Fuzzy Math

[Stoner]

would a Bradford radio station really even want to put the games on? I don't know, maybe they would ... and maybe it is something they can do better, but it is not as easy as it is for the Bills. ...

I am not saying the Sabres are great at all this stuff, just that it is not as easy to regionalize a hockey franchise.

 

For a number of years before last season, yes, the Sabres were on a local FM station as part of the Sabres Radio Network. I have no clue about the business side of all this, but if losing the affiliate stations was another cost-cutting move, it's another example, like the cutting of the scouting department, of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. And the games were on Empire down here. Funny, but I've seen the number of Sabre hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers and flags dwindle in the past couple of years, even with the events of last spring. If you can't watch without a dish or even listen on the radio, how can you be a fan?

 

Marketing can sometimes involve the smallest of things. You know why I'm a Sabre fan? A cardboard cutout of Gilbert Perreault that probably cost the Sabres 10 cents to produce. In the spring of 75, my dad was a manager at a Tops store here in Bradford. The store gave out, or sold, I forget, the cutouts, in a collectible series. My dad brought one home and a couple nights later I decided to watch the Sabres playoff game with Montreal -- on network TV, Channel 2, I might add. My first game, my first overtime, and I was as nervous as a lifelong fan. My heart slid into my stomach, then Danny Gare slid into the boards after scoring and I was hooked. For good. It doesn't take much really.

[sabrefan100]

wow, great story, I just got goose bumps!!!! Long live gare and Gil!!!!

 

Hey Uptick, let me guess you hated gara and gil

[BetweenThePipes00]

 

For a number of years before last season, yes, the Sabres were on a local FM station as part of the Sabres Radio Network. I have no clue about the business side of all this, but if losing the affiliate stations was another cost-cutting move, it's another example, like the cutting of the scouting department, of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. And the games were on Empire down here. Funny, but I've seen the number of Sabre hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers and flags dwindle in the past couple of years, even with the events of last spring. If you can't watch without a dish or even listen on the radio, how can you be a fan?

 

Marketing can sometimes involve the smallest of things. You know why I'm a Sabre fan? A cardboard cutout of Gilbert Perreault that probably cost the Sabres 10 cents to produce. In the spring of 75, my dad was a manager at a Tops store here in Bradford. The store gave out, or sold, I forget, the cutouts, in a collectible series. My dad brought one home and a couple nights later I decided to watch the Sabres playoff game with Montreal -- on network TV, Channel 2, I might add. My first game, my first overtime, and I was as nervous as a lifelong fan. My heart slid into my stomach, then Danny Gare slid into the boards after scoring and I was hooked. For good. It doesn't take much really.

 

 

 

They probably lost the affiliation because there was no hockey for a year and they were replaced by other programming. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a big challenge to sell a game that disappeared for an entire year, especially to people who don't have an emotional attachment and probably didn't care about it much to begin with.

 

At the end of the day, I think it is way too early in the game to call Golisano cheap. Let's see how he manages a successful team. Before this year's playoffs, he had a franchise that was bleeding money really through no fault of his own. So far this summer he has increased player payroll by at least $10 million and reshuffled the scouting department to cut some costs. He spent money to keep the on-ice product successful, which will put people in the seats, which hopefully will mean he can stop cutting costs elsewhere. It's OK to say "Let's see how this plays out."

[Eleven]

They probably lost the affiliation because there was no hockey for a year and they were replaced by other programming. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a big challenge to sell a game that disappeared for an entire year, especially to people who don't have an emotional attachment and probably didn't care about it much to begin with.

 

 

Possibly replaced by another medium, as well: internet radio broadcasts of NHL games are free. But I think the factor you mention is a much bigger one.

 

As for the rest of the nonsense going on in this thread, may I offer two possible solutions:

 

1) Close the thread

 

2) In addition to The Harbor Club and The Trading Post, maybe TSR needs The Loony Bin.

[hopeleslyobvious]

They probably lost the affiliation because there was no hockey for a year and they were replaced by other programming. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a big challenge to sell a game that disappeared for an entire year, especially to people who don't have an emotional attachment and probably didn't care about it much to begin with.

 

At the end of the day, I think it is way too early in the game to call Golisano cheap. Let's see how he manages a successful team. Before this year's playoffs, he had a franchise that was bleeding money really through no fault of his own. So far this summer he has increased player payroll by at least $10 million and reshuffled the scouting department to cut some costs. He spent money to keep the on-ice product successful, which will put people in the seats, which hopefully will mean he can stop cutting costs elsewhere. It's OK to say "Let's see how this plays out."

 

 

It is ok to see how this plays out. Some will just complain no matter what, and not let the terms of the CBA get in the way of their conspiracy theories.

[sabrefan100]

I'm not sure what type of message boards you are used to, but the name calling and flaming will not be tolerated here. Please refrain from attacks.

SDS is a member of the TSR Admin Team group and has 602 posts.

