Marv Levy Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 How come NO BUFFALO RUMORS??! That's odd. Darcy, are you freakin' awake. The league has agreed on a new CBA!! HELLO?!
swede316 Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Does this team seriously want to win? The maximum cap is $39 million and the Sabres want to operate at around $28 million from what I've read. I think it can be said if the Sabres put a winning product on the ice the people will show up....Just like the Bills.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Maybe it is because management and coaching pissed off too many former players, from Andreychuk to Gilmour to Woolley, Galley, now Satan and McKee. Word gets around. Add in the stand pat and standoffish organization.....it is not a good recipe at all. Golisano should have had a house-cleaning by now. The longer he waits, the further this team goes in the crapper.
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Scott Niedermayer to Anaheim, Edmonton or PittsburghSatan to Chicago, LA, Montreal or Toronto Peter Forsberg to Boston, Montreal, NY Rangers Nikolai Khabibulin to Chicago Jason Allison to Toronto Paul Karyia to Edmonton, Montreal or LA Chris Pronger to Florida Bryan Berard to Boston, Columbus or LA 396881[/snapback] What's wrong with this picture? No mention of the Sabres after ANYBODY!!! At least if they signed some 4th line has been from the Chicago Blackhawks, we would know that Regier's heart is still beating.
plenzmd1 Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Just one fans somewhat uneducated guess here. Loooking at the Sabres roster as it stands now,we are packed with young, promising forwards, little on the blue line, and one decent and two unproven netminders. Seems to me at least a year or two away from truly competing for the cup with any realisitic expectations. That being the case, I want Darcy to proceed cautiosly. Remember, these are guaranteed contracts that must be carried throughtout the life of the deal. Most of what I have seen happen so far is name players over 31 going for some big numbers by the new standars.Guy who works for me is big flyer fan and says this team is their team pretty much for the next three years due to the cap space. Next year, guys like Thornton and Lecavalier MIGHT be unrestricted if they do certain things with their contrcts this year. These guys wil be in their mid to late twentys as opposed to 33 and 34. I can see Darcys plan as lets wait for the frenzy to die down, give our forwards time and Miller this year to develop and grow, and kill it next year when there will be less compitition for player services, and get our D men next year. Only thing I read that really disturbs me is trying to screw McKee out of $125,000 just because they can. He will also be unrestricted next year, and I see no reason to piss him off over a minor amount
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Remember, these are guaranteed contracts that must be carried throughtout the life of the deal. 396952[/snapback] This is one thing I don't get about the owners during the CBA talks...guaranteed salaries. That to me is one of the biggest problems with the NHL. I'm sure that there are a good chunk of players who become complacent knowing that they have 4 or 5 year guaranteed contracts. They should have followed the NFL model where the signing bonus is guaranteed, but not the base salary.
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 This is one thing I don't get about the owners during the CBA talks...guaranteed salaries. That to me is one of the biggest problems with the NHL. I'm sure that there are a good chunk of players who become complacent knowing that they have 4 or 5 year guaranteed contracts. They should have followed the NFL model where the signing bonus is guaranteed, but not the base salary. 396957[/snapback] It's not such a bad thing and it's the only compromise the owners made.
CircleTheWagons Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 This is one thing I don't get about the owners during the CBA talks...guaranteed salaries. That to me is one of the biggest problems with the NHL. I'm sure that there are a good chunk of players who become complacent knowing that they have 4 or 5 year guaranteed contracts. They should have followed the NFL model where the signing bonus is guaranteed, but not the base salary. 396957[/snapback] Within the new CBA, I don't mind the guaranteed salaries (although there is a buyout clause for 2/3 of the salary). If the owners are forced to honor the contracts, the players have one less excuse for holding out. In the NFL, I don't blame players for holding out for more money even with an existing contract, in the NHL the players don't have any excuses.
