All Activity

With regards to "buyout proofing" - my understanding is it's not about preventing the buyout, it's about preserving the cash coming to the player post-buyout. The signing bonus are essentially the player's guaranteed money, while the base salary is what gets cut down to 2/3 or 1/3 after the buyout. So, the contrast Skinner's recently bought-out Sabres contract (2 signing bonus seasons of $7.5M = $15M guaranteed https://capwages.com/players/jeff-skinner What was left of his $57M base was subject to the 2/3 reduction. vs. Necas' new deal with Colorado (signing bonuses each season to the sum of $60.4M, even if bought out https://capwages.com/players/martin-necas And he only has the buyout reduction applied to up to $31M in remaining base salary.

Keon will play and deliver.

Davis was interviewed today saying he is ready to roll against Houston and feels good.

A few items on signing bonuses. 1. Fairburn stated that a guy can get a lot of the contract in a single year because of the possibility of getting a signing bonus; but he walked that back a bit saying you can get x on July 1 and then get y on the next July 1. The latter is true. But, unlike NFL contracts, ALL money (except for in the case of the the rare performance bonuses which not many players qualify for; if a player earns them and they would put the team over the salary cap in that year, then the part that puts the team over the cap gets moved to the following year) earned in a league year counts against the player's share of earnings in that league year. And all of those earned $'s go into what the player nominally earns in a particular year and there are still limitations on how much salary can vary from year to year. The player's contract can't be overly front nor back loaded. 2. A signing bonus (that isn't accompanied with a NMC/NTC) ends up making a player much more tradable because salary cap salary gets charged against the cap each day of the regular season. So, if a guy got 90% of his contract in a salary bonus; then the next team gets 100% of the cap hit for the rest of that league year after the trade, but only has to pay the guy 10% of that contract's remaining value. 3. Ordinary course buy-outs happen at the end of a league year; so his stuff about a player becoming unbuyoutable by having a signing bonus which starts on the 1st day of the new league year doesn't really come into play. UNLESS the team has arbitration hearings and they then can buy-out salaries during the league year, or if the team and player agree to terminate the contract, or if the team is terminating the contract for cause. But in that very last case, the club could likely win a suit to claw back a portion of that current season's signing bonus. So, he's likely right in rare cases, but in general, don't believe it will actually factor in to a decision to buy-out a player or not. Teams buy-out the remaining years of a contract, not the current year of a contract (for most cases; not counting the few exceptions already described). 4. He is right that a team that doesn't want a cash flow hit, like the Sabres seem be in that category, will be less inclined to give a signing bonus than one that doesn't care. 5. Signing bonuses can be offered in particular years, all years, or no years during the duration of a contract. Players traditionally tried to include large signing bonuses in years that the CBA is expected to expire as a form of lockout/strike protection. The player can get through a lockout a lot easier if he's already been paid. And signing bonuses can also vary in how big they are too yearly. 6. And, yes, once the player has the money in pocket, he can be trying to put it to work for himself having it earn additional money; but at most he's getting 1 year of time with a fraction of that money. So, it isn't quite the boon that he makes it out to be. It's not like the NFL where a player gets the signing bonus today and it gets charged against the cap over a series of years. Again, that signing bonus counts against league player's total salary in the year it is earned and the total earned salary that year needs to be close enough to what the player is earning in other years to keep the contract compliant with cap rules. Tuch isn't goint to get $39MM in signing bonus in year 1 with $1MM in salary that year; get $10MM in salary in years 2, 3, and 4 and then get $2.5MM in salary in each of the final 4 years of the deal. Those Christian Ehrhoff style deals don't exist anymore.

Understand that sentiment. And still REALLY want to see the Sabres hoist Lord Stanley's Chalice, but for now, personally, take solace from having been in the Aud for their last championship in that building and also from having been there when the short-lived Stampede won a title.

It’s not like he was injured. All he needs is to get his energy back and that’s what the nutritionist would do.

I think the overriding factor of who stays or go will be who is the better player/fit for the Sabres, with contract/cap considerations second and the type of return 3rd. Well some here would argue that the JJP, Mitts and McLeod trades are looking pretty good from a current Sabres perspective, even if scoring is down to 2.8 goal per game and the team overall is still mired in the Pit of Despair. The critics would point to the bad Malenstyn, Norris and Greenway trades on the other side of the ledger.