Sent on: Today, 03:03 PM

 

 

 

 

OK I will agree to be censored, no more name calling. I am sorry if I offended some people in defense of the Sabres........... :angry:

[shrader]

As for the rest of the nonsense going on in this thread, may I offer two possible solutions:

 

The original poster is actually making some fair points, but I think his delivery wasn't the greatest. I think most people can't get past the overly negative tone.

[Bmwolf21]

Couple things I'd like to add:

First, Buffalo is small market. Period, end of story. So what - there are 20+ other small markets in pro sports that deal with the same pressures. Granted, regionalizing the Bills was a stroke of genius, but it is a heck of a lot easier to convince fans to drive 1 1/2, 2, even 3-4 hours for a Sunday afternoon game, when they have time to make it back home for work the next day. Its tough to ask guys from Rochester, Syracuse, the Southern Tier, etc., to drive a couple hours each way for a January/February Tuesday or Wednesday night game against the Thrashers or the Blue Jackets.

 

Secondly, the NFL gets a HELL of a lot more $$$$ from their national TV contract(S) - with multiple networks, on multiple nights, and to top it off, the NFL Sunday Ticket is about $125 more than Center Ice. Bottom line, the NFL plays with Monopoly money, while the NHL has to be MUCH more careful about revenues, attendance, marketing, etc. IIRC, Ralph Wilson's (and other small market owners') biggest small-market complaint in the last CBA negotiations was revenue sharing for things other than TV contracts - had to do with luxury boxes, "cash over cap" and other revenue areas.

 

At the end of the day, I think it is way too early in the game to call Golisano cheap. Let's see how he manages a successful team. Before this year's playoffs, he had a franchise that was bleeding money really through no fault of his own. So far this summer he has increased player payroll by at least $10 million and reshuffled the scouting department to cut some costs. He spent money to keep the on-ice product successful, which will put people in the seats, which hopefully will mean he can stop cutting costs elsewhere. It's OK to say "Let's see how this plays out."

 

Excellent points, BTP - I couldn't agree more. The first time the "TG is cheap" accusations came out, the Sabres turned around and signed almost all their RFAs and started bumping up against the cap. For now, I propose we shelve the "TG is cheap" talk until we have proof that his business model is hurting the Sabres on-ice product.

[Goodfella25]

Uptick75 - You make no sense. You are part of the problem with Buffalo. All of this negativity is disgusting. You have to be a liberal and hate the government too. You obviously don't like Tom because you are jealous of his money. The Sabres will win the cup this year. They have a great team and are doing everything they can to give us more years of Sabre bliss. Are you a season ticket holder? Do you even go to hockey games and support the team. My guess is probably not. You just wait for something to happen and cry cry cry. Thank God for Tom, Darcy, Lindy, and Larry Quinn. They are the reasons there is still a team in Buffalo...... Now go listen to your liberal radio and find something new to complain about. You are a joke..........

 

I'm out

 

 

Yeah that's right, go back to watching Fox News you idiot.

 

I don't agree with his posts either but if you think he's just mouthing off because he's a "liberal," that only shows your own ignorance.

 

Also, you don't have to be a season ticket holder to support the team bud. Get that one through your head. This is a message board and whether anyone agrees with him or not, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

[Taro T]

The original poster is actually making some fair points, but I think his delivery wasn't the greatest. I think most people can't get past the overly negative tone.

I respectfully disagree. The original poster has posted that he "believes" the Sabres are cheap and provides no data to support his accusation. Several posters here have provided references the original poster can check and then either "call BS" and provide data to support his claim or accept that maybe there are some points that he wasn't aware of.

 

The poster refuses to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the situation, but continues to spout his (totally unsupported) views. That is his right, but without providing any supporting data, he isn't making ANY points. He is still comparing the NHL's CBA with the other major sports leagues and it is totally different. His stating that he "believes" or has a "theory" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unfortunately.

 

It's kind of too bad that the guy refuses to try to bring facts into the discussion, because it could result in him "actually making some fair points". My guess is that he'll tire of getting slammed and leave before he reaches a point where he actually DOES bring something to the discussion. The thing is, if he'd support his opinion, it could lead to a good discussion. As it is, I can't believe I'm wasting my time posting in this thread again.

[shrader]

I respectfully disagree. The original poster has posted that he "believes" the Sabres are cheap and provides no data to support his accusation. Several posters here have provided references the original poster can check and then either "call BS" and provide data to support his claim or accept that maybe there are some points that he wasn't aware of.

 

The poster refuses to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the situation, but continues to spout his (totally unsupported) views. That is his right, but without providing any supporting data, he isn't making ANY points. He is still comparing the NHL's CBA with the other major sports leagues and it is totally different. His stating that he "believes" or has a "theory" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unfortunately.

 

It's kind of too bad that the guy refuses to try to bring facts into the discussion, because it could result in him "actually making some fair points". My guess is that he'll tire of getting slammed and leave before he reaches a point where he actually DOES bring something to the discussion. The thing is, if he'd support his opinion, it could lead to a good discussion. As it is, I can't believe I'm wasting my time posting in this thread again.