plenzmd1 Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Within the new CBA, I don't mind the guaranteed salaries (although there is a buyout clause for 2/3 of the salary). If the owners are forced to honor the contracts, the players have one less excuse for holding out. In the NFL, I don't blame players for holding out for more money even with an existing contract, in the NHL the players don't have any excuses. 396963[/snapback] 2/3 buyout no longer in effect. That was a one time shot this year to help teams get under the cap, and the ability to do so expired last Friday. Two other points to make regarding salary. The average of the deal is what gets counted agaisn't the cap. For example, guy signs a three year deal for $9M with salaries of $2M, $3M, and $4m. $3M will be counted agaisn't the cap each of the three yrs. Also, deals cannot be restructured and have an impact on the cap. So, I cannot go to a player making $3M, ask him to reduce his salary for this year to $2M, and add a year to his contract. His cap number will still be $3M.
Sound_n_Fury Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 For once I agree with Bucky: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050...?tbd1027373.asp These sort of dollars make no sense 8/3/2005 By BUCKY GLEASON How long did it last, less than two full days? The National Hockey League spent a good two years crying about its problems, another one locking out its players, millions of dollars fighting the players' association, months demanding a salary cap and heaven knows how long insisting financial sanity would be restored. Is this what the league had in mind? In less than 48 hours, the league was back in the loony bin. The evidence was right there in the first round of free-agent contract signings. The system designed for bargain hunters already is failing, quickly caving to supply and demand and U-turning the NHL down the scary road from which it recently departed. Take, for example, defenseman Adam Foote. He made $4.3 million in 2003-04, under the old collective bargaining agreement. Calculate the 24 percent salary rollback, assuming Foote was worth $4.3 million in the first place, and he should have signed a deal worth about $3.25 million this season. The Columbus Blue Jackets decided he improved so much during the lockout that he deserved $4.6 million a season. Granted, he's a good player, but for Foote that's an arm and a leg, especially in today's game. "It's a little scary," Sabres General Manager Darcy Regier said Tuesday. "I don't want to comment on another organization, but I can comment on what's taking place in the marketplace. These types of things are what got us in trouble in the first place." The Sabres were among many teams intent on dipping their toes into free agency with the idea they could land a good player or two at a reasonable price. The system figured to work, but only if teams across the league adhered to the strengths of the CBA. It meant thinking twice before signing long-term deals for big money. In no time, GMs were overspending for players while owners ignored the very reasons they stood firm during the lockout. They'll eventually meet a roadblock with the salary cap, but the market already has changed. The price for defensemen just skyrocketed beyond the realm of reality. We knew all along that owners were half the problem because every contract included two signatures. Still, we sympathized with the owners because, in the old NHL, there were no inherent mechanisms to curb spending. Basically, owners needed to be saved from themselves. We applauded the 24 percent rollback, embraced the $39 million salary cap, welcomed the new CBA. But if what happened in the first two days amounts to a salary cut, where do I sign up? Adrian Aucoin made $3.25 million with the New York Islanders in 2003-04. Common sense suggested he should have been paid roughly $2.5 million. But why should he settle for such a pittance? The Chicago Blackhawks, among the loudest moaners under the previous system, agreed to pay him $4 million a year. Derian Hatcher pocketed $13.2 million last month after the Detroit Red Wings bought out his contract. All told, he made about $18 million with the Wings and played 27 games, including the playoffs. Somehow, that production and a major injury warranted a four-year deal worth $14 million from Philadelphia. Alexei Zhitnik would have earned about $3 million per season - including the rollback - if he had signed a deal last year. Instead, he signed a four-year, $14 million contract with the Islanders on Tuesday. With salary cutbacks like the ones we've witnessed, who needs raises? Teams can spend whatever they want on whomever they want, so long as they know the ramifications. Overpaying for players now will hurt teams once they run out of cap room. Given the NHL's attitude toward cutting costs over the first two days, teams will eventually get what they deserve. Just don't blame the players for taking what they can get.
MarkyMannn Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Does this team seriously want to win? The maximum cap is $39 million and the Sabres want to operate at around $28 million from what I've read. I think it can be said if the Sabres put a winning product on the ice the people will show up....Just like the Bills. 396934[/snapback] My understanding is with Satan gone and others, the current payroll is about $23 million. They are near the NHL minimum right now. Way to compete!!!!! I'm also leery about the young guys and talking about their "potential". Remember this is a club that hasn't seen the playoffs since, is it '99?
