[Sabre Rattling]And the Money Just Keep Piling Up!

[SabresBeat]

Dumont awarded $2.9 Million from Obviously French-Canadian Arbitrator

I really have to wonder if the arbitrator in both the Briere and Dumont cases arrived at a figure then added $500k because of their French-Canadian ancestory, because, in my mind, both of these guys were awarded contracts that were similarly overpriced.

I am, of course, kidding. This [...]

 

http://www.sabresreport.com/blogs/?p=255

[ddaryl]

I don't think these arbitration cases are out of whack. The pproblem in Buffao is we aren't spending to the cap limit.

 

If the Sabres have the money to spend to the limit then all of the salaries awarded would fit nicely under the cap.

 

 

We're just a poor team, and this is what our existence is.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I don't think these arbitration cases are out of whack. The pproblem in Buffao is we aren't spending to the cap limit.

If the Sabres have the money to spend to the limit then all of the salaries awarded would fit nicely under the cap.

We're just a poor team, and this is what our existence is.

 

As I said in another thread, just not true. Once everyone is signed they will likely be over the cap ... check it out ... http://members.shaw.ca/cdelosreyes/

[deluca67]

I don't think these arbitration cases are out of whack. The pproblem in Buffao is we aren't spending to the cap limit.

 

If the Sabres have the money to spend to the limit then all of the salaries awarded would fit nicely under the cap.

We're just a poor team, and this is what our existence is.

 

Because the teams that do have proven that works?

 

If you want to define the Sabres finances look no further then their ticket prices. They are among the lowest in the league. An NHL team should be able to sell out every game and cover the cost of players. The Sabres can't because they keep their prices so low. ;)

[apuszczalowski]

Because the teams that do have proven that works?

 

If you want to define the Sabres finances look no further then their ticket prices. They are among the lowest in the league. An NHL team should be able to sell out every game and cover the cost of players. The Sabres can't because they keep their prices so low. ;)

They also didn't sell out every game last year

[Stoner]

Because the teams that do have proven that works?

 

If you want to define the Sabres finances look no further then their ticket prices. They are among the lowest in the league. An NHL team should be able to sell out every game and cover the cost of players. The Sabres can't because they keep their prices so low. ;)

 

This is where the #%^$#! hits the fan for those who argue that the Sabres low payroll last season is the model for success in the NHL, and that teams that spend to the cap are risking failure. (Strawman? I don't think so.) Let's say for the sake of argument that the Sabres do spend to the cap -- probably not likely, but at least they're in the neighborhood. Which signings, DeLuca, do you feel are dooming the Sabres to an unsuccessful season just like all those other big spenders? Which players would you get rid of to cut, say, $10 million (probably more given the amount you really want the team to spend in order to ensure profitability and franchise "viability") and can you honestly argue that losing those players wouldn't make the Sabres a much worse team? Briere, Afinogenov and Dumont? And that's not even taking into account the salary we would take on in return, unless you just want to give those guys away. I think you'll have to also deal Biron, Connolly and Lydman to get to $31 or $32 million -- still a nice raise from a year ago, right? Nah, that wouldn't hurt too much. I hear we have some great young talent in Roch.

[Taro T]

They also didn't sell out every game last year

You are correct, they didn't sell out every game. In the regular season, they sold out 18 games and averaged 17,079 fans at the Mmarena.

 

Although they didn't sell out, their revenue from ticket sales doesn't have much room to increase this year as they only had ~74,000 unsold tickets last season (counting the 10,000 additional tickets that could have been bought had the 1st Washington game been in the Mmarena rather than Ra-cha-cha).

 

This season the rink will be very close to sold out for every game (as full season tickets are up several thousand over last year), which will probably bring in an additional ~$2.8MM (plus concessions). It's hard to say exactly how much extra revenue the extra ticket sales will be worth as there are fewer tickets being sold at bronze, silver, and gold prices.

 

Not counting revenues from the Suites, tickets alone this season will bring in ~$29MM. With a payroll approaching $40MM, DeLuca's point is valid (although, as you pointed out, not precisely correct ;) ).

