Sabres Put Riley Sheahan on Unconditional Waivers For the Purposes of Contract Termination

[Huckleberry]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

A long list? I would venture to guess, without looking it up, they are no different than any other franchise when it comes to that. Las Vegas, supposedly the new model franchise, has a few “respected” players pissed off at how they were treated.

 

You also have no idea what is going with this move. He could have realized he no longer had it to play in the NHL and asked for a way out.

This most likely wants to play for an AHL team closer to home.

[Pimlach]

29 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-waiver-rules/

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-move-to-terminate-riley-sheahans-contract-for-declining-to-join-amerks/article_17fb828e-6e79-11ed-b9c6-e3c98fe64f7e.html

Since Sheahan refused to go back to the Amerks, like Bogo did a few years ago, the Sabres can use this process to terminate his contract and only owe up to the date he was placed on waivers.  This makes Sheahan a UFA and he can re-sign elsewhere.

So this an "efficient and economic" move for the Sabres.   

[Zamboni]

Organization looks bad to all fans, players, GM’s, and owners because Sheehan was placed on waivers. 

 

[grinreaper]

17 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

So exactly what were we supposed to do, he refused to report to Rochester after signing a 2 way contract with us and being beat out by multiple other players. 

Obviously this isn't the place to use common sense if it doesn't fit the narrative. Everyone knows that the Sabre's Alumni all hate the team and once they leave they never want anything more to do with the team or the City. 

[grinreaper]

8 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Organization looks bad to all fans, players, GM’s, and owners because Sheehan was placed on waivers. 

 

To think when he signed I thought he was the final piece to the puzzle that would end the Sabre's playoff drought and make free agents stand in line to sign team friendly contracts. I was thinking that we had a chance to see former players settle down and make Buffalo their home but this move by the team screwed that up. 

[DarthEbriate]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

This could actually be an example of the Sabres doing right by a player.  A positive story in the eyes of other players across the league.

Maybe Sheahan realized that he was unlikely to get more NHL time going forward, and wants to maximize his earnings in the last 3-4 years of his pro hockey career.  Maybe his agent is telling him that there is a $500-600k contract for him in the Swiss League.

I don’t know.  We’ll probably hear more on this in the near future.

This seems appropriate. Sheahan knew the situation in Buffalo. With injuries, he'd get a shot at the lineup and he could provide skills none of our other 4C center options can (namely, win a face off). But with Krebs and his defensive lapses ahead on the depth chart it would be tough going. However, the Jost acquisition and general forward health meant it was back to Rochester again and less cash.

But now... look at Rochester. Sheahan isn't an offensive top-6 guy there either. That's not who he is. He's a bottom 6, d-zone faceoff guy in the AHL, too. And the Sabres are going to prefer getting a whole bunch of kids with "center" in their potential ahead of him: Biro, Kozak, Kulich. So he's battling with a Malone for ice time (and Malone offers more offensive punch). Throw in you can only dress so many veterans and the AHL and its salary aren't the best option. So this is the team's way of setting him free.

[grinreaper]

14 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

This seems appropriate. Sheahan knew the situation in Buffalo. With injuries, he'd get a shot at the lineup and he could provide skills none of our other 4C center options can (namely, win a face off). But with Krebs and his defensive lapses ahead on the depth chart it would be tough going. However, the Jost acquisition and general forward health meant it was back to Rochester again and less cash.

But now... look at Rochester. Sheahan isn't an offensive top-6 guy there either. That's not who he is. He's a bottom 6, d-zone faceoff guy in the AHL, too. And the Sabres are going to prefer getting a whole bunch of kids with "center" in their potential ahead of him: Biro, Kozak, Kulich. So he's battling with a Malone for ice time (and Malone offers more offensive punch). Throw in you can only dress so many veterans and the AHL and its salary aren't the best option. So this is the team's way of setting him free.

Good post but you still didn't say anything about tomorrow's headlines that will claim that the Sabres treat their players like slaves.

[DarthEbriate]

5 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

Good post but you still didn't say anything about tomorrow's headlines that will claim that the Sabres treat their players like slaves.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

So exactly what were we supposed to do, he refused to report to Rochester after signing a 2 way contract with us and being beat out by multiple other players. 

I'm not saying there's anything they could have done. I'm just saying it's another knock on the organization, even if it is a small one. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, grinreaper said:

Obviously this isn't the place to use common sense if it doesn't fit the narrative. Everyone knows that the Sabre's Alumni all hate the team and once they leave they never want anything more to do with the team or the City. 

You're being sarcastic, but it's kind of true. 

[inkman]

I wonder what changed.  He played 6 games when they sent him down the first time. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, inkman said:

I wonder what changed.  He played 6 games when they sent him down the first time. 

Jost? With the addition of Jost and the eventual return of Asplund, the Sabres would be at 14 forwards.

Tnt's line, Cozens' kids line, VO, Mitts, Z, Jost, KO, Krebs, Vinnie and Asplund.  Where does that leave Sheahan? The answer is stuck in Rochester.  

[Taro T]

Just now, inkman said:

I wonder what changed.  He played 6 games when they sent him down the first time. 

Probably sees how much of a train wreck Krebs has been but Krebs stays up and he goes down after a waiver wire pickup beats both of them out.

Don't know, but expect he feels he didn't get as fair a shake as he'd been led to believe he'd get.

[PerreaultForever]

24 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Probably sees how much of a train wreck Krebs has been but Krebs stays up and he goes down after a waiver wire pickup beats both of them out.