 

There really wasn't much to support what he was saying. I can see how someone looking at the short term only will complain that the escalating salaries knocks the cap figure up, keeping the actual payroll lower. But like you said, problems start popping up when the poster ignores anyone who counters those ideas, instead only rehashing the same exact comments again.

 

The real thing that destroys a lot of threads, though is that most people aren't capable of replying to "you're an idiot" with anything other than "no, you're an idiot".

[Eleven]

I respectfully disagree. The original poster has posted that he "believes" the Sabres are cheap and provides no data to support his accusation. Several posters here have provided references the original poster can check and then either "call BS" and provide data to support his claim or accept that maybe there are some points that he wasn't aware of.

 

The poster refuses to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the situation, but continues to spout his (totally unsupported) views. That is his right, but without providing any supporting data, he isn't making ANY points. He is still comparing the NHL's CBA with the other major sports leagues and it is totally different. His stating that he "believes" or has a "theory" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unfortunately.

 

It's kind of too bad that the guy refuses to try to bring facts into the discussion, because it could result in him "actually making some fair points". My guess is that he'll tire of getting slammed and leave before he reaches a point where he actually DOES bring something to the discussion. The thing is, if he'd support his opinion, it could lead to a good discussion. As it is, I can't believe I'm wasting my time posting in this thread again.

 

Maybe the poster comes back sometime with a different opinion on a different topic which opinion is supported by some facts, or at least reasonable surmise. It's not my board, but I take the "all are welcome" approach. At least he wasn't offensive; same can't be said for certain participants in the thread.

 

Yeah that's right, go back to watching Fox News you idiot.

 

I don't agree with his posts either but if you think he's just mouthing off because he's a "liberal," that only shows your own ignorance.

 

 

It never was explained why he's characterized as "liberal." His posts regard hockey; for all I know, he's as liberal as Bush (EITHER Bush--the one running the country or the one with the title suggesting he does). And for all I know, he's left of Mother Theresa. We have no idea. That never was answered, but it needn't be answered, either, as far as I care.

[uptick75]

I thought this post was dead yesterday, until I checked it tonight and found more posts. I have stayed silent, have been attacked from various posters (which does not bother me in the least bit) and I felt that I should one last time explain myself and answer some of your responses.

 

I respectfully disagree. The original poster has posted that he "believes" the Sabres are cheap and provides no data to support his accusation. Several posters here have provided references the original poster can check and then either "call BS" and provide data to support his claim or accept that maybe there are some points that he wasn't aware of.

 

The poster refuses to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the situation, but continues to spout his (totally unsupported) views. That is his right, but without providing any supporting data, he isn't making ANY points. He is still comparing the NHL's CBA with the other major sports leagues and it is totally different. His stating that he "believes" or has a "theory" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unfortunately.

 

It's kind of too bad that the guy refuses to try to bring facts into the discussion, because it could result in him "actually making some fair points". My guess is that he'll tire of getting slammed and leave before he reaches a point where he actually DOES bring something to the discussion. The thing is, if he'd support his opinion, it could lead to a good discussion. As it is, I can't believe I'm wasting my time posting in this thread again

 

 

My theory is just that a theory. What data would you like me use to support it? Would you rather me say I was at the HSBC Arena and overheard Regeir talking about his plan. My theory was based on how this organiztion tends to skirt around issues and is now using its radio station to help with their pr. My theory is that this has been a very long offseason, coming off a season of high expectations and the building of a season ticket base, I feel that Tom was under much pressure to do something. Prior to arbitration, all I heard was we needed to stay under our cap and it's up to Tom what we spend and then all of sudden they lose Dumont (which I don't believe was worth it either) and now all I heard is that we are going to hit the NHL cap. And for the next 30 minutes I heard the shills continue pounding the point home that we are now at the NHL cap and how the new CBA was wrong.

 

You guys have told me repeatedly to read the CBA. I have read your posts about the CBA and obviously you guys know what your talking about. But this is not a CBA issue, this is a perception issue. The Sabres will sell to everyone how they are at the cap and how Tom is dedicated to this team. And I am sorry I don't buy it. I look at this offseason, as a catch22 for the Sabres. You signed all these guys to one year contracts, had by far the most arbs. , and you had to get some deals done, you couldnt blow up the team after last year. Considering all of these factors, the pressure from the fans to sign everyone, the pressure of Tom opening up his wallet, and the history of this team spining everything, is it impossible to believe that these guys (Golisano, Quinn, and Regeir) in their daily meetings about "what the fans will think" and " how this is the most I will spend" that they are using CBA to help support how they can't sign anyone else or how we are now at the NHL Cap. I know that is huge conspiracy theory, but I don't trust these guys and have many reasons to support that. The CBA does make it convenient enough to attempt this because it is based on avgs going forward and not on what you spend in that given year. Next year they could dump Drury and Briere, which means the avg. salaries mean nothing. As we have said many times we are going to have to just wait and see. Many of you think Tom has seen the light,and all of sudden he is willing to spend money on payrolls (his biggest cost) even though he continues to cut costs on less expensive essentials just to save money (scouting, affiliation). I don't, we are just going to let this play out.

