Report Sabres Considering Internal Salary Cap

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Pegulas are still billionaires. However, they don't have the cash flow to wastefully throw away money. So they are tightening how they run not only the hockey operation but their other businesses as well until the environment becomes more favorable. Whether you like it or not for the foreseeable future the free flowing money spigot has been tighten. You may not be aware of it but there is a real world out where a lot of people have to adjust to. 

Yes they do.  What they spend their money and time on is 100% at their discretion.  For example, building/buying/renovating another apartment/home does not improve their investment in the Buffalo Sabres.  Yes I understand people can make money doing this, the Pegulas are not trying to do that. 

The Sabres are an asset that would benefit greatly from proper investment.  I'm not buying into the "cashflow" propaganda.  

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

2014 hurt.

It'll piss off Bills fans, but the Pegulas getting them was bad for the Sabres. The NFL clearly has dominated their attention since. Adding that they lucked into a good GM/Coach pair has certainly helped, but the fact that it's basically impossible to lose money as a NFL owner is the probably the bigger perk for them.

Meanwhile, every hire they made of either high-recommended GMs / coaches, or high-priced UFAs, has failed miserably. So they're probably thinking that if they cut funding to save money, what's the difference? We suck anyways!, as opposed to concentrating on fixing the problem.

 

So I guess we'll see. Maybe Jack and Dahlin save the Pegulas. Maybe both leave and the Pegulas sell. Money is no longer a factor for good, though. 

I disagree with your take that the Pegulas buying the Bills was bad for the Sabres. When they bought the Bills they initially made a number of horrible hiring decisions. Bringing in the buffoonish  Rex Ryan on a rich and extended contract never made much sense. It was not only a bad decisions but it was also peculiar decision. After many bad hires he finally got it right with the McDermott hire. The fortunes of the bedraggled Bills franchise didn't turn around until he got the right people to run the operation. 

As you noted the economics of the football business are dramatically different than the hockey business. They knew that when they bought into the hockey business. The reality is that the failures of the Sabres revolved around the owners' bad hires and the resulting bad hockey decisions. The failure of the Sabres are due to their own mismanagement and dumbness. As far as who recommended who to the owners I don't care. The owners have the ability to seek out as much counsel and information from a wide variety of sources. The owners made the bad hiring decisions. The onus is on them. 

When all is said and done the Sabres are in the same situation that many other hockey franchises are in. Ultimately, what is going to matter are the hockey decisions they make. That's what we should be watching for this offseason. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

Here's my roster with a cap set at 73 mil

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/1911741

We are going to have to shift the way we play with the loss of Larsson going unaddressed (or rather, replacing him with Asplund). Pretty weak 4th line. Letting Montour's rights go for picks. But if we can make that one big deal that has alluded us, I wound't put playoffs beyond the realm of possibility for this team. If that 3rd pair on D can hold up somehow. 

You link is dead ... perfect ... LOL!!

[Gabrielor]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I disagree with your take that the Pegulas buying the Bills was bad for the Sabres. When they bought the Bills they initially made a number of horrible hiring decisions. Bringing in the buffoonish  Rex Ryan on a rich and extended contract never made much sense. It was not only a bad decisions but it was also peculiar decision. After many bad hires he finally got it right with the McDermott hire. The fortunes of the bedraggled Bills franchise didn't turn around until he got the right people to run the operation. 

As you noted the economics of the football business are dramatically different than the hockey business. They knew that when they bought into the hockey business. The reality is that the failures of the Sabres revolved around the owners' bad hires and the resulting bad hockey decisions. The failure of the Sabres are due to their own mismanagement and dumbness. As far as who recommended who to the owners I don't care. The owners have the ability to seek out as much counsel and information from a wide variety of sources. The owners made the bad hiring decisions. The onus is on them. 

When all is said and done the Sabres are in the same situation that many other hockey franchises are in. Ultimately, what is going to matter are the hockey decisions they make. That's what we should be watching for this offseason. 

Difference is, they probably still made money making stupid decisions in the NFL.

In the NHL, they've lost. A lot if Graham's article is correct.

 

For the rest, I mean, I agree. They can seek whoever or whatever to aid them. I think they're now doing the opposite. They're closing rank and entrusting family friends and players who have maintained close ties in retirement.

 

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

I don't have time to read through the whole thread to see if this is covered, but Chad wrote a subsequent article explaining that he expects the Sabres to come in at $75M or higher. 

So I guess he doesn't buy into the premise of the rumor at all? Let's hope he's right. 

I made what I thought could potentially be a playoff roster yesterday, including a trade for Ehlers and Copp to fix the forwards, but it was very bare bones on D and in net, and at least 2 bench spots needed to be filled still, at it came in at over 76 mil. https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/1910286. So this team probably comes in around 78-79 after completing the roster. 2-3 mil under the cap. 

But working to even a 75 mil number would be pretty tough.

