actually believe the immediate on-ice return from ROR would adequately replace him. No chance, not even Botterill. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Hard disagree. Didn't we just read an in-depth piece about how a GM's main focus is job security? We've known he had no intention of winning being the absolute focus until it lined up with the Dahlin time frame since Friedman's remarks about Botteril before the 2018 lottery. 

He absolutely sold ownership on this team's window opening up sometime in the future rather than right now. We know teams do this, to say it's always about winning is I point we know isn't true. Teams play the long game all the time. 

He very well might have told ownership that it might take some time for his plan to blossom, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he also told them they he was also setting them up to be a winner for the long term once his plan bore fruit. 

And you can go double or nothing that the journey would include measurable markers of progress that he would have to deliver if he was going to continue in his job.

Or do you really think that both sides were expecting the other to be content with three or four seasons of what we’ve seen the past three years?

Not expecting to be in cup contention in year three is not the same as not expecting progress, measured in wins.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Is it your actual contention that Botterill’s only goal is to hold on to his job as long as possible and that he hasn’t tried to build a winner in his first three years because he hasn’t had to?

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

He very well might have told ownership that it might take some time for his plan to blossom, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he also told them they he was also setting them up to be a winner for the long term once his plan bore fruit. 

And you can go double or nothing that the journey would include measurable markers of progress that he would have to deliver if he was going to continue in his job.

Or do you really think that both sides were expecting the other to be content with three or four seasons of what we’ve seen the past three years?

Not expecting to be in cup contention in year three is not the same as not expecting progress, measured in wins.

 

I agree with all of this. 

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree with all of this. 

Then I’m not sure where your hard disagree is coming from.