Fuzzy Math

[uptick75]

So let me get this straight, now the cap # has to do with an avg. salary over the next four years and now we can't sign players because we might go over the cap. I'm sorry if I don't buy it hook line and sinker. This organization when it comes to money is very shady. Currently we are at about 35 1/2 (w/o Kalinin and Miller) and now I here because of all the back loaded contracts that we signed we are the 44 million cap. Considering my skeptical view on Sabres finances (ex. Split Rochester affliation and dropping scouting) could the Sabres have found a way to look like they are at the cap w/o even being anywhere near it. To me all that matters is what you actually spend not what you are projected to spend. So i think their plan is to sign mid teir guys to backloaded contracts to fit in the "44" million cap with the option of dropping your higher priced UFA's year in and year out. I also think that what we actually may spend less this year because of letting go of Biron and possibly insurance on connelly if he doesn't play. Either way I don't buy it, whether the radio station is selling it like crazy.

[shrader]

http://members.shaw.ca/cdelosreyes/

 

We are not at the cap. We're about 5 million below it right now. Miller and Kalinen will take up 3+ million of that space. As dave mentioned on another thread, that Paille figure may not be accurate, but we will still have one more rostered player added to that list, which should more than account for any difference.

 

If you don't believe that the average salary is used as the cap hit, I suggest you skim through the CBA which you can find on nhlpa.com. That will quickly save the franchise from your attemped vilification.

[uptick75]

I don't have time to read the CBA, but I could assure you come, Oct.1 we will not be anywhere near the 44 million dollar cap #. We have not even signed Kalinin and Miller and we are assuming we are going to give 3 million a year. My point is that yes we may be at "39 million" avg salaries, but what counts is what you end up spending not on projections. And I believe that the Sabres are using this avg. to make it look like they are going to spend 44 million next year. I could be wrong, we will have to wait until the season starts to see

[Taro T]

So let me get this straight, now the cap # has to do with an avg. salary over the next four years and now we can't sign players because we might go over the cap. I'm sorry if I don't buy it hook line and sinker. This organization when it comes to money is very shady. Currently we are at about 35 1/2 (w/o Kalinin and Miller) and now I here because of all the back loaded contracts that we signed we are the 44 million cap. Considering my skeptical view on Sabres finances (ex. Split Rochester affliation and dropping scouting) could the Sabres have found a way to look like they are at the cap w/o even being anywhere near it. To me all that matters is what you actually spend not what you are projected to spend. So i think their plan is to sign mid teir guys to backloaded contracts to fit in the "44" million cap with the option of dropping your higher priced UFA's year in and year out. I also think that what we actually may spend less this year because of letting go of Biron and possibly insurance on connelly if he doesn't play. Either way I don't buy it, whether the radio station is selling it like crazy.

It doesn't work like it does in the NFL. In the NFL, contracts aren't guaranteed, in the NHL they are. Guys cut due to injury (or typically age) get every $ coming to them. Guys over 26 who are cut get 2/3 (and the team takes a hit against the cap) and guys who are under 26 typically get 1/3 (and the team takes a hit against the cap).

 

The league uses "average annual value" for calculating cap spending to keep players from getting screwed when they are older and to keep teams from getting around the cap.

 

Rather than just ignorantly rail against the team, you might consider following Shrader's suggestion and learn how the cap works. The NHL.com site provides CBA FAQ's which might be easier to digest.

 

I don't have time to read the CBA, but I could assure you come, Oct.1 we will not be anywhere near the 44 million dollar cap #. We have not even signed Kalinin and Miller and we are assuming we are going to give 3 million a year. My point is that yes we may be at "39 million" avg salaries, but what counts is what you end up spending not on projections. And I believe that the Sabres are using this avg. to make it look like they are going to spend 44 million next year. I could be wrong, we will have to wait until the season starts to see

I don't have time to respond to more of your drivel.

 

What you believe doesn't factor into it. You are wrong.

