Buffalo Tendencies Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 P.S. And I won't buy **** with that slug on it.
Taro T Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 3 year deal for less then Beer-on? Mixed thoughts about this. Thinking that maybe we could have went for longer. Especially if its lower than the backup, so it must be fairly low league wide. He has a ton of potential. There seemed to be quite a few of 2-3 year contracts this summer by Reiger on alot of these young guys. I take that as either: 1. Guys had a career year, won't get better and he doesn't want to lock them up long term. or 2. Were screwed 3 yrs down the road, when these guys keep performing and start looking for McKee type money. Most will still be under 30 in 2-3 years. The CAP is only going to go up, so will the salaries, you can take that to the bank. I don't think these contracts are guaranteed, so we could dump a under performer early in contract if needed. I woulda prefered 4yr deals. We better be drafting well, cause if we have a hard time keeping a bunch of "unknowns" this year, wait a year or two when we start winning all those CUPs!!! This team, as we know it will be gone in 3 years. I guess I can't have my cake and eat it too!!! Buckle up boys, this seems to be the best push we could make! I'll take it, sit back and enjoy the show. Yeah, the deal averages out to be less per season than Marty is getting, NOT. Marty makes $2.128MM which is $128k more than Ryan will make this year, but assuming Marty finds someone next year who will pay him that again (a big if) Ryan will make $372k more next year and $1.372MM more the following year. Ryan will get $3.5MM in the last year of his deal. With the $2.67MM average that his contract brings, the Sabres are less than $600k under the salary cap with only 21 players included on the NHL roster. If you bring the roster up to 23, like most teams carry, the Sabres ARE OVER THE SALARY CAP. (Timmy's injury likely cuts them slack, but it's not a given if he makes a miracle recovery.) Assuming Miller would expect at least $3.5MM in a 4th year of a 4 year deal (not an outrageous assumption), his average salary would climb to $2.875MM and the Sabres would have less than $340k in cap room to sign a 22nd and 23rd player. Considering the league minimum salary is $450k this season, the Sabres would be allowed to carry at MOST 1 spare player on the roster. Considering they MUST dress 18 skaters and 2 goalies, a run of 1 guy with the flu and another injured on a west coast road trip would make matters rather problematic, don't you think? The cap likely WILL go up in the future. When it does go up, the Sabres will have room under it. They don't have any breathing room right now. I would have preferred 4 year deals as well, but what players were you going to cut to fit the 4 year deals you wanted signed under THIS SEASON's salary cap. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending upon one's current perspective ;) ) dynasties will be hard to establish in the "new" NHL and far more difficult to establish. Given the constraints of new system, the Sabres are not doing poorly IMO. They should be fun to watch this year and have over 2/3's of the team signed beyond this season. Based on comments he made today on WGR, it sounds like the plan is to try to have ~1/3 or less of the contracts expire in a given season. They are on pace for that currently. PS - I agree with you about the abomination they call a new logo.
hopeleslyobvious Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 Yeah, the deal averages out to be less per season than Marty is getting, NOT. Marty makes $2.128MM which is $128k more than Ryan will make this year, but assuming Marty finds someone next year who will pay him that again (a big if) Ryan will make $372k more next year and $1.372MM more the following year. Ryan will get $3.5MM in the last year of his deal. With the $2.67MM average that his contract brings, the Sabres are less than $600k under the salary cap with only 21 players included on the NHL roster. If you bring the roster up to 23, like most teams carry, the Sabres ARE OVER THE SALARY CAP. (Timmy's injury likely cuts them slack, but it's not a given if he makes a miracle recovery.) Assuming Miller would expect at least $3.5MM in a 4th year of a 4 year deal (not an outrageous assumption), his average salary would climb to $2.875MM and the Sabres would have less than $340k in cap room to sign a 22nd and 23rd player. Considering the league minimum salary is $450k this season, the Sabres would be allowed to carry at MOST 1 spare player on the roster. Considering they MUST dress 18 skaters and 2 goalies, a run of 1 guy with the flu and another injured on a west coast road trip would make matters rather problematic, don't you think? The cap likely WILL go up in the future. When it does go up, the Sabres will have room under it. They don't have any breathing room right now. I would have preferred 4 year deals as well, but what players were you going to cut to fit the 4 year deals you wanted signed under THIS SEASON's salary cap. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending upon one's current perspective ;) ) dynasties will be hard to establish in the "new" NHL and far more difficult to establish. Given the constraints of new system, the Sabres are not doing poorly IMO. They should be fun to watch this year and have over 2/3's of the team signed beyond this season. Based on comments he made today on WGR, it sounds like the plan is to try to have ~1/3 or less of the contracts expire in a given season. They are on pace for that currently. PS - I agree with you about the abomination they call a new logo. I agree that the cap is going to go up, but I don't think it is going to go up as much as it did this year again.
mercury Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 The rest of the NHL is now officially screwed. Is it October yet?
slapshot1619 Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I just saw in the Buffalo News the Announcement of Berkhoels Signing.... at the bottom of the miller resigning article http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060909/1065859.asp
apuszczalowski Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I don't think these contracts are guaranteed, so we could dump a under performer early in contract if needed. I woulda prefered 4yr deals. I'm surprised Dave didn't pick up on this, but aren't all contracts under the new CBA guaranteed now? I thought you were mad that they weren't spending enough before. And would it have made any difference if Miller was signed 2 months ago? Getting him signed before camp is all that matters. I was mad at the fact the Sabres were not looking like they were willing to spend the money to resign key players of this team to long term deals. I'm glad to see management has seen that it is something they had to do. It also didn't matter that Miller signed now or if they signed him last month, All I said was that i was not going to praise Darcy because he signed a very important RFA who was a huge part of the success last year a week before camp starts.
