THN Letter of the week

[hopeleslyobvious]

I had to scratch my head a little bit after reading THN this week (Volume 60, Number 2).

 

Being a fan of the small-market Buffalo Sabres has never been easy, especially in the off-season.

While many teams search for the missing pieces to the Stanley Cup puzzle, teams such as the Sabres struggle to simply hold on to the most talented players on the roster. There is little or no discussion of a big-name free agent coming in to complete the roster, only the anguish of watching players who developed in the organization leave for bigger markets.

The new CBA has done little to protect teams such as the Sabres from surviving arbitration, let alone free agency. So much has changed on the ice in the new NHL while so little has changed off of it.

 

I think the reader is a little off base. Maybe if the Sabres had the same payroll as last year his letter would make sense, but the Sabres aren't limited by their budget this summer, they are limited by the salary cap.

 

The Sabres lost some players this summer because they chose to have depth rather than top loading the roster. Jay McKee, a top 4 defenseman would have cost $4 million to keep around. For about the same price the team signed a top 2 defenseman (Tallinder) and a top 6 defenseman (Campbell). Sure it would have been nice to keep McKee around, but the team can only spend $44 million. If McKee makes $4 million, that is less money that can be spent on someone else.

 

The same argument holds true for the reader's point about no big name free agents coming to Buffalo. This summer the biggest name was Chara. He went for $7.5 million. The Sabre signed their top 2 defenseman and a top 4 defenseman for less money (Tallinder, Lydman and Kalinin).

 

I find it kind of frustrating that some still don't recognize that this team's biggest strength last year was the ability to roll 4 good lines, and 6 good defenseman, and that spending big money on a single player can have a significant effect on a team's ability to do that.

[Goodfella25]

I had to scratch my head a little bit after reading THN this week (Volume 60, Number 2).

I think the reader is a little off base. Maybe if the Sabres had the same payroll as last year his letter would make sense, but the Sabres aren't limited by their budget this summer, they are limited by the salary cap.

 

The Sabres lost some players this summer because they chose to have depth rather than top loading the roster. Jay McKee, a top 4 defenseman would have cost $4 million to keep around. For about the same price the team signed a top 2 defenseman (Tallinder) and a top 6 defenseman (Campbell). Sure it would have been nice to keep McKee around, but the team can only spend $44 million. If McKee makes $4 million, that is less money that can be spent on someone else.

 

The same argument holds true for the reader's point about no big name free agents coming to Buffalo. This summer the biggest name was Chara. He went for $7.5 million. The Sabre signed their top 2 defenseman and a top 4 defenseman for less money (Tallinder, Lydman and Kalinin).

 

I find it kind of frustrating that some still don't recognize that this team's biggest strength last year was the ability to roll 4 good lines, and 6 good defenseman, and that spending big money on a single player can have a significant effect on a team's ability to do that.

 

 

The salary cap is the key here. No one can blame the Sabres for not going after the so-called "big name" free agents. The author of the letter simply hasn't done their homework and looked at how dangerously close to the cap limit we are. The team's actions this offseason don't look like those of a team "suffering" as a small market team, but rather quite the opposite. Nonetheless, the letter is much smarter than anything any bills fans could come up with :lol:

[apuszczalowski]

I agree somewhat with the guy writing the letter. He is talkiong about how the CBA and Salary cap are supposed to protect clubs like the Sabres when really they don't. Things like Arbitration really threw a wrench in the Sabres plans, along with teams still over spending (something the new CBA was supposed to control). The Sabres tried to keep their roster together but couldn't because of other teams willing to overspend (St. Louis OVERSPENDING on McKee and Arbitration awarding a $5 mil deal to Briere and a large deal to Dumont)

 

Now some of this was brought on by Darcy by being to conserative last year in signing only one year deals (a strategy that came back to bite him this offseason) The Sabres had a good team last year because they played hard and as a team. There are still some areas they could improve on and unfortunately because it cost them so much to resign the entire team, they cannot go to FA to try and fix those problems and will need to again rely on youth stepping up in the NHL level.