Don't know, but expect he feels he didn't get as fair a shake as he'd been led to believe he'd get.

and he'd be right. 

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

and he'd be right. 

Only an idiot would think that he, a tweener that's 30+ should get the nod over a high end prospect. We aren't playing Bjork over him...

[PerreaultForever]

3 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Only an idiot would think that he, a tweener that's 30+ should get the nod over a high end prospect. We aren't playing Bjork over him...

I don't think that's true. I think any player who comes to any organization believes he will be given a fair shot. When they signed him they likely told him the 4th line center role was his for the taking (replacing Eakin). If he thinks his level of play was better than players on the roster (like Krebs) he would think he'd get the job. 

I mean I know as well as you do about playing the kids but wasn't there also a mantra of all jobs are up for the taking and those who play best will earn the spot? Wasn't that supposed to be part of the new culture, earning your spot? 

I'm not defending Sheehan, I questioned why we ever signed him, but since we did, if he outplayed Krebs he should be on the roster as we do not have cap problems and his salary was low anyway. Most teams send the unready rookie down before the veteran (unless they have cap issues). How are you going to fill holes on the roster or attract free agents to a team that everyone puts on their 10 team no trade list if veteran players know they'll likely be ditched for rookies who don't earn it? idk, it really doesn't matter. 

[thewookie1]

14 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't think that's true. I think any player who comes to any organization believes he will be given a fair shot. When they signed him they likely told him the 4th line center role was his for the taking (replacing Eakin). If he thinks his level of play was better than players on the roster (like Krebs) he would think he'd get the job. 

I mean I know as well as you do about playing the kids but wasn't there also a mantra of all jobs are up for the taking and those who play best will earn the spot? Wasn't that supposed to be part of the new culture, earning your spot? 

I'm not defending Sheehan, I questioned why we ever signed him, but since we did, if he outplayed Krebs he should be on the roster as we do not have cap problems and his salary was low anyway. Most teams send the unready rookie down before the veteran (unless they have cap issues). How are you going to fill holes on the roster or attract free agents to a team that everyone puts on their 10 team no trade list if veteran players know they'll likely be ditched for rookies who don't earn it? idk, it really doesn't matter. 

He was Jankowski’s replacement and should of understood his role. It certainly didn’t help him that he helped lose us a game by taking an offensive zone lazy penalty. 
 

The Sabres gave him an brief opportunity but he never showed anything of value besides being a good AHL vet. He knew from the onset that we were leaning to playing younger players; if it honestly surprises him that a lesser player presently but higher potential player gets time over him that’s on him, not the Sabres

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

He was Jankowski’s replacement and should of understood his role. It certainly didn’t help him that he helped lose us a game by taking an offensive zone lazy penalty. 
 

The Sabres gave him an brief opportunity but he never showed anything of value besides being a good AHL vet. He knew from the onset that we were leaning to playing younger players; if it honestly surprises him that a lesser player presently but higher potential player gets time over him that’s on him, not the Sabres

The penalty might've been the defining action when they decided whether to keep him up as the spare forward or somebody else.  

Seems Asplund is pretty much ready to be back.  Will be very interesting to see who comes out of the lineup joining Krebs in the pressbox.  2 other interesting things to watch, if all stay healthy, when does Krebs get back in the lineup (& who does he replace) and when Bryson is back, again, if they're all healthy, who goes down to Ra-cha-cha - Krebs, Pilut, Fitzgerald, or another F.

[PromoTheRobot]

4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This most likely wants to play for an AHL team closer to home.

That would be Rochester.  He's from St. Catherines.

Edited November 28, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[Huckleberry]

57 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

That would be Rochester.  He's from St. Catherines.

There goes my theory then.  Guess he thinks he stil is an NHL player then.

[Doohicksie]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I do actually. A lot of these players are friends with each other (even lowly ones like Sheehan) and the agents talk to each other and every disgruntled player matters to a team's image. There's a long list of disgruntled veterans playing in the league right now, many for better teams, a few logging big minutes, and not a one of them was happy here or did well. They are all happier elsewhere. It matters. 

It's a business.  He isn't good enough to play in the NHL anymore.  The organization is more than willing to pay him to play in the AHL.  This isn't the Sabres choice, it's his choice since he chose not to report to Rochester.  It's simply a business transaction to sever ties with him which is what he wants; he likely has a contract lined up elsewhere (Europe?).  I don't see why this would reflect poorly on the Sabres. 

[Doohicksie]

7 hours ago, Digger said:

He signed a two-way deal so going to Rochester wasn't a surprise for him.  Was it Jost coming in and further reducing his chances for playing games with the Sabres?

If so, that's not on the Sabres.  If Jost is a better player than Sheahan, the Sabres improved their team by claiming him.  Assuming that means Sheahan is the worse player, why would the Sabres want to keep him.  And if he's not good enough to stay on an NHL roster, who's fault is that?  Not the Sabres' fault, that's for sure.

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I couldn't care less about Sheehan

I can tell, since you don't even care enough about him to spell his name right.  It's Sheahan.

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

it doesn't look good for Buffalo imo regardless. 

Why?  This is totally on Sheahan:

1. He's not good enough to stay on an NHL roster.
2. He chose not to report to Rochester.

How are the Sabres responsible for either of these conditions?  They're not.  This is all on Sheahan.

[SABRES 0311]

Getting rid of Sheehan makes room for a Victor Antipin return 😂

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

Don’t think he forfeits the $

Yes he does.  The contract will be terminated for cause (the cause being that he declined to report to Rochester as required under his contract).