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

While that’s most likely the case, only one of those things has to do with his play on the ice, and it’s wrong. He did play hard.

Hopefully, someday we’ll live in a word where decisions are made for hockey reasons and we keep our good players and get rid of the bad ones.

This - forest through the trees here. We've established Pegula (and Botterill) may have made a bad move for a different bad reason than the hypothesized financial one. Fantastic. 

It doesn't bode any better for this team. 

We've officially gotten to the point as a franchise where we aren't debating good moves vs bad, but merely the impetus behind those bad moves. 

@Gabrielor I am starting to get the same sense re: the Pegula's focus

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

You link is dead ... perfect ... LOL!!

I deleted that team because it wasn't feasible. The idea was to construct a roster that came in at 73 mil, but I only had 20 spots filled, no extra bench spots. 

Turning this current roster into a playoff team at 73 mil would be Everest. There's a link above for a 76 mil team that needs a couple additions. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[Eleven]

75 leaves room to be a buyer at the trade deadline without losing much.

70 or 71 means that there's no way the team will be a buyer at the trade deadline.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, Eleven said:

75 leaves room to be a buyer at the trade deadline without losing much.

70 or 71 means that there's no way the team will be a buyer at the trade deadline.

If we play Samuelsson, Borgen, CJ Smith (and no Risto or Montour), don't upgrade in net, don't fill out the bench beyond maybe 1 extra guy, we can probably make a trade for a top 6 guy and come in around 75 mil. With solid aptitude from Adams. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[apuszczalowski]

Are his well digging machines broken or did they get Covid?

I thought with the Saviour Pegulas money was no object and we would never have to worry about budgets?

Atleast Sabres fans are used to seeing the team running on a tight budget....

Edited September 11, 2020 by apuszczalowski

[apuszczalowski]

35 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I deleted that team because it wasn't feasible. The idea was to construct a roster that came in at 73 mil, but I only had 20 spots filled, no extra bench spots. 

Turning this current roster into a playoff team at 73 mil would be Everest. There's a link above for a 76 mil team that needs a couple additions. 

Guess it's a good thing they have an experienced veteran GM who knows how to work the cap and has concured Everest before......

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Guess it's a good thing they have an experienced veteran GM who knows how to work the cap and has concured Everest before......

I'd be happier if his resume said "Cap Illiterate" considering the last guy's read "Cap Savant"

[Kruppstahl]

20 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't know why this is surprising to people, it goes hand in hand with what was being said when JBot and all the scouts etc were fired. Cost cutting and fiscal restraint. Why did you think they'd spend on players???

The Sabres won't be alone in this approach. Arizona and Pittsburgh mentioned above and I'm sure there will be others. The next season will be a challenge to say the least in terms of generating revenue so a lot of owners are going to just spend as little as possible until things are fully back to normal. 

Well then, let's all add 1 more year to the Sabres drought right now.  

Not a lot going to change next season with this development, justified or not justified.

Hockey desperately needs the huge TV money the NFL enjoys, and it's just not ever going to get it.

 

 

17 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Are his well digging machines broken or did they get Covid?

I thought with the Saviour Pegulas money was no object and we would never have to worry about budgets?

Atleast Sabres fans are used to seeing the team running on a tight budget....

The "I'll dig a well" era is over.  Has been for a couple season now, I think.

It was confirmed when they fired Botterill and the scouting department.

 

 

 

[IKnowPhysics]

20 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This thread will be all overreaction to something I bet most teams in the league do due to the reality of what revenue will look like next season. 

No sir, this message board is a magnet for thoughtful, civil, even-keeled discourse.

19 hours ago, Curt said:

Terry:  Go drill another well, you arrogant, lying disappointment.

 

18 hours ago, #freejame said:

***** Terry Pegula. 

 

17 hours ago, sabremike said:

Unless you are just waking up from a coma you have been in since 2011 you are probably aware of the fact they are just about the least successful NHL owners of the modern era and that this is just the latest strike against them.

"Nine Years, ***** All!!!"

#PegulasOut

 

3 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

If that picture is true, then Pegula is an idiot. He has no one to blame for the current drought / money loss situation but himself.

[Thorner]

Claiming that fans are somehow capable of overreacting negatively to anything this franchise does is.....a comical stretch. 

It deserves every, single, little bit of skepticism (and what's clearly often venting) that it gets.

Calling out posters that devote hours of their time each week to post here because they are among the most passionate fans this franchise has, because they want to get mad online for a bit because they've had their hard earned dollars supporting this team wasted constantly is..

I dunno fill in our own blanks. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[Kruppstahl]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Claiming that fans are somehow capable of overreacting negatively to anything this franchise does is.....a comical stretch. 

We're straight up the worst franchise in the NHL, or possibly tied for worst with Ottawa.

We're going to set an all-time record for futility trying to make the playoffs soon.