shrader Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I'm surprised Dave didn't pick up on this, but aren't all contracts under the new CBA guaranteed now? That's correct. I'm sure there are scenarios where a contract can be voided, but that's not very likely.
hopeleslyobvious Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 That's correct. I'm sure there are scenarios where a contract can be voided, but that's not very likely. I think the NHLPA fought pretty hard for garunteed contracts. Just to elaborate further on something I brought up in an earlier post. This is probably a good question for Dave or shrader. I've read bits and pieces of the CBA, but I don't know as much as the two of you. Do you think that the cap increasing so much this year has a lot to do with the league being very conservative when estimating revenues last year? I have read a lot of speculation that the cap may go up or down slightly each year now, but not as drastically as it did this season. Just a side thought, wasn't 44 million right around the midpoint of what the league and PA wanted the salary cap to be in February of 2005? One last thought. Buffalo tendencies mentioned he would prefer 4 year contracts. Dave already touched on this. With 4 year contracts up and down the lineup, everyone's contract would cost more against the cap, therefore we would be able to keep less players. I think what a lot of people forget is that there are 2 sides to negotiations. If you agree to terms with someone on a 3 year deal, you're most likely not going to be able to say "let's just make it 4." You will have to add more money to the deal. Players know that they are most likely going to be worth more money in a few years, so they are going to want the opportunity to earn it. Along the same lines, I think it's kind of funny that we have most of last year's team signed to multi-year contracts and someone still finds something to complain about.
LabattBlue Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I'm surprised Dave didn't pick up on this, but aren't all contracts under the new CBA guaranteed now? I was mad at the fact the Sabres were not looking like they were willing to spend the money to resign key players of this team to long term deals. I'm glad to see management has seen that it is something they had to do. It also didn't matter that Miller signed now or if they signed him last month, All I said was that i was not going to praise Darcy because he signed a very important RFA who was a huge part of the success last year a week before camp starts. I don't think the guaranteed contracts are new to the CBA. I believe they have been around for ahwile.
Taro T Posted September 9, 2006 Report Posted September 9, 2006 I think the NHLPA fought pretty hard for garunteed contracts. Just to elaborate further on something I brought up in an earlier post. This is probably a good question for Dave or shrader. I've read bits and pieces of the CBA, but I don't know as much as the two of you. Do you think that the cap increasing so much this year has a lot to do with the league being very conservative when estimating revenues last year? I have read a lot of speculation that the cap may go up or down slightly each year now, but not as drastically as it did this season. Just a side thought, wasn't 44 million right around the midpoint of what the league and PA wanted the salary cap to be in February of 2005? One last thought. Buffalo tendencies mentioned he would prefer 4 year contracts. Dave already touched on this. With 4 year contracts up and down the lineup, everyone's contract would cost more against the cap, therefore we would be able to keep less players. I think what a lot of people forget is that there are 2 sides to negotiations. If you agree to terms with someone on a 3 year deal, you're most likely not going to be able to say "let's just make it 4." You will have to add more money to the deal. Players know that they are most likely going to be worth more money in a few years, so they are going to want the opportunity to earn it. Along the same lines, I think it's kind of funny that we have most of last year's team signed to multi-year contracts and someone still finds something to complain about. The cap increase this year over last year was entirely due to the league having underestimated revenue. They thought a 15% decrease in revenue sounded reasonable after a lost year, it wasn't. (I've seen some reports that claim the $2.1B the league supposedly made prior to the lockout was not based on the same revenue streams as the $2.1B the league made after the lockout, so revenues still might have dropped slightly, but not significantly (at least IMHO).) League revenues will very likely increase from year to year simply from inflation if nothing else. The salary cap will rise (or fall) proportional to that revenue change. (I haven't looked at this part for a while, but IIRC, if the revenue change won't result in a 5% change in the cap, the cap will remain the same. Shrader or someone else hopefully can verify that for me because it will probably be a while before I get a chance to look at it again.) But I would not expect to see a 15% revenue increase (or decrease) without a major change in the national TV deals. As to the Q about $44MM, IIRC, the league's last offer prior to the lockout was ~$42MM and the NHLPA's was ~$49MM. But both offers were structured much different than the system the league eventually ran with. Also, Labatt's and Apus are correct. The old CBA guaranteed contracts the same way this one does (1/3 buyout (minimum $100,000(?)) for guys under 26; 2/3 buyout for guys 26 & older).
shrader Posted September 11, 2006 Report Posted September 11, 2006 Is it just me or does Miller look like Jesus in this picture? http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060911/1027104.asp
apuszczalowski Posted September 11, 2006 Report Posted September 11, 2006 Is it just me or does Miller look like Jesus in this picture? http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060911/1027104.asp MAn, even Jesus couldn't get us the cup last year, were dealing with some f*cked up sh*t here guys. These hockey gods are starting to freak me out
hopeleslyobvious Posted September 11, 2006 Report Posted September 11, 2006 Is it just me or does Miller look like Jesus in this picture? http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060911/1027104.asp Yeah, that's pretty creepy.
Screamin'Weasel Posted September 12, 2006 Report Posted September 12, 2006 Is it just me or does Miller look like Jesus in this picture? http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060911/1027104.asp Jesus saves.
Duck Farcey Tucker Posted September 13, 2006 Report Posted September 13, 2006 Jesus saves. Moses invests...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.