 

I think it is funny how people on this board are blasting me for telling you what " I believe" or "feel" . First as stated before this a theory based on the Sabres past performance of spinning things not on actual facts of hearing someone from the team actually saying things. But I am sure if I went threw this board I could find many people arguing points on the feelings and what there guts without knowing for sure if they are right are wrong (ex. the ugly jersey). I am not basing my feelings about the Sabres on strictly what I listen on the radio, I have watched this team for over 20 years. I have supported my feelings about the owner's tight wallet and the organizaton's spin control with some facts, you just don't agree. Either way no hard feelings and maybe in the future on this board, I will talk about what goalie is better etc.. and we may actually agree.

[mrjsbu96]

uptick - let me try a new approach b/c i still do not totally understand your point/rationale.

 

what do you believe the Sabres could HAVE done or SHOULD have done that would have prevented you from starting this thread several days ago?

 

Or, are you simply the type that does not trust government, corporations, etc and that JFK, etc was all a cover-up? (that is not a slam, but rather an honest question and might help me better understand why you feel this way)

[BetweenThePipes00]

uptick ... I hate to pile on, I see where you are coming from better than I did at the start of this thing, and I appreciate your passion as a fan. But you really need to get over this one.

Here's my problem with your whole theory, and I have brought it up before and it probably got lost amid all the others attacking you, so I'll try again: Your whole argument is that TG is cheap, right? He wants to trick the fans into THINKING he spent money so they will buy tickets and then he makes more money, right? That's the ultimate goal, right. HIM MAKING MORE MONEY. (I assume you don't think he is tricking the fans just for fun, the goal of this master plan HAS to be to make more money at the end.)

And if that is the goal, this is the dumbest way ever to do it. First of all, he is taking a big risk that he might not even make money THIS season. I understand they are selling a ton of season tickets, but those are also purchased at the lowest possible price compared to buying them at the box office. Make no mistake, by raising player payroll by around $10 million, he needs this team to win a playoff round or two to get back into the black. They made a very small profit last season only because they made that run. So this is not a slam dunk that he is making a quick buck this season.

But let's say they do make another run and he makes $10-15 million this season. (Keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, $15 million is to him what $150 is to you and me, and at this point he would still be MILLIONS in the red since buying the team)

Now it's next summer and ... what happens? By your plan, he "dumps Drury and Briere" and I assume does not replace them .. leaving him with what. Oh yeah, a bunch of backloaded GUARANTEED contracts that he HAS to pay. If you look at the list (http://members.shaw.ca/cdelosreyes/buf.html) they are committed to more than $21 million now for that season, plus at least $2 million for Kotalik (I assume he didn't take a paycut for next season) and $10 million when you work in reasonable deals for Miller, Kalinin, Roy and Vanek, restricted free agents who will not sign elsewhere because no team will give up the draft picks in compensation to get them. So they are committed to spend $33 million plus whatever it costs to replace Teppo, Drury and Briere. Sure that is less than this coming season, but only if they do nothing to replace Briere, Drury and Teppo. And that will piss people off and hurt ticket sales and cost him some revenue, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it have made more sense to sign all these guys to one-year deals, still keeping the team together and selling all these tickets and making a quick buck but then next season be committed to less salary so you can keep payroll even lower?

So let's review. if everything goes like you say, he makes a little money this season IF they make another deep playoff run, at which point he dumps a couple big salaries, which pisses fans off (hurting revenue) and making the team worse (again hurting revenue, assuming they do not go as far in the playoffs). So his big master plan "tricked" the fans into giving him a few extra million (a drop in the bucket to him) for one season and now his payroll is going UP every year because of backloaded deals and his revenues are going DOWN because the team is worse and fans are pissed. Does this still sound like a good idea?

Of course, they COULD bring back Briere or Drury (or replace them with legit talent like Spacek for McKee), and the team could remain a Cup contender and maybe even win the whole thing some day, and the fans will keep flocking to buy tickets and, God forbid, TG might make money along the way. How dare he use fans like that to make money. ;)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but do you see what I am saying? Show me the motive here. The only possible motive is to make a quick buck, and this is not the way to do it.

[hopeleslyobvious]

I thought this post was dead yesterday, until I checked it tonight and found more posts. I have stayed silent, have been attacked from various posters (which does not bother me in the least bit) and I felt that I should one last time explain myself and answer some of your responses.

 

I respectfully disagree. The original poster has posted that he "believes" the Sabres are cheap and provides no data to support his accusation. Several posters here have provided references the original poster can check and then either "call BS" and provide data to support his claim or accept that maybe there are some points that he wasn't aware of.

 

The poster refuses to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the situation, but continues to spout his (totally unsupported) views. That is his right, but without providing any supporting data, he isn't making ANY points. He is still comparing the NHL's CBA with the other major sports leagues and it is totally different. His stating that he "believes" or has a "theory" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unfortunately.