 

BTW, due to the mechanics of the cap, teams that are within $2MM of the cap have essentially no room to make roster adjustments, so if the Sabres cap # ends up ~$43MM, it's close enough for me to call it $44MM.

[uptick75]

Then explain to me how other teams that do spend near the cap, (ex.Bos, Phil) for the '06-'07 season stay under the avg. cap. I can tell you, there contracts are structured to pay their players the same or even less going forward. So they can spend the 44 million this year w/o it being affected by back loaded contracts. I know the money is guaranteed, but because of ufas and arbitration there are ways not pay that salary for the years to come.

[apuszczalowski]

Then explain to me how other teams that do spend near the cap, (ex.Bos, Phil) for the '06-'07 season stay under the avg. cap. I can tell you, there contracts are structured to pay their players the same or even less going forward. So they can spend the 44 million this year w/o it being affected by back loaded contracts. I know the money is guaranteed, but because of ufas and arbitration there are ways not pay that salary for the years to come.

Well, if you don't have the time to read or look into how the CBA works from the link they provided, what makes you think that they have the time to explain all this to you?

 

They have explained how the CBA is written for the cap, if you disagree, look it up yourself

 

Dave_b has spent alot of time reading and understanding the CBA, he has provided alot of info around here regarding it. If you don't like what he is telling you, find out for yourself

[mrjsbu96]

you are right. the sabres are a cheap organization with no intention of spending quite enough and are just trying to build up a couple of winning records to help take the next train out to Portland, Seattle, Kansas City, etc...

[Eleven]

If the Sabres' contracts were ridiculously backloaded ($1M this year, $5M in 2007-08 or something) AND if contracts weren't guaranteed (but they are), you might have a point. But the Sabres' contracts exhibit relatively modest increases over time and clearly are designed to keep players from moving towards RFA status too soon. Plus, they're guaranteed.

 

No one from the Sabres' organization is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you're really looking for something to be paranoid about, try the first section of the newspaper and not the sports section. Otherwise, take the pink pill and relax.

[uptick75]

I don't need to, because that one link that shows act. salary for '06-'07 and cap hit for '06-'07 proves my point. Buf Act. 35.481 Cap Hit 39.577 Boston Act. 38.538 Cap Hit 38.781. It is all about how you structure the contracts. There is a 4 million spread between act. payroll for the Sabres and a $200k gap for Boston, coincidence I don't think so. IT IS WHAT YOU PAY NOT WHAT YOUR CAP HIT IS. Next year the Sabres could drop Briere and Drury does that make that avg. mean anything, NO

[shrader]

Then explain to me how other teams that do spend near the cap, (ex.Bos, Phil) for the '06-'07 season stay under the avg. cap. I can tell you, there contracts are structured to pay their players the same or even less going forward. So they can spend the 44 million this year w/o it being affected by back loaded contracts. I know the money is guaranteed, but because of ufas and arbitration there are ways not pay that salary for the years to come.

 

I'm under the impression that the Sabres structured the contract this way so that future increases in revenue will cover the higher payroll that we'll most likely see in the next few seasons. Keeping this team together could mean a deep cup run, which would bring the extra revenue.

 

Also, from your example, you seem to expect the team to pay out $44 million each year. What's the difference between that and paying $40 million one year and $48 million the next year? If they feel like this team has the most potential for 2-3 years down the road, is it crazy to want to pay them less now than you would then?

 

 

Oh, and I wasn't suggesting that you read the entire CBA. Find an online copy of it, hit Ctrl+F, then search for salary cap. You can learn a lot just by doing that.

 

I don't need to, because that one link that shows act. salary for '06-'07 and cap hit for '06-'07 proves my point. Buf Act. 35.481 Cap Hit 39.577 Boston Act. 38.538 Cap Hit 38.781. It is all about how you structure the contracts. There is a 4 million spread between act. payroll for the Sabres and a $200k gap for Boston, coincidence I don't think so. IT IS WHAT YOU PAY NOT WHAT YOUR CAP HIT IS. Next year the Sabres could drop Briere and Drury does that make that avg. mean anything, NO

 

You may not want to consider Boston as a model franchise.