I don't agree that Geenway is garbage. Greenway is like so many Sabres players in recent years - inconsistent. When he brings his "A" game, he's a very valuable player. He hits, can fight if needed, and chips in offensively. He's an excellent penalty killer. And he has something you can't teach - size. His ceiling is higher than Dunne's, but Dunne is hungry and plays with high energy all the time, as does Malenstyn, and typically Krebs too. If a coach can get consistent play out of Greenway, he's a valuable player to have on the roster. Whether Ruff and his staff, or ANY NHL coach, can coax that out of Greenway, I don't know. Greenway is not alone - Thompson and many other Sabres are the same. Even Alex Tuch. These guys were lethargic during the recent slump, but have picked up the pace a great deal in the last 2 games - not surprisingly, the team won both games. To me, only a few guys bring high energy all the time, and unfortunately a couple of them are injured right now: Benson, Zucker, and Doan come to mind, and they all have plus talent. Guys like Krebs, Malenstyn, Dunne, and Kozak bring the energy all the time, but lack the talent that the previously identified 3 players have. If all of the guys played with the energy they play with selectively, the Sabres would EASILY make the playoffs and might even be a threat to win a round or two (they're not serious contenders, however). As some have mentioned here, when UPL plays and lets in soft goals, it takes the wind out of their sails and the lethargy sets in. All the hard work goes to waste. Maybe if they find something in Ellis, and he keeps them in games, the energy will be more consistent.

If everyone is healthy, I see Krebs as 12 with Malenstyn as 13 with Rosen keeping a slot in the top 9. Krebs brings more offense and is more flexible position wise as injuries occur in game. I'm swapping Greenway and Malenstyn depending on health and matchups.

Davis might not be physically able to play on a short week after playing for the first time in a year.

Does anybody trust that we’d get good return for either of them? Who’s our GM?

Elijah Moore

Elliotte Friedman today saying nobody will be out of it at Thanksgiving like in past years because of the parity and closeness in the standings, particularly in the Eastern Conference. He's correct.

The Hardman slot in the game day roster is probably open.

Does that even qualify as slight, one single goal?

The very first team on the priority list claimed him. These are the spots where I would love to know how many claims were made. It’s also the time where I’m waiting for the first “you suck Kevyn, why didn’t you claim him”.

UPL for Tyler Tucker from St Louis

Nope.. but it's also why I specifically called out the Bills and Sabres and not "Buffalo sports fans". I realize the Bandits have had success, I just don't consider it as big a deal. It's certainly great for fans of the team and I am sure it's a good thing in the NLL circles but it's not the same. At least not to me.

To me I'm actually not dropping Dunne either. I'd actually move Krebs, or make him 13th guy and go Dunne, Kozak, Malentstyn as the line. I want Greenway off the roster. He is garbage.

I'll still take Doan in the deal for his tenacity. The slight drop in offense (to date) is worth the increase in tenacity. It's an example for the rest of the team.

There are too many bodies. Adams needs to make a 3 or 4 for 1 deal. Time to move UPL most of all.

I'm not sure how confident I feel in Adams having full decision authority any longer. He may still be the GM. Part of me feels like Pegula brought in Jarmo to evaluate the team and organization much like he was using Adams when Botteril was GM. The only different is that it's not really a secret this time and Adams knows it. Kevyn may have limitations on him that we are unaware of. Or.. I could just be hopeful. While Zucker is right, I have no influence on the team so all I have is hope.

Beecher is a former first rounder who underwhelmed. Lost his spot with Minten playing well. Bruins opted for the tougher, heavier guy in Viel for the 4th line. Beecher is a decent face off guy and PK guy but not much else. The Sabres equivalent move would be keeping Dunne and waiving Danforth (if healthy) or maybe Krebs. Calgary probably just wants bodies for their tear down to come.

Am I the only one who disagrees 1000% with this take? Are we looking at stats or actually watching the games? Malenstyn is exactly the kind of fourth-liner we’ve been begging for: blocks shots, kills penalties, plays with energy, hits, and can skate. He’s a lock on my roster, no question.