Taro T

Well, at least we know for sure GA has NOT hijacked your account. 😉

And if they don't make another move, @Thorny will be completely justified in taking his victory lap. (Even if they do grab Rust, he still won't have been too far off from what they actually did.) But they KNOW Timmons will come in under $2MM, likely around $1.5MM. So they know pretty well how much money they have to use on Rust and with knowing that they should also know how much other capital they'll have to give the Pens to land him. But the 2 year walk to UFA for Byram actually makes sense from a hockey standpoint, not simply from a cheaping out standpoint. He's in cheaper than he would've been buying UFA years (and considering what he was looking for, considerably cheaper than it would've cost to lock in some of those years) at a time when Skinner's cap hit is ~$4.4 this year and ~$6.4 next year with Tuch (UFA), Kesselring, Benson, Krebs, and Doan all needing new deals (Timmons and Malynsten too but they'll be a UFA so he'll have a bit more of a say in whether they're back or not and can easily see the Sabres letting both walk). With the cap going up they should be able to get all those back and still have some room to bring in another asset or 2 (especially if Samuelsson is taken out of the picture). That following year when Skinner is only $2.4MM skimmed off the cap, they will have a knowledge of what they want to do with Byram and Kesselring (provided his deal didn't buy any UFA years the previous year). Up front only Greenway, Zucker, and Danforth are UFAs that year and they likely would walk from at least 2 of them and Quinn is the only RFA F of note that year as well. Maybe they go back that year to cheaping out as our Winnipeg based friend expects, but also, maybe Pegula sees a value to letting the team rejoin their league just like he seems to see value from having the Bills and Bandits among the top teams in their leagues. As frustrating as this off-season has been, and it has been frustrating as a fan, bringing in Rust would once again bring a modicum hope. Which, especially if it means they don't end up making the changes in the FO and behind the bench that need to be made, might be worse than remaining hopeless.

Hoping that is strictly Marty's opinion and not what he's hearing from the team on how they plan to play out the rest of the off-season. It would be friggin' criminal to build in ANOTHER excuse for why they can't take the next step back into relevancy in this league. Rust would not have been my 1st choice for the extra F heading into this off-season. But at this point in time, with the money they have left and what it will likely take to get him, he, with a little retention by the Pens, is pretty much their best option to ice the best possible roster they can.

He's locked in to his deal unitl the end of the '29-'30 season. He is not eligible to get another contract signed, to follow the one end ending in '29-'30 but not to modify it in ANY WAY, until July 1, 2029. So, NO, the team WILL NOT offer him a new deal this Spring if he has another fantastic year. NOR will he demand one. And, yes, a little over $7MM IS going to be enough through June of 2030 because that is the deal he signed. There is NO LEEWAY WHATSOVER IN THAT CONTRACT. And the CBA just got reupped into September of 2030 at a minimum, so his union head isn't going to be changing the parameters of his contract either.

IMHO, it is simply (to an overwhelming degree) an issue of maturity. They come ready to play (under Ruff, not so much under Granato) and they score 1st way more often that a below 0.500 team should. But when the other team starts punching back and getting into the flow, they can't get ramp their own intensity back up. When they play a weaker team, they can't convince themselves that they have to work hard to win. And they don't know how to structure their play to let them force the other team to play a game better than what they have to beat them. Under Granato, they rarely were ready to play, but when the other team took their foot off the gas, the offensive 1st (or only) nature of the Sabres game allowed them to come back more often than a below 0.500 team should. Having NHL caliber coaching could do wonders for this team. Right now, if it weren't for the fact that none of the assistants have a clue about the X's and O's of the game, would say that this team really could use a Nolan as the HC. Maybe Peca would be the ideal guy for this team. He knows the X's and O's of the game very well and he was a fierce competitor and leader. Checks the "former Sabre" box too. Not sure that Kekalainen is the right GM to get him the players he'd need but wouldn't be opposed to seeing him in that role. Say Peca, because there's no f'n way a Gallant will be brought in.

Which is why having Byram for $6.25 that year is a big deal. Had they bought any of his UFA years, he would've been getting $8-9MM. That difference covers most of Tuch's raise (provided they ink him to one; and for no particular reason personally remain hopeful he's still willing to re-sign). So, yeah, they're down $64MM from Skinner but only an extra $2MM from where they are this year and the cap goes up by more than that anyhow. But, yeah, somehow we've gotten to the point where the players Adams brought in are getting paid and they are once again a cap team though not necessarily a good one.

Is Steven back with BNL? If so, might try to see them. Have seen them several times but not since he left the band.

A guy with middling size and decent skills that stayed in the NHL for a handful of years but kept playing for about a decade after that. Would 100% rather take a chance on him than on running Wilford back. Would prefer an actual experienced NHL coach, but am willing to settle.

YES, it would improve the blueline play on the ice. 100%. It would change the way they practice. It would change the skills they're working on in practice. It would alter the empahsis of how they play in games. Send him and Appert into the sun and replace them with COMPETENT coaches and the team wins absolutely minimum 4 more games. From a baseline of 85 points. Now 93 points doesn't get you there typically (though it would've at least 2 of the last 3 years); but even if that doesn't get you there. How much puckluck does it take to go from 93 to 96-98 points? A heck of a lot less than it does to go from 85 to 96-98.

The Amerks coaches seem to be better at teaching defensive play than the Sabres coaches are. Since we apparently can't replace Wilford, maybe we could demote him and swap him for Prospal or whomever it is that runs the D down there?

You have one of the 5 best D in the entire league eating up 26 minutes. On their best day, this D is far from 'meh.' Fix the coaching and maybe it's better than 'meh' on an average day.