[phSabres84]

Article 50 of the CBA would be a good place for you to start!

[DaFan]

I don't need to, because that one link that shows act. salary for '06-'07 and cap hit for '06-'07 proves my point. Buf Act. 35.481 Cap Hit 39.577 Boston Act. 38.538 Cap Hit 38.781. It is all about how you structure the contracts. There is a 4 million spread between act. payroll for the Sabres and a $200k gap for Boston, coincidence I don't think so. IT IS WHAT YOU PAY NOT WHAT YOUR CAP HIT IS. Next year the Sabres could drop Briere and Drury does that make that avg. mean anything, NO

 

Know what... do some research and maybe then you can b*tch... it is more than apparent you will not be happy with any truth or explanation. So yes, the organization is out to screw you.. Happy now? CRIPES!!!

[uptick75]

My point in having to read the CBA is not about knowing all the specifics. I have a theory that everyone seems to be bashing me on, yet until it it actually plays out, it will hard to see who is right. If Boston does not fit a good model please also look at (Carolina 800k spread, Phil, Tor (there cap is less, Det, Cal, etc...) My point is that they will probably back load Kalinin's contract and Miller's and be at 42-43 cap hit, yet trade Biron for nothing and at the begining of the season be between 35-37 million yet tell everyone they are 44mill. BTW that 35-37 will be near the bottom of the league so we won't have to worry about revenue sharing. Next year will be even better. Everyone keeps throwing around guaranteed money, 21.35 million is the only thing that is guaranteed next year.

[shrader]

Everyone keeps throwing around guaranteed money, 21.35 million is the only thing that is guaranteed next year.

 

But that's only 10 players. Don't you think its a bit early to be questioning next years figure?

[uptick75]

Im not questioning next year's figure I am showing you that this projected can be altered very easily. By signing these back loaded contracts it gives them the allusion that they are spending the money, but can blame being a small mkt forever.

[JonathanH]

The salaries are different then the cap number.

 

For the cap number, the salaries are averaged out. Say a player was getting 1 million in year 1 then 2 million in year 2, and 3 million in year 3.

 

The cap number would be 2 million each year. 6/3= 2

 

People relax, why is everyone up in arms because they are spending money. Isn't that a good sign?

[shrader]

Im not questioning next year's figure I am showing you that this projected can be altered very easily. By signing these back loaded contracts it gives them the allusion that they are spending the money, but can blame being a small mkt forever.

 

Sure, they're paying less than their cap figure now, but at the end of these contracts, the payroll will be higher than the cap figure (assuming they hold onto these players).

[Bmwolf21]

JP, is that you? I know the team couldn't afford to pick up the arbitrator's award, but man, why all the hate? You'll find a place to land...

 

In all seriousness, I really don't know what to say. You started out with a nonsensical post, which was based on falsities, assumptions, and probably a healthy dose of NHL conspiracy theories. Some of the more knowledgable fans on here tried to help you understand, yet you accuse them of not understanding your "theory", which, again, is based on the ramblings of someone who admittedly hasn't even attempted to read or understand the CBA. Did you really join the board today to bitch about the Sabres and WGR trying to pull a fast one on the city and fans?

 

Seriously, take a deep breath, have a beer, and relax. Its summertime - go to the beach, go have a barbecue somewhere, something. Training camp is still few weeks off, so let's wait and see what happens between now & then. If you really need to vent, surf on over to "The Stadium Wall" at TwoBillsDrive.com - you'll feel right at home... ;)

[BetweenThePipes00]

Im not questioning next year's figure I am showing you that this projected can be altered very easily. By signing these back loaded contracts it gives them the allusion that they are spending the money, but can blame being a small mkt forever.

