dudacek Posted January 27, 2022 Author Report Posted January 27, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 11:13 PM, Taro T said: Which is why they shouldn't be taking on multi-year bad contracts. But cap space is an expiring asset - when the season ends, that unused cap space expires and has $0 value. There are teams that want to add to their roster THIS season. Use some of that ridiculous cap space available to them to let a team exceed the cap this year & collect a rent that will improve the team moving forward. Pretty sure Adams retained salary on both Hall & Staal, so he & ownership aren't opposed to it if it makes sense. The more thought that goes into this, the more interesting the trade deadline becomes. Was pretty sure it would be completely uneventful for the Sabres this year, but we might see them end up w/ some useful pieces for essentially nothing but the owners' money. (Not expecting any awesome deals, but if they add another couple of 2nds or a 2nd & a 3rd maybe they can use those to get into a spot they want to be in the upcoming or the next draft. Expand I’ve chewed on it enough to conclude that Adams would be derelict not to take advantage if the market and the Pegulas allow. 1 Quote
Taro T Posted January 27, 2022 Report Posted January 27, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 11:17 PM, dudacek said: I’ve chewed on it enough to conclude that Adams would be derelict not to take advantage if the market and the Pegulas allow. Expand To the bolded, probably just wishful thinking, but them dropping a couple/few $MM could go a reasonable way towards making up for the fiasco that not paying O'Reilly's $7MM turned into. (Even if Thompson & Johnson turn into home runs, not having anything useful for that season coming back when Eichel, & Reinhart, & McCabe, & Ullmark might actually have wanted to be in Buffalo was a huge mistake. And not being cheap then/there might have saved us a THIRD retooling. Sorry for re-rebringing that up.) Starting to make up for that would be nice. And might help w/ getting attendance back where they want it to be sooner than otherwise, so it might actually save/make them money in the long run. 1 1 Quote
dudacek Posted January 28, 2022 Author Report Posted January 28, 2022 I have concerns that there is so little wiggle room that a lot of the deadline activity were used to. Are teams going to pay the added cost of laundering a contract? If you have barely any space, are you going to use it on Colin Miller? Who can afford to squeeze even a Cody Eakin under the cap? Maybe a lot of teams will conclude they aren’t paying a premium. Quote
dudacek Posted January 28, 2022 Author Report Posted January 28, 2022 Here’s a question: Does Johnny Boychuk’s contract have any value as a tool a team can use to create extra space by moving him to LTIR like the Lightning have with Seabrook? And, if so, why the heck did Lou trade him to us? Quote
Taro T Posted January 28, 2022 Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 12:11 AM, dudacek said: Here’s a question: Does Johnny Boychuk’s contract have any value as a tool a team can use to create extra space by moving him to LTIR like the Lightning have with Seabrook? And, if so, why the heck did Lou trade him to us? Expand Not really except in the very limited case where bringing in a Boychuk contract & the associated other moves gets a team closer to the cap prior to trying to bring in another guy necessitating putting Boychuk on LTIR. (IE, Prior to bringing in Boychuk the team was $1 MM below the cap, but after bringing him in they're at the cap.) They can now exceed the cap by Boychuk's full cap hit rather than by $1MM less than that amount because they would've been $1MM under when they tried to trigger BF-LTIR without having made those moves to bring him in. (Hopefully, that's clear. Didn't want to write a novella to be more precise in the wording.) A Boychuk type contract for a player that isn't playing is far more useful on the floor of the cap range, or more accurately getting up to the floor. Quote
Taro T Posted January 28, 2022 Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 12:04 AM, dudacek said: I have concerns that there is so little wiggle room that a lot of the deadline activity were used to. Are teams going to pay the added cost of laundering a contract? If you have barely any space, are you going to use it on Colin Miller? Who can afford to squeeze even a Cody Eakin under the cap? Maybe a lot of teams will conclude they aren’t paying a premium. Expand Or, teams will have to dump a bad contract &/or get retention on the contract they're taking on along w/ whatever they're paying to get a Miller or Eakin to make the $'s work, and to get the Sabres or other seller to make the deal they now have to give up a 2nd when a 3rd would have worked w/out taking on the extra baggage. Quote
dudacek Posted January 28, 2022 Author Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 12:46 AM, Taro T said: Or, teams will have to dump a bad contract &/or get retention on the contract they're taking on along w/ whatever they're paying to get a Miller or Eakin to make the $'s work, and to get the Sabres or other seller to make the deal they now have to give up a 2nd when a 3rd would have worked w/out taking on the extra baggage. Expand Yes, that’s what I am getting at, but with the pessimistic addendum of them deciding it’s not worth paying more and they just say ‘screw it, status quo’ Hopefully, GMs are as dumb as ever. Speaking of dumb, at what price (UFA contract, not trade) does Risto make sense for the Sabres? Quote
Taro T Posted January 28, 2022 Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 1:10 AM, dudacek said: Yes, that’s what I am getting at, but with the pessimistic addendum of them deciding it’s not worth paying more and they just say ‘screw it, status quo’ Hopefully, GMs are as dumb as ever. Speaking of dumb, at what price (UFA contract, not trade) does Risto make sense for the Sabres? Expand To the bolded, until we go through a trade deadline that proves the ones that turn dumb when the pressure is on are gone, won't believe it. Haven't seen a trade deadline like that yet. To your final question, pretty much figure that depends on whether the Sabres have concession rights to @LGR4GM's meltdown. If they do, any contract could pay for itself. 😉 1 Quote
tom webster Posted January 28, 2022 Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 1:10 AM, dudacek said: Yes, that’s what I am getting at, but with the pessimistic addendum of them deciding it’s not worth paying more and they just say ‘screw it, status quo’ Hopefully, GMs are as dumb as ever. Speaking of dumb, at what price (UFA contract, not trade) does Risto make sense for the Sabres? Expand The Sabres are willing to retain half of Miller’s contract in return for a 1st. Quote
dudacek Posted January 28, 2022 Author Report Posted January 28, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 3:43 AM, tom webster said: The Sabres are willing to retain half of Miller’s contract in return for a 1st. Expand It wouldn’t pay a 1st if they paid all of Miller’s contract. But good info, and good to know they are trying. 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.