 

It's kind of too bad that the guy refuses to try to bring facts into the discussion, because it could result in him "actually making some fair points". My guess is that he'll tire of getting slammed and leave before he reaches a point where he actually DOES bring something to the discussion. The thing is, if he'd support his opinion, it could lead to a good discussion. As it is, I can't believe I'm wasting my time posting in this thread again

My theory is just that a theory. What data would you like me use to support it? Would you rather me say I was at the HSBC Arena and overheard Regeir talking about his plan. My theory was based on how this organiztion tends to skirt around issues and is now using its radio station to help with their pr. My theory is that this has been a very long offseason, coming off a season of high expectations and the building of a season ticket base, I feel that Tom was under much pressure to do something. Prior to arbitration, all I heard was we needed to stay under our cap and it's up to Tom what we spend and then all of sudden they lose Dumont (which I don't believe was worth it either) and now all I heard is that we are going to hit the NHL cap. And for the next 30 minutes I heard the shills continue pounding the point home that we are now at the NHL cap and how the new CBA was wrong.

 

You guys have told me repeatedly to read the CBA. I have read your posts about the CBA and obviously you guys know what your talking about. But this is not a CBA issue, this is a perception issue. The Sabres will sell to everyone how they are at the cap and how Tom is dedicated to this team. And I am sorry I don't buy it. I look at this offseason, as a catch22 for the Sabres. You signed all these guys to one year contracts, had by far the most arbs. , and you had to get some deals done, you couldnt blow up the team after last year. Considering all of these factors, the pressure from the fans to sign everyone, the pressure of Tom opening up his wallet, and the history of this team spining everything, is it impossible to believe that these guys (Golisano, Quinn, and Regeir) in their daily meetings about "what the fans will think" and " how this is the most I will spend" that they are using CBA to help support how they can't sign anyone else or how we are now at the NHL Cap. I know that is huge conspiracy theory, but I don't trust these guys and have many reasons to support that. The CBA does make it convenient enough to attempt this because it is based on avgs going forward and not on what you spend in that given year. Next year they could dump Drury and Briere, which means the avg. salaries mean nothing. As we have said many times we are going to have to just wait and see. Many of you think Tom has seen the light,and all of sudden he is willing to spend money on payrolls (his biggest cost) even though he continues to cut costs on less expensive essentials just to save money (scouting, affiliation). I don't, we are just going to let this play out.

 

I think it is funny how people on this board are blasting me for telling you what " I believe" or "feel" . First as stated before this a theory based on the Sabres past performance of spinning things not on actual facts of hearing someone from the team actually saying things. But I am sure if I went threw this board I could find many people arguing points on the feelings and what there guts without knowing for sure if they are right are wrong (ex. the ugly jersey). I am not basing my feelings about the Sabres on strictly what I listen on the radio, I have watched this team for over 20 years. I have supported my feelings about the owner's tight wallet and the organizaton's spin control with some facts, you just don't agree. Either way no hard feelings and maybe in the future on this board, I will talk about what goalie is better etc.. and we may actually agree.

 

 

It doesn't matter who they lose this year. That doesn't change the fact that they are in salary cap trouble this year.

 

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

 

Add Miller and Kalinin in there, and we are running out of room.

[Taro T]

I thought this post was dead yesterday, until I checked it tonight and found more posts. I have stayed silent, have been attacked from various posters (which does not bother me in the least bit) and I felt that I should one last time explain myself and answer some of your responses.

 

My theory is just that a theory. What data would you like me use to support it? Would you rather me say I was at the HSBC Arena and overheard Regeir talking about his plan. My theory was based on how this organiztion tends to skirt around issues and is now using its radio station to help with their pr. My theory is that this has been a very long offseason, coming off a season of high expectations and the building of a season ticket base, I feel that Tom was under much pressure to do something. Prior to arbitration, all I heard was we needed to stay under our cap and it's up to Tom what we spend and then all of sudden they lose Dumont (which I don't believe was worth it either) and now all I heard is that we are going to hit the NHL cap. And for the next 30 minutes I heard the shills continue pounding the point home that we are now at the NHL cap and how the new CBA was wrong.

 

You guys have told me repeatedly to read the CBA. I have read your posts about the CBA and obviously you guys know what your talking about. But this is not a CBA issue, this is a perception issue. The Sabres will sell to everyone how they are at the cap and how Tom is dedicated to this team. And I am sorry I don't buy it. I look at this offseason, as a catch22 for the Sabres. You signed all these guys to one year contracts, had by far the most arbs. , and you had to get some deals done, you couldnt blow up the team after last year. Considering all of these factors, the pressure from the fans to sign everyone, the pressure of Tom opening up his wallet, and the history of this team spining everything, is it impossible to believe that these guys (Golisano, Quinn, and Regeir) in their daily meetings about "what the fans will think" and " how this is the most I will spend" that they are using CBA to help support how they can't sign anyone else or how we are now at the NHL Cap. I know that is huge conspiracy theory, but I don't trust these guys and have many reasons to support that. The CBA does make it convenient enough to attempt this because it is based on avgs going forward and not on what you spend in that given year. Next year they could dump Drury and Briere, which means the avg. salaries mean nothing. As we have said many times we are going to have to just wait and see. Many of you think Tom has seen the light,and all of sudden he is willing to spend money on payrolls (his biggest cost) even though he continues to cut costs on less expensive essentials just to save money (scouting, affiliation). I don't, we are just going to let this play out.