Because as @LGR4GM mentioned, it's the way things are done and there is literally no downside to it. Have to look closer at the new CBA MOU, but ELCs might have fewer/lower bonus opportunities to them. (There were changes made, haven't had a chance to look closely at what they are.) So, the player might've had a big incentive to get this inked before September 2026. The contract is for close to (if not actually at) the rookie max and also has $1MM in performance bonuses. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary to see for a 1st round draft pick. So much for the in-draft memes claiming he didn't want to be a Sabre.

And it is small consolation, but should he leave as a UFA, the team does get something back. They get the cap space to go find a replacement for him. Again, not as good as having a player you know fits into your system, but NHL teams replace guys like that every year.

Well, other than the fact that the EBUG isn't going to get anywhere near $1MM, sure.

In the current system, that is correct. With the new MOU, each team needs to have a EBUG available for each game home AND away.

Because in the 1st year it's a 2 way deal that they aren't going to be paying the full rate and in the next year, unless UPL gets his head out of his bippy this year, he'll once again be pencilled in as the team's starter.

They're also capping how much of a typical player's contract can be converted to a signing / roster bonus (60% as the cap for that) so guys won't be able to get almost all of it up front in any given year like they can now. (EDIT: it might be that they can still get a larger percentage in an individual year as a signing/roster bonus but the entire contract can't have more than 60% total as such. Need to look at that one more closely.) They made a minor tweak to the injured veteran bonus eligibility; 400 game players that have missed significant time can still qualify for one, but they have to either miss 100 days of the last season or the final 70 days of that season and they can't have played in more than 2 playoff games that last year of the contract either. Will try to look at the playoff LTIR provisions tonight. Expect they'll have some convolution to them. And the new CBA kicks in next year and runs for 4 years. It can run past September 2030 provided neither side opts out 120 before the date it is set to terminate. Meaning it extends year to year until one side or the other wants changes to it.

Yeah, kind of expecting his contract to be ~$1.5MM and Levi's to be ~$1.5MM with the 1st year being a 2 way deal. (Which will THRILL Lyon most certainly, but where Levi sits as possibly being the future expect him to get a deal with similar money.)

Wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of guys signing this year that might've waited a year or 2 to do so to get their ELCs set up under the current CBA/MOU rather than the next one. Need to look at it closer, and maybe misread it (didn't have time to look thoroughly at it) but it looks like the days of being able to earn an extra $3MM in ELC bonuses is coming to an end. (Again, might've totally misread that; went over it quickly, but it looks like they're scaling back performance bonuses on ELCs.)

Didn't read the entire document. (Have real work to do today.) But 2 items that did catch my eye. 1st - contracts can still have money retained 2 times - so a club can end up only having to pay 25% of a player's nominal salary by being the 2nd team to get the player with retention included in the trade. BUT there is a 75 day waiting period before a player's contract can be traded with salary retained from a prior trade. So, the Anaheims of this world will no longer be able to be 3rd party intermediaries on contracts unless all 3 teams are willing to play a "long game" and have the player stick with that intermediary for about 40% of the season. So, looks like the Sabres missed their chance to be an intermediary team in a 3 party trade used to cut a guy's salary down 75% to the team ultimately ending up with him. 2nd - the emergency goalie will be a player that never made the NHL and has at most 3 years professional experience. He also must be available for all home AND away games. So, look for the EG to be someone working for the team in some sort of capacity that it makes sense for them to be travelling with the team to perform their day job.

And somebody had said here about a week ago that Byram's agent is pretty notorious for getting his players to UFA status at the earliest date possible. Add that into the mix and the deal looks better from the Sabres perspective.

Not sure if he necessarily wants to be the #1 D-man or just wants to be paid like one. Because unless his play improves quite a bit, he's not going to be the #1 on many teams, and it's doubtful any of them would be true contenders (because those teams don't have a really good D-man already) though they might have a fantastic goalie or stacked F's. Suppose he could be the #1 guy on a team like the Loafs which are at least on paper contenders; but they spend their money so heavily on F's they aren't actual contenders and likely wouldn't pay him like a true #1 D because they tie so much up on their F's. He does already have his name on a SC, so that might not be as burning a desire for him as it might be for some others. So, maybe there is more of a drive to be "the man." But personally, believe it's more of a case of him wanting to get paid.

??? Did NOT say they need to trade Byram to bring that F in. There are still a few guys in FA that might fit the bill, though their price tags may be too steep for the Sabres at this point without an ancillary move such as trading Samuelsson happening. Or they could trade prospects and picks to a team looking to be in the McKenna derby such as the Pens for a guy that still has some hockey left such as Rust. Had they traded Byram for a F, the post would've stated that they still need to bring a veteran D-man into the fold.

Well, we know he kept Eichel for a year longer than he'd've liked to keep him. Because when he took over, Eichel told him that he'd be fine with getting moved if Adams wanted to switch directions. How many others? No data.

At some point, that has to end. Your team is necessarily the farm team for the rest of the league if you don't get to a point where you tell the kids they have to grow up and a big part of adulting is doing things you don't necessarily want to do in places you don't necessarily want to be. Yes, Peterka didn't hold many cards. But he also returned a guy that Adams claims to have been wanting for a long time (Kesselring). Though Mittelstadt had never asked out and actually wanted to be in Buffalo, he too was traded for a guy that Adams claims to have tried to trade for at an earlier date. What player that Adams has coveted for years do you expect Levi, at this point in time, would bring back AND fit under the cap? Personally, don't see one. Add in @LGR4GM's speculation that Dahlin might've wanted Peterka gone, and if that's the case, the move makes sense from a couple of standpoints. (Not saying I like it, just that can see reasons for the move having been made.) Can't see a way to get to trading Levi making any sense at this time unless Adams is a drooling idiot; and have never seen him actually drooling in any interaction with him.