 

Also, as an aside to the original discussion between DeLuca and Daryl, it looks to me like the Sabres are going to be within $4MM (possibly $2MM) of their actual salary cap this season unless there is some serious purging of signed players. And because of the LT contracts handed out this year and the low 1st year cost in the majority of them, all the debates that have gone on here as to whether the Sabres should spend to the cap or remain in the mid-$30's because that is what revenues would dictate the break even point to be (barring a long playoff run) appear to be moot. It's looking like when all is said and done, the Sabres will be in the high $30's but the cap for them is ~$40 due to their actual player contracts which would have Golisano realistically risking loss of a couple of $MM, but not the $10MM that several here were concerned could happen and could start the team on the path to leaving town.

[hopeleslyobvious]

This is where the #%^$#! hits the fan for those who argue that the Sabres low payroll last season is the model for success in the NHL, and that teams that spend to the cap are risking failure. (Strawman? I don't think so.) Let's say for the sake of argument that the Sabres do spend to the cap -- probably not likely, but at least they're in the neighborhood. Which signings, DeLuca, do you feel are dooming the Sabres to an unsuccessful season just like all those other big spenders? Which players would you get rid of to cut, say, $10 million (probably more given the amount you really want the team to spend in order to ensure profitability and franchise "viability") and can you honestly argue that losing those players wouldn't make the Sabres a much worse team? Briere, Afinogenov and Dumont? And that's not even taking into account the salary we would take on in return, unless you just want to give those guys away. I think you'll have to also deal Biron, Connolly and Lydman to get to $31 or $32 million -- still a nice raise from a year ago, right? Nah, that wouldn't hurt too much. I hear we have some great young talent in Roch.

 

My point about the team not spending the cap had more to do about overpaying for players to keep them around rather than spending what each player is worth. If the team had followed your model, they would have overpaid for McKee, offered Grier so much more that he couldn't refuse the deal, etc. Since there is a limited amount of money to spend that means that the team would not be able to make some of the other moves that they have.

[Taro T]

This is where the #%^$#! hits the fan for those who argue that the Sabres low payroll last season is the model for success in the NHL, and that teams that spend to the cap are risking failure. (Strawman? I don't think so.) Let's say for the sake of argument that the Sabres do spend to the cap -- probably not likely, but at least they're in the neighborhood. Which signings, DeLuca, do you feel are dooming the Sabres to an unsuccessful season just like all those other big spenders? Which players would you get rid of to cut, say, $10 million (probably more given the amount you really want the team to spend in order to ensure profitability and franchise "viability") and can you honestly argue that losing those players wouldn't make the Sabres a much worse team? Briere, Afinogenov and Dumont? And that's not even taking into account the salary we would take on in return, unless you just want to give those guys away. I think you'll have to also deal Biron, Connolly and Lydman to get to $31 or $32 million -- still a nice raise from a year ago, right? Nah, that wouldn't hurt too much. I hear we have some great young talent in Roch.

Easy there 'ouisey. The Sabres payroll is not going to be $42MM or $44MM. It can't be, because of the escalating nature of the LT deals that the team has signed.

 

With ticket sales exceeding even the Sabres expectations, and a reasonable assurance that the team will make the playoffs this season, the break even point (on player payroll) will probably be ~$34-37MM (probably closer to $36MM, but I don't have time to run the back of the envelope calcs on it). If the breakeven point is $36MM, then a player payroll of $38MM would be putting Tom at risk of a $2MM loss if the team doesn't win its 1st round series.

 

A $2MM risk coming off a "magical" season, is probably realistic (heck, I think it's very realistic). A $10MM+ risk, which is what "spending to the cap" sounded like a month and a half ago was not a reasonable risk.

 

Instead of pushing for $10MM worth of cuts, how about asking about $2MM-4MM worth of cuts? BTW, the team WILL have to cut $2MM regardless because they are OVER the cap when everyone gets signed.