 

I think it is funny how people on this board are blasting me for telling you what " I believe" or "feel" . First as stated before this a theory based on the Sabres past performance of spinning things not on actual facts of hearing someone from the team actually saying things. But I am sure if I went threw this board I could find many people arguing points on the feelings and what there guts without knowing for sure if they are right are wrong (ex. the ugly jersey). I am not basing my feelings about the Sabres on strictly what I listen on the radio, I have watched this team for over 20 years. I have supported my feelings about the owner's tight wallet and the organizaton's spin control with some facts, you just don't agree. Either way no hard feelings and maybe in the future on this board, I will talk about what goalie is better etc.. and we may actually agree.

Some responses to your points highlighted above with additional spaces between responses.

 

What data? How about ANY that supports your position? There is some that is out there, but you appear to be too lazy to find it and use it to back your theory. The Sabres currently have an average annual salary that is $3.3MM higher than this season's salary, prior to Ryan and Dmitri being signed. Because of the way the contracts are structured, at this moment in time, the team's average salary NEXT SEASON will be ~$1MM LOWER than the actual salary. (The signings of players like Hecht and Drury will affect it, but that is where it stands right now.) If the Sabres start dumping players like Campbell, Lydman, Max, and Pominville who's average salary will be less than their actual salary, then you might have an argument. As it is, right now, you have a theory that doesn't appear to be close to the reality of the existing situation. Considering the team hasn't built up enough good will to start a salary dump and not have it adversely affect the team's net revenues, I don't see it happening. This isn't the mid-70's when people would have bought tickets to watch whatever the team put on the ice, the fan support for this team is VERY elastic and purging the team of "it's core" would cause a huge backlash and hit Tom in the wallet hard.

 

A major flaw in the theory that the team signed guys to deals that pay a lot of money down the road to trade or dump them when the big money years arrive is that the salaries are guaranteed. If the Sabres can't find trading partners (and there is no guarantee that someone will want to pay Timmy ~$3.5MM in 2 years) there is no other way to get rid of the entire salary. If they cut a player they will be on the hook for 67-100% of the salary. If they send a player with a 1 way contract to Ra-cha-cha, Tom has to pay the full salary AND the player has to clear waivers on the way back UP in addition to the traditional waivers to get sent down. If the player gets claimed on the way back up, the Sabres lose the player AND have to pay 50% of his salary. That doesn't sound like a good option for a "cheap" organization, IMHO.

 

Just out of curiosity, not that this is directly applicable to Tom's "cheapness", but it is tangentially, can you show me any teams that have lost fewer "core" players than the Sabres have? (If you can come up with more than 5, I'll be extremely surprised.) The Sabres have lost McKee (who was replaced by Spacek, which is at minimum a wash if not an upgrade), Grier, and probably Dumont (I don't consider Pyatt nor Janik nor the likely loss of Rory to be losses of core players), for a net loss of 2.

 

As I posted before, if you'd bring some data to support your position we may be able to have a good discussion, but it is difficult when you keep coming back with nothing.

 

 

 

This IS a CBA issue, not a perception issue. Your continued insistance to not understand the CBA does not change the fact that this is a CBA issue. You point out that Boston's average salary is essentially the same as it's actual salary, so there must be some sort of a conspiracy. How about looking at their numbers and realizing that they (and other teams as well) have over $1MM worth of buyouts in their salary cap #? The Sabres can only get to close to $41MM this season without making trades. The Bruins can't go over $42.8MM - period. They will have a buyout hit next year as well as Green's buyout will be charged against them next year as well. The fact that YOUR perception of how the CBA works is different than how it actually does, does not make it a perception issue. It makes it a comprehension issue and we have provided several resources for you to improve your comprehension.

 

 

 

You claim that you have supported your feelings "with some facts" and that I disagree with the facts. No, I don't disagree with your facts, I disagree that you have brought out any to support your position other than the restructuring of the scouting department which is a concern of mine as well. (I don't consider the joint affiliation an issue because that is more of a case of the Amerks not wanting to provide ANY players for their team rather than the Sabres being cheap. Most AHL teams provide SOME of their own players, the Amerks don't provide ANY. I don't recall seeing you present any other examples of "cheapness".) Having watched the Sabres be cheap for 20 years (as you imply) doesn't prove much when the new ownership group has only had 2 full seasons of hockey under their belt.

 

Just because the genius Mike D'ohopp didn't realize the Sabres were close to the cap prior to losing Dumont doesn't mean people here weren't aware of it long before that. You say that happened "all of a sudden", but it didn't. It was building the entire off season, or at least it has been since Briere received his arbitration award.