[hopeleslyobvious]

The salary cap is the key here. No one can blame the Sabres for not going after the so-called "big name" free agents. The author of the letter simply hasn't done their homework and looked at how dangerously close to the cap limit we are. The team's actions this offseason don't look like those of a team "suffering" as a small market team, but rather quite the opposite. Nonetheless, the letter is much smarter than anything any bills fans could come up with :lol:

 

I wrote this as a response:

 

I think the writer of the letter about the Buffalo Sabres was way off base in his analysis. The Sabres have lost several key players this off season, but it has nothing to do with the Sabres being a small market team. The Sabres have lost these players to free agency because of the salary cap. As soon as the Sabres sign Ryan Miller, they will have very little cap room left to work with. If the team had kept McKee, Grier, Dumont or Pyatt, they would have been forced to give up depth to do so.

 

The same argument holds true for the reader's complaint that the Sabres did not go after any big name free agents. Every extra dollar spent on a big name free agent is a dollar that can't be spent on 3rd and 4th liners. While these players don't catch the eye of the casual fan, anyone who watched the Sabres closely last year would agree that the Sabres success came from the ability to consistently roll 4 good lines and 6 good defenseman.

 

 

When a team can only spend $44 million, it has to set priorities. I am happy that the Sabres have continued with the philosophy of having a strong lineup top to bottom rather than a few big name players and little depth.

 

Doubt they will print it, but at least I made my opinion known.

[Taro T]

I agree somewhat with the guy writing the letter. He is talkiong about how the CBA and Salary cap are supposed to protect clubs like the Sabres when really they don't. Things like Arbitration really threw a wrench in the Sabres plans, along with teams still over spending (something the new CBA was supposed to control). The Sabres tried to keep their roster together but couldn't because of other teams willing to overspend (St. Louis OVERSPENDING on McKee and Arbitration awarding a $5 mil deal to Briere and a large deal to Dumont)

 

Now some of this was brought on by Darcy by being to conserative last year in signing only one year deals (a strategy that came back to bite him this offseason) The Sabres had a good team last year because they played hard and as a team. There are still some areas they could improve on and unfortunately because it cost them so much to resign the entire team, they cannot go to FA to try and fix those problems and will need to again rely on youth stepping up in the NHL level.

The Salary Cap DOES protect teams like the Sabres. If the league had a luxury tax instead of a HARD cap, then the Sabres would have been able to hold onto far fewer of their players.

 

Had they played the '04-'05 season, Filly, TO, and NJ all were committed to paying over $60MM in payroll and once their rosters were filled, Detroit, Dallas, and the Strangers would likely have been over that as well. No doubt those teams would be looking at $80MM payrolls today rather than $40MM and the Sabres would have had a much harder time keeping the team together.

 

Yes, arbitration did bite the Sabres, but it bit other teams as well. And, in a Salary Cap world, that is the way things are supposed to work. (I think arbitration can be tweaked in its implementation, but overall I think it worked pretty much the way the league expected it to.) The best teams don't get to keep all their players, they have to pick and choose which ones to keep. They definitely are going to have a hard time bringing in outside talent (or at least the system is designed to make it hard for them to do it). It goes back to keeping a competitive balance.

 

The league is following the NFL's model far more closely than they are following MLB's. If the league had gone the luxury tax route like MLB did, unless the Sabres could latch onto a great goalie and ride him (like they did in the '90's) they were far more likely to be the Kansas City Royals than the Oakland A's. (And even if they were the A's, that still doesn't make them legitimate championship material.)

 

In the NFL's model, most division champs don't repeat. That seems to be the goal of the NHL - to have a truly competitively balanced league.