 

Also, as an aside, had the Sabres re-signed McKee to a $4MM/year deal, the Sabres would have nearly $1MM more of cuts that they would have to make to get under the salary cap this season. After all the moves are done ~1 month from now, pick 1 more player that you don't want to see on the roster because there wouldn't be cap room for him unless the Sabres wanted to be at a point where they have absolutely no room to wiggle whatsoever.

[Stoner]

I think I want to see all these figures from Darcy or the Sabres money man. As I said before, it's just too hard for the average Joes to figure all this out. Dave, the 10 million dollar figure was the amount of cuts that I thought DeLuca, to be consistent, should be pushing for. I'm not pushing for it by any means. hopeles, I don't want to overpay for any player! There's a good strawman right there. I agree $4 million was too much for McKee. We pretty much met San Jose's offer for Grier, so there's not much we could have done. Obviously he didn't want to be here, so sweetening the pot a bit wouldn't have helped. Good riddance, sir. Mike, not you. :)

[hopeleslyobvious]

I think I want to see all these figures from Darcy or the Sabres money man. As I said before, it's just too hard for the average Joes to figure all this out. Dave, the 10 million dollar figure was the amount of cuts that I thought DeLuca, to be consistent, should be pushing for. I'm not pushing for it by any means. hopeles, I don't want to overpay for any player! There's a good strawman right there. I agree $4 million was too much for McKee. We pretty much met San Jose's offer for Grier, so there's not much we could have done. Obviously he didn't want to be here, so sweetening the pot a bit wouldn't have helped. Good riddance, sir. Mike, not you. :)

 

I think we're closer to being on the same page than either of us would care to admit.

[apuszczalowski]

I think we're closer to being on the same page than either of us would care to admit.

I noticed hell was getting a little colder today, lol

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Also, as an aside to the original discussion between DeLuca and Daryl, it looks to me like the Sabres are going to be within $4MM (possibly $2MM) of their actual salary cap this season unless there is some serious purging of signed players. And because of the LT contracts handed out this year and the low 1st year cost in the majority of them, all the debates that have gone on here as to whether the Sabres should spend to the cap or remain in the mid-$30's because that is what revenues would dictate the break even point to be (barring a long playoff run) appear to be moot. It's looking like when all is said and done, the Sabres will be in the high $30's but the cap for them is ~$40 due to their actual player contracts which would have Golisano realistically risking loss of a couple of $MM, but not the $10MM that several here were concerned could happen and could start the team on the path to leaving town.

 

All things being equal, there is still an increase from last year and Darcy will have to make some personnel decisions as we're already discussing.

[Stoner]

I think we're closer to being on the same page than either of us would care to admit.

 

I wish I had female reproductive organs so I could have your baby.

[X. Benedict]

I wish I had female reproductive organs so I could have your baby.

 

What the hell is going on here?

 

I leave for half a day and peace and understanding break out.

 

I'm leaving again and when I come back I expect no pulled punches and full contact.

[SCSabresFan!]

What the hell is going on here?

 

I leave for half a day and peace and understanding break out.

 

I'm leaving again and when I come back I expect no pulled punches and full contact.

 

Jeez Larry Quinn has officially lost his mind!

[LabattBlue]

As I said in another thread, just not true. Once everyone is signed they will likely be over the cap ... check it out ... http://members.shaw.ca/cdelosreyes/

According to this link, they are at 41 mil not including Miller, Jillson, Kalinin & Mair. If you take away Dumont, they are under the cap by 5.9 mil but have to fit in the above players, plus Dumont's replacement. Something has to give.

[ddaryl]

So we're going to be over the cap when everyone is signed.

 

Well that should pretty much drive this team back into the red for the forseeable future.

 

Is there any revenue sharing happening in the NHL ?

[Stoner]

Unless revenues also go up. Seems to me Golisano might have made a calculated decision to lose a little more money in the short term to try to build a perennial contender here that would justify higher prices for... everything starting next season. Build it and they will come.