We have played some of the most dreadful hockey you can imagine for nearly a decade now, icing an AHL lineup for some of that time...

I agree.  You can't overstate what a ***** show the whole thing is.

In the near term, the only way it could get worse is if Eichel really does request a trade!

Remember Darcy's comment about how this fanbase was about to feel a lot of pain?  Or something like that?

Holy hell was he not lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dudacek]

Interesting to note that 15 teams have already committed at least $70 to the cap next season. Only five teams can ice a 20-man roster right now with the players they have under contract. Every owner is going to be taking a loss until butts are back in the seats.

If the Sabres operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them with $24 available to sign10-13 players.

If the Canes operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them having to shed $2 while signing 3-6 players.

If the Lightning operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them having to shed $5 million while signing 5-8 players, including Cirelli and Sergachev.

The question is really about how much of a bath is each owner willing to take, and how creative can each GM be in order to get his team under their new budget?

How many teams will be spending to the cap? Ten? 20?

Edited September 11, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

22 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Interesting to note that 15 teams have already committed at least $70 to the cap next season. Only five teams can ice a 20-man roster right now with the players they have under contract. Every owner is going to be taking a loss until butts are back in the seats.

If the Sabres operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them with $24 available to sign10-13 players.

If the Canes operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them having to shed $2 to sign 3-6 players.

If the Lightning operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them having to shed $5 million to sign 5-8 players, including Cirelli and Sergachev.

The question is really about how much of a bath is each owner willing to take, and how creative can each GM be in order to get his team under budget?

Sabres, Canes, and Lightning, eh? Which of these organizations has established a track record in the last several years of making good, creative decisions? That'll be a good starting point. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Sabres, Canes, and Lightning, eh? Which of these organizations has a established a track record in the last several years of making good, creative decisions? That'll be a good starting point. 

I tried to pick a bad team, a solid team and a great team, none of which operate in a big market.

But it really is about looking at it on a team by team basis. The Coyotes have $80 million in salaries committed and 3-6 roster holes to fill. How the heck do they get their payroll down to $70 and ice a 21-man roster?

Nobody is taking on bad contracts in this climate. The probably have to sell good players on big-money contracts for futures.

So long Kuemper and Ekman-Larson, and to who, for what? Prices are going plummet because the sellers will far outnumber the buyers — in both trades and free agency. The Leafs getting a 1st for Kapanen is going to look real good for them by the time this is finished.

But the fact is a $3 million good player will be far more valuable to most teams than a great player at $7 million.

Edited September 11, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

Botterill's Reinhart bridge is getting worse all the time. Doubt they shell out for him this offseason on a LT deal. Probably a one year deal, and like you said @dudacek if he's one year away from FA next summer, he's likely as good as gone. 

Oh well, just another top 6 hole 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

There are still a lot of ways this can go.

The Sabres spending $70 million in cap when 25 teams are at $80 is a terrible situation for us.

The Sabres spending $75 million in cap when 15 teams are below $70 is wonderful.

September is going to be the craziest off-season ever.

[inkman]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

There are still a lot of ways this can go.

The Sabres spending $70 million in cap when 25 teams are at $80 is a terrible situation for us.

The Sabres spending $75 million in cap when 15 teams are below $70 is wonderful.

September is going to be the craziest off-season ever.

And we'll hate every move Buffalo makes, if they make any at all.  

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Botterill's Reinhart bridge is getting worse all the time. Doubt they shell out for him this offseason on a LT deal. Probably a one year deal, and like you said @dudacek if he's one year away from FA next summer, he's likely as good as gone. 

Oh well, just another top 6 hole 

Reinhart and arbitration-eligible players like him are in a real interesting situation. Do they play hardball and walk their teams to arbitration where they will probably get a bigger award for next year? Or does that carry the risk of a team walking away? Free agency will be done at that point, and no one will have any money left to spend on you. And there is a chance that this cap-crunch scenario repeats next summer.

Finding the sweet spot will be so hard for either side.

[Thorner]

If a Reinhart made it to UFA early, a Hossa is making it to retirement early. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

If the Lightning operate $10 million under the cap, that leaves them having to shed $5 million while signing 5-8 players, including Cirelli and Sergachev.

Never forget the tax advantage Florida teams have. Tough to compete with that if they spend wisely. 

Of course on the other hand look at all that money going to Stamkos and currently not helping them at all. Good/lucky(?) drafting. Same for Carolina. Hence they could cut loose a guy like Skinner and do better after. So drafting well is the key always, not spending. and drafting well lets you spend less for years too. 

So on the one hand I guess getting rid of a scouting department is fine since maybe they didn't earn their money.  But the plan is (?) virtually no scouting department? Ya sure, that seems like it'll work................

 

[tom webster]

So if Servelli reported that the Sabre’s were interested in Pietrangelo we’d all laugh at the rumor and carry on.

He reports that the team is “considering” an internal cap and it’s taken as gospel.