 

I can't even believe we are having this conversation. (Or that I am getting involved, but I can't help myself, I'm so easy ... )

 

Even if the cap number ends up at $44 million and they spend "only" $39 million in actual cash this season, how can you claim they are being shady when they increase payroll by $10 million?!?! Besides that, it is all out in the open for everyone to see, they are not trying to hide anything. You don't even understand how it all works, yet you managed to find the numbers and concoct this theory, so who are they hiding it from?

 

The other thing is ... what would the Sabres organization have to gain from this grand conspiracy? They get everyone excited for one season and then dump these guys and suck on purpose? Is that going to make them more money, pissing off the fans and having thousands of people cancel their season tickets next summer?

 

I miss the days when the conspiracy theory of the day was that the coach slept with the goalie's wife.

[uptick75]

First off most people have read or listen to the radio about how they are at the $44 million cap, they won't look at the hard numbers.

 

Secondly, they will still be in the bottom 10th of the league in salaries this year and again won't pick anyone at the trade deadline even if they have the money.

 

Why would they create this allusion? Maybe because they have 12k people that have gooten season tickets, the Sabres have never been more important in this area, and maybe they don't want to explain the real reason that don't want to spend the money....Tom is cheap.

 

I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard Regeir and the WGR guys now tell me that its the NHL's fault with this new CBA that we couldn''t sign our players, and I think that they are snowballing us. As I said before tell will only tell. The CBA works, it is just a matter of how much you want to spend. I don't think Calgary is a big market team, by any stretch and they have no problem spending their money

[Eleven]

First off most people have read or listen to the radio about how they are at the $44 million cap, they won't look at the hard numbers.

 

Secondly, they will still be in the bottom 10th of the league in salaries this year and again won't pick anyone at the trade deadline even if they have the money.

 

Why would they create this allusion? Maybe because they have 12k people that have gooten season tickets, the Sabres have never been more important in this area, and maybe they don't want to explain the real reason that don't want to spend the money....Tom is cheap.

 

I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard Regeir and the WGR guys now tell me that its the NHL's fault with this new CBA that we couldn''t sign our players, and I think that they are snowballing us. As I said before tell will only tell. The CBA works, it is just a matter of how much you want to spend. I don't think Calgary is a big market team, by any stretch and they have no problem spending their money

 

Was someone in your family at Jonestown or something? Why all the fear and loathing? Anyway, this is my final attempt.

 

1. The Sabres are NEAR the cap figure of 44M because the cap figure takes into account average salaries over the lives of contracts.

 

2. The Sabres didn't deliverately "backload" any contracts to increase the average for the cap figure while keeping actual salaries low: (a) examination of the contract payments doesn't lead to such a conclusion; (b) contracts are guaranteed in the NHL; © no indication that the Sabres will dump salary through trades in the future, especially if the cap rises.

 

3. The Sabres CANNOT spend over the cap figure. This has nothing to do with actual salaries paid; it has to do with overall compensation as long-term deals are considered.

 

4. But anyway, the Sabres WILL spend close to the cap figure this year, and will hit or nearly hit the limit imposed by the league when long-term deals are considered.

 

5. No one at HSBC is interested in "fooling" you into buying tickets. They'll come close to selling all they can print this year without such tactics.

[shrader]

Obviously its impossible to back this up right now, but why don't we let the team's results on the ice speak for them?

[BetweenThePipes00]

First off most people have read or listen to the radio about how they are at the $44 million cap, they won't look at the hard numbers.

Secondly, they will still be in the bottom 10th of the league in salaries this year and again won't pick anyone at the trade deadline even if they have the money.

Why would they create this allusion? Maybe because they have 12k people that have gooten season tickets, the Sabres have never been more important in this area, and maybe they don't want to explain the real reason that don't want to spend the money....Tom is cheap.