 

 

 

Having Briere or Drury walk will have an extremely negligible effect on the Sabres delta between the average salary and the annual salary because Briere's salary doesn't factor into that at all currently and Drury's contract ending will actually add $75k to the gap as his actual salary will be higher than his annual salary. Neither one walking will be attributable to the NHL's salary cap unless the cap goes down significantly after this next season.

[Bmwolf21]

Wow. In the words of the immortal Cousin Eddie - "I haven't seen a beatin' like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose."

[shrader]

You point out that Boston's average salary is essentially the same as it's actual salary, so there must be some sort of a conspiracy. How about looking at their numbers and realizing that they (and other teams as well) have over $1MM worth of buyouts in their salary cap #? The Sabres can only get to close to $41MM this season without making trades. The Bruins can't go over $42.8MM - period. They will have a buyout hit next year as well as Green's buyout will be charged against them next year as well.

 

Another thing that may come into play here is how many of these contracts were signed before the new CBA was put in place. It looks like we have 3: Drury, Vanek, and Hecht (?). I don't know the Bruins situation well enough to count theirs. If these other teams have more of these older contracts, it would seem reasonable to think that our payroll is better structured to the rules of the new CBA.

 

There may be nothing to this, but I'm just throwing it out there.

[Taro T]

Another thing that may come into play here is how many of these contracts were signed before the new CBA was put in place. It looks like we have 3: Drury, Vanek, and Hecht (?). I don't know the Bruins situation well enough to count theirs. If these other teams have more of these older contracts, it would seem reasonable to think that our payroll is better structured to the rules of the new CBA.

 

There may be nothing to this, but I'm just throwing it out there.

IIRC, the Bruins had the fewest players under contract on the day the CBA was signed with 4.

[uptick75]

The two sources of my theory are the team's cheapness and spin control. I will now list the facts that I base thse things on.

 

 

Spin-

 

1.) Quinn- I call him the private politician. He is as pompous as they come and is at the head of the team's spin department. The jersey fiasco is my proof about how this team will take the goodwill of this community (jersey change coming soon) and then go the way they want whether the fans like it or not. Would have been so hard to get feed back from the fans. His past dealings with the team have shown that instead of making decisions between keeping one of the best gms in the league or a fan favorite coach, he got rid of both. Brilliant.

 

2.) Trade Deadline- This category can go under both cheap and spin. The teams that win in this league always do a little tweaking of there roster near the trade deadline or if they know they are going to dump someone they try to get value for them. 2 years ago, we had satan and the deadline we could have dumped for something knowing that we were not going to pick up his contract over the off season, of course they didn't and got nothing for him. Last year we were at 29 million and on the verge of the playoffs and nothing was done because of chemistry. They could have done somthing, I don't care if it was to just add depth, they could have done something.

 

3.) Free Agency- We have signed 3 players since the new CBA, 3. They are still at 39 mill in cap value, we will see where they end up. But we have lost our best defensive defensemen, our most gritty player and two forwards and have added one player. Im not saying they have to sign Dumont, but they still have room to structure the last two contracts to fit another player, it is not impossible, however we will have to see what they do, but considering they will probably trade Biron they will have room.

 

4.) Affiliation/Scouting- This is a cost cutting move plain and simple and one that could hurt a team that relies so heavily on prospects. Gaustud probably would have slipped through cracks if he was on last year's Rochester team. And in regards to scouting the spin is on, innovative are you kidding me it is blatant reason to dump money.

 

5.) Player's feelings- This is one that could hurt is down the road, there are alot of players that have complianed about how we handle contracts. Tom said if it was up to him he would pay players by the day and that he hates long term deals. It seems as if many players if they the choice between Team A and the Sabres are choosing Team A bevcause they don't want to deal with the team. One last thing I dont expect the Sabres to be Tampa Bay and sign all there best players too long term contracts, but under the Golisano admin, we have you have yet to sign a top guy to long term contract for over 4 million, which in today's NHL is a top 20 guy.

 

I could go on but I can't think of everything right now. Am I pessimistic about the Sabres, maybe too much. But as much as I am moron for my views, I think defending the Sabres over everything could be questioned also. The topic on scouting is a prime example. I have read how innovative it is and how we could be ahead of the curve. But I would imaginemost unbiased opinions would be that is cheap.

[nfreeman]

I'd just like to point out that this board has great, knowledgeable fans who are starved for some real hockey news. That is the only explanation for a 4-page thread resulting from a pile of incoherent, uninformed psychobabble.

 

Uptick -- IMHO, you are of course welcome to post your thoughts here, but people here generally try to do the others the courtesy of taking the time to support their posts with facts. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

You don't have to read the entire CBA -- I doubt that more than 2 or 3 posters on this board have done so. But a bit of google and a few minutes of thinking will inform you as to the critical facets of the CBA and cap, which really aren't very complicated.

 

When does camp start?

[uptick75]

Back to reading the CBA. Yes, I have not read it and maybe I am not too informed, but can someone please some answer this question for me. Can my theory be done. Which means you hike the cap, by backloading contracts, (42-44 mill) yet actually only pay 35-37 after trading Biron, and then next year dump your UFA's to drop the actual payroll down. Let's get away from the CBA and how teams use it. Can this be done. And if it can, wouldn't best work in a year that you are under the most pressure to spend money.