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 My understanding is with Satan gone and others, the current payroll is about $23 million. They are near the NHL minimum right now. Way to compete!!!!! I'm also leery about the young guys and talking about their "potential". Remember this is a club that hasn't seen the playoffs since, is it '99? 397018[/snapback] Since the 00-01 season. So that's 3 straight years without playoffs, not including the strike season. The Bucky Gleason article provides a good justification for DR's quietness the past 2 days, but not if he plans to go into the season with a $23-$28 million payroll! There's a difference between being responsible with money allocation and being just downright cheap.
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Since the 00-01 season. So that's 3 straight years without playoffs, not including the strike season. The Bucky Gleason article provides a good justification for DR's quietness the past 2 days, but not if he plans to go into the season with a $23-$28 million payroll! There's a difference between being responsible with money allocation and being just downright cheap. 397043[/snapback] I haven't seen all the details on revenue sharing, but I read something last week that stated, if you are at 28.6 million or below you are on the receiving end of revenue sharing which will be coming from the top 10 revenue generating teams. Anyone have more details on the revenue sharing part of the CBA??
Sound_n_Fury Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Since the 00-01 season. So that's 3 straight years without playoffs, not including the strike season. The Bucky Gleason article provides a good justification for DR's quietness the past 2 days, but not if he plans to go into the season with a $23-$28 million payroll! There's a difference between being responsible with money allocation and being just downright cheap. 397043[/snapback] The budget numbers DR has used are $28 million. With the payroll at $23 million right now, that gives them $5 million to play with.
BuffaloDynamite Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 The budget numbers DR has used are $28 million. With the payroll at $23 million right now, that gives them $5 million to play with. 397077[/snapback] I think he's concentrating on playing with himself right now
shrader Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Since the 00-01 season. So that's 3 straight years without playoffs, not including the strike season. The Bucky Gleason article provides a good justification for DR's quietness the past 2 days, but not if he plans to go into the season with a $23-$28 million payroll! There's a difference between being responsible with money allocation and being just downright cheap. 397043[/snapback] There's going to be some very good players after this initial rush of overpaying ends. The Sabres should be able to get some of those guys for much less than they'd have to pay right now. The season doesn't start next week, so there's plenty of time. Sit back, relax. The team will make some moves. Remember what happened in the NFL 4-5 years after they started using a salary cap? A bunch of teams found themselves in cap hell. With some of the deals that have been signed over the last 2 days, we're going to end up seeing the same thing from a few teams in about 3 years.
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 There's going to be some very good players after this initial rush of overpaying ends. The Sabres should be able to get some of those guys for much less than they'd have to pay right now. The season doesn't start next week, so there's plenty of time. Sit back, relax. The team will make some moves. Remember what happened in the NFL 4-5 years after they started using a salary cap? A bunch of teams found themselves in cap hell. With some of the deals that have been signed over the last 2 days, we're going to end up seeing the same thing from a few teams in about 3 years. 397095[/snapback] Yes, but couldn't the Sabres max out the cap this year at $39 million and still be in good shape for the future? I'm talking about giving 1 year deals to vet UFA's and multi-year deals weighted toward the 1st year. In other words, are the Sabres being cheap this year ($28 million max) because they're thinking long-term? Or can we expect the Sabres to be cheap year in and year out? I don't mean to sound too pessimistic because I genuinely have no idea what the team's intentions are. On the one hand we have Gleason's encouraging article, and on the other we see losing Satan and Zhitnik and so far hearing no rumors of signing anyone else specifically.
LabattBlue Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Penguins sign Gonchar... http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=132304&hubName=nhl
BRH Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 On the one hand we have Gleason's encouraging article, and on the other we see losing Satan and Zhitnik and so far hearing no rumors of signing anyone else specifically. 397127[/snapback] Bucky's column sounds suspiciously like it was written at the far end of Washington Street and passed up the road to the News building. Just sayin'.
Recommended Posts