 

The good thing is, now that Darcy and the rest of management has seen how the system will work, they've got 11 NHLers signed through at least next season and at least 3 more of the kids on the farm are signed that long as well. They appear to be learning as they go along. I don't know that we can say the same for the Davidsons.

 

Let's also hope that this new TV contract they signed gives them the $'s they need to keep the scouting department top flight. (I'm still leery of the new video scouting department, but will hope for the best.)

[hopeleslyobvious]

I agree somewhat with the guy writing the letter. He is talkiong about how the CBA and Salary cap are supposed to protect clubs like the Sabres when really they don't. Things like Arbitration really threw a wrench in the Sabres plans, along with teams still over spending (something the new CBA was supposed to control). The Sabres tried to keep their roster together but couldn't because of other teams willing to overspend (St. Louis OVERSPENDING on McKee and Arbitration awarding a $5 mil deal to Briere and a large deal to Dumont)

 

Now some of this was brought on by Darcy by being to conserative last year in signing only one year deals (a strategy that came back to bite him this offseason) The Sabres had a good team last year because they played hard and as a team. There are still some areas they could improve on and unfortunately because it cost them so much to resign the entire team, they cannot go to FA to try and fix those problems and will need to again rely on youth stepping up in the NHL level.

 

I agree with Dave on this one. The CBA does protect small market teams. If a team wants to go throw a ton of money at a big name free agent. Let them. It will come back to haunt them when they have a one dimensional team. Without the cap, a team could overspend on a whole roster worth of players rather than a few here or there.

[thesportsbuff]

any day of the week i'd prefer Max Roy and Vanek on the sabres over say... Thornton?

 

(This is just hypothetically speaking, obviously thornton wasnt a UFA or anything)

[Goodfella25]

any day of the week i'd prefer Max Roy and Vanek on the sabres over say... Thornton?

 

(This is just hypothetically speaking, obviously thornton wasnt a UFA or anything)

 

 

Eh I'd have to disagree there. And by no means am I a Thornton fan. But in my opinion he is the best all-around talent in the league today, I'd love to have him over Max or Vanek the floater. Thornton is a rare combination of skill and toughness.

[Taro T]

Eh I'd have to disagree there. And by no means am I a Thornton fan. But in my opinion he is the best all-around talent in the league today, I'd love to have him over Max or Vanek the floater. Thornton is a rare combination of skill and toughness

until April.

[hopeleslyobvious]

until April.

:lol:

[Goodfella25]

until April.

 

I see what you're sayin but if you look at the stats, Vanek, Max and Roy didn't exactly have great playoffs. But they also aren't paid Thornton money. I'd still take him over each of those 3 but not all 3 at once

[hopeleslyobvious]

I see what you're sayin but if you look at the stats, Vanek, Max and Roy didn't exactly have great playoffs. But they also aren't paid Thornton money. I'd still take him over each of those 3 but not all 3 at once

 

I think that was Jack's point. He would take the three of them together over Thorton. Considering the three of them combined make less money than Thorton...

[Bmwolf21]

Part of the overall problem is that following the salary cap and the CBA is so complicated that most people can't or won't take the time to either learn the specifics, or are fans of [insert team name here] pnly, so they don't follow how the cap, arbitration and free agency is affecting the other 29 teams in the NHL.

 

I mean really, most of us here are still learning the various intricacies of the cap and CBA (many thanks to Dave) and we're smart enough (most of us, anyway :P) to know that you can't judge what a team does in a vacuum - all roster decisions, including trades, free agents, arbitration, etc., all affect the team in regards to the salary cap. And let's not forget that the salary cap system is relatively new to the GMs, so they are still learning how to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. But regular Joe SixPack fan just sees that the Sabres are losing guys like McKee, Grier and Dumont, so he rails against the new CBA, complaining that its not working, we still can't compete, etc. In reality, it does work - but each team needs to decide the route they will take - go top heavy with overpaid superstars and little depth, or roll four lines and three "D" pairings, or some combination of both.