I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard Regeir and the WGR guys now tell me that its the NHL's fault with this new CBA that we couldn''t sign our players, and I think that they are snowballing us. As I said before tell will only tell. The CBA works, it is just a matter of how much you want to spend. I don't think Calgary is a big market team, by any stretch and they have no problem spending their money

 

Sorry but you make less sense and look like a bigger moron with every post.

 

Even if they did end up in the bottom 10 in payroll (which they won't, a quick check has at least 13 teams with a lower payroll and the Sabres still have Miller and Kalinin to pay), they have done what everyone wanted by keeping most of a great team together and locking much of it up for years to come. They are going to have a very good team again. Isn't that what counts? They did a good job developing younger players who cost less and you are complaining? Would you prefer they spend more "real" money this season and have a bad team with no future?

 

If you don't want to support the team because of some delusions about the owner being cheap when he spent millions of dollars to save something no one else would, then just don't support them, none of us will miss you. But don't just make baseless accusations and ignore the people who understand what is going on and try to explain it to you because it doesn't fit your fantasy world.

[Bmwolf21]

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

 

Dude, let's look at reality for a second. With 16 RFAs and 3 UFAs (according to TSN - I thought it was around 12 or 13), a salary cap and a successful season, you had to know that some guys wouldn't be coming back, thanks to payroll increases.

 

Tom is cheap? He greenlighted picking up Danny Briere's $5M arbitration award. He OK'ed bringing in Spacek at $3M+ for three years. He OK'ed locking up Max (3 years, $10M) & Connolly (3-year, $8.9M); Pominville, Campbell, Roy, Tallinder, Lydman & Kotlaik all signed long-term. Did you want the core of the team back to make another run? Fine, but we can't give them all raises AND bring in more hi-priced players.

 

As for the cap - you need to listen to what people are saying.

1 - They are real close to the cap right now, without adding Kalinin, Miller & 2 other players to the mix. They have approx. $3.5 - 4M to sign four players, so JP's gotta go, and someone else probably will as well.

2 - YES, our actual payroll number is lower than our cap hit, because the cap hit number takes into account the AVERAGE WORTH of the contract over the length of the contract. ($9M a year over 3 years = a $3M/year cap hit, regardless of how the salaries are structured.) By slightly backloading some of the contracts, the Sabres A) are counting on the cap to increase over the next few years; and B) have structured the salaries so the players are getting a modest raise each year (some more modest than others.)

 

I don't know where you are getting the "Bottom 10th" (sp) in payroll; and despite getting 12K in season ticket equivalents, you have to remember that the Sabres ticket prices rank toward the bottom of the NHL. We've been through this before - your options are to either raise the ticket prices, so we can spend to the cap each year; or ask Tom Golisano to dip into his own pocket, losses be damned, to prove to you that they aren't "snowballing" (isn't that an, ahem, "adult entertainment" term? I really don't want TG, Darcy, or anyone with the Sabres or WGR to snaowball me, but that's another story...)

[uptick75]

I personnally think you are in a fantasy world. Golisano did not put the Sabres in his trust account and write them as a charity. He took a chance (I'll give him that) and bought a bankrupt team for about 90million dollars. Pittsburgh's going price is about 170 million. Not a bad investment. The Sabres and the Bills need to stop selling this small market crap, there are small mkt. teams out there that spend money. If you want to believe Tom cares when after the season he explained how we should not expect this year's revenue to show in payrolls fine. The guy just does not have a passion for the team, as much as you think. This is an investment to him nothing else. The guy is worth over a billion dollars, spent 25 million on a campaign everyone knew he didn't have a shot in (that was his passion) and is worried about spending few extra million on top notch players (briere). Why didn't we sign him to long term deal or Drury or where is Miller's. Because then we actually would be spending that money. I am not a run of the mill Sabres fan. I have invested over 20 years passionately watching the Sabres, when the NHL came back with a salary cap I was estatic. However, I have come to realize the days of having superstars around after they become superstars are over. and that bothers me. shrader, you are right I think next year will be tell tale sign of the direction this team is going to make. We will see.