[X. Benedict]

Let's get away from the CBA and how teams use it. Can this be done. And if it can, wouldn't best work in a year that you are under the most pressure to spend money.

You can't. The pressures to make a team under the CBA and also be profitable really trump any issues about spin control. This has been the most demanding offseason that I can remember in team history - once they have a team together they will start worrying about how to sell it.

 

Second guessing is the nature of sports, but let's not put the cart before the horse.

 

The CBA that you haven't read is probably the best frame for understanding almost all of this team's offseason moves. Actually I think Regier has been very frank about most of the realities facing the team.

 

The second context I think you should keep in mind the moves of the other final 4 teams, that would be a pretty good gage of how the Buffalo offseason is going.

[hopeleslyobvious]

The two sources of my theory are the team's cheapness and spin control. I will now list the facts that I base thse things on.

Spin-

 

1.) Quinn- I call him the private politician. He is as pompous as they come and is at the head of the team's spin department. The jersey fiasco is my proof about how this team will take the goodwill of this community (jersey change coming soon) and then go the way they want whether the fans like it or not. Would have been so hard to get feed back from the fans. His past dealings with the team have shown that instead of making decisions between keeping one of the best gms in the league or a fan favorite coach, he got rid of both. Brilliant.

 

2.) Trade Deadline- This category can go under both cheap and spin. The teams that win in this league always do a little tweaking of there roster near the trade deadline or if they know they are going to dump someone they try to get value for them. 2 years ago, we had satan and the deadline we could have dumped for something knowing that we were not going to pick up his contract over the off season, of course they didn't and got nothing for him. Last year we were at 29 million and on the verge of the playoffs and nothing was done because of chemistry. They could have done somthing, I don't care if it was to just add depth, they could have done something.

 

3.) Free Agency- We have signed 3 players since the new CBA, 3. They are still at 39 mill in cap value, we will see where they end up. But we have lost our best defensive defensemen, our most gritty player and two forwards and have added one player. Im not saying they have to sign Dumont, but they still have room to structure the last two contracts to fit another player, it is not impossible, however we will have to see what they do, but considering they will probably trade Biron they will have room.

 

4.) Affiliation/Scouting- This is a cost cutting move plain and simple and one that could hurt a team that relies so heavily on prospects. Gaustud probably would have slipped through cracks if he was on last year's Rochester team. And in regards to scouting the spin is on, innovative are you kidding me it is blatant reason to dump money.

 

5.) Player's feelings- This is one that could hurt is down the road, there are alot of players that have complianed about how we handle contracts. Tom said if it was up to him he would pay players by the day and that he hates long term deals. It seems as if many players if they the choice between Team A and the Sabres are choosing Team A bevcause they don't want to deal with the team. One last thing I dont expect the Sabres to be Tampa Bay and sign all there best players too long term contracts, but under the Golisano admin, we have you have yet to sign a top guy to long term contract for over 4 million, which in today's NHL is a top 20 guy.

 

I could go on but I can't think of everything right now. Am I pessimistic about the Sabres, maybe too much. But as much as I am moron for my views, I think defending the Sabres over everything could be questioned also. The topic on scouting is a prime example. I have read how innovative it is and how we could be ahead of the curve. But I would imaginemost unbiased opinions would be that is cheap.

 

I will respond to your points that I really disagree with.

 

2. Trading Deadline: Ok, maybe we could have made some moves. But who did you want, and what would you have been willing to give up for him? There are some moves that we could have made, but in all honesty if it wasn't for a string of freakish injuries, the team would have won the cup. Along those lines, please name 1 team that could go down to #10 on their defensive depth chart and still come within 20 minutes of the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

3. I disagree with your assessment of McKee. He is a solid top 4 defenseman, but he is one dimmensional. He has trouble moving the puck up ice at times, and he is not as mobile as the rest of our blueline. Stating that he was our best defensive defenseman is a matter of opinion. But if he was the best, how come Tallinder and Lydman always found themselves paired up against the other team's top line (not to mention tying for the league lead in +/- in the playoffs while doing so). If the team had signed McKee, they would have even less room to sign Miller and Kalinin.

 

As for losing 2 forwards, the team did a lot to try to keep Grier around, so I don't think you can really blame them for that. And please don't tell me you're complaining about not having Pyatt around anymore.

 

4. Who's to say that this is not innovative? Maybe it's cost cutting and innovative. I am not a huge fan of the move, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. I will become critical when we fall a step behind the rest of the league in scouting.

 

5. Can you honestly say the team does not give out long term deals? I think Darcy has done a great job this summer of locking in a lot of good players long term. I think you are making too big of a deal about not having any long term deals for over $4 million. Look at it this way, the more money you spend on one player, the less you have to spend on the rest of your team. The teams that are handing out the really big contracts are doing so at the cost of depth. I am going to judge the team by how the roster looks top to bottom, and not how many big name players are on the team.