Taro T

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.

Yes, this walks him to UFA status as early as he could get there. It also gets his UFA money pushed out to when Skinner's cap hit is only a bit over $2MM/year and not hitting next year's cap when Skinner's hit is over $6MM. Which gives them money to re-sign Tuch and still add more to the roster this season and next. They still need to add a veteran forward. They still need to find a way to not have the coaching equivalent of dumb and dumber and even dumber yet; realistically it looks like that will wait until next year; which is ridiculously frustrating when the concern is Dahlin, Thompson, and Tuch will want out. Of course, Dahlin, Thompson, Power, and Norris are all signed through '29-'30 so there's only so much any of them can do to get off this garbage scowl. (But don't want Tuch bolting either.) If they'd've fixed the coaching and were to bring in that aforementioned F, wouldn't hate this off-season. (It still would have needed to have the GTing work out and they didn't honestly address it. But they would've improved 2 of 4 areas in need of improvement and marginally improved another. Presuming they do bring in another F, will improving 1 of 4 and marginally improving another be enough? Only if all the items they need to break their way actually do so.)

Yeah, he isn't getting traded this summer. But by getting him in at under $7MM, they have an extra $750k to spend on that middle 6 (top 6 ideally, but the money they'll have left says middle 6) F the team desperately needs for when someone in the top 6 inevitably breaks or when one of the guys pencilled into the top 6 underperforms. So, not a building block transaction, but if it leaves enough cash to bring in something to improve, will take it. (Beggars can't be choosers.) And then, the D will have been improved, the F's might've improved, and the GT on paper isn't any worse. Round here that's a win, right? (Lord, please send that asteroid soon and take us all out of our misery.)

Dude, you might've just stumbled onto the entire problem. They're running on a ####ing treadmill when they should be SKATING on a ####ing treadmill. Fix that and then, uh, well, um, guess it's still a treadmill their on, but at least they'd have the right ####ing footwear for the occassion. 😉

Had they punted Wilford, would not only hope the D will be better with the changes, but would actually expect it. (Now, would those changes be enough to materially alter their results, no data, but it would legitimately be in the realm of possibilities.) As it is, with keeping Wilford, it is likely too little to materially make this a truly good D. So truly despise watching the D stand around unengaged in front of the goalie; but that isn't as bad has having both of them go behind the net to try to prevent the pass to the now wide open slotman.

If they didn't have a weenie running the PP, they'd be giving Byram time on the top unit along WITH Dahlin. They're only running 1 true set up man on the PP running 1-4. Go to 2-3 and you add another one. BUT they have a weenie running the PP, so no, Byram will either be on a 2D 2nd unit like he often was last year or not on one at all.

Not speaking for him, but they really need to add 1 more F now that they know they'll have middle 6 money left to spend. If they don't, those criticizing ownership for being cheap will have something when combined with no coaches getting canned (a S&C coach doesn't count) to use as an argument. About 1/2 of the league ends up within $2MM of the cap or over it when BF-LTIR is included. Really want them to be one of those teams that is there at least going through the motions of trying legitimately to compete.

So, they have $7.3MM in cap left with only Timmons and Levi to sign. (Technically adding those 2 puts them at 24 contracts, but realistically there will be injuries all year and they'll have 24 or 25 contracts counting against the cap at any given time for nearly all season.) Get them both in house for $3MM, leave $1MM for contingencies, and then they've got $3.3MM to add a middle 6 F. (Presuming Byram doesn't get traded now that his contract is locked in.) Would like someone better than Rust to add; but him with the Pens retaining 40% might be the best easy thing to do. Make it happen, Kevyn. (Don't trust you to get something more complicated done.)

Once again, the 2nd best GM the Sabres had managed to overcome the constraints applied by management. Heck, his predecessor did too. He iced extremely middling teams when he had the Sabres becoming Edmonton East and racking up the 3rd highest payroll in the league. When he was forced to go austerity, he assembled a team that won its division within 2 years of the teardown. Both of them were "complicit with a strategy that was to the detriment of winning" on its surface but both won in an era where there were twice as many teams as the team's best GM built teams and almost none of them had Ray Miron or Jake Milford, or Gord Stellick or Fred Glover running their competitors. They succeeded under severe constraints. It's not that it can't be done. It's 2 fold. 1. The guy given the reins was not the right guy to take them. Not only was he completely inexperienced, his own playing career taught him the wrong lesson for building a very good team on the cheap. You HAVE TO HAVE THE GOALTENDING to do it. His SC team lucked into incredible health in the playoffs and 2 meh goalies that both were at their peak when the other one was down. He learned the wrong lesson from his experience; and he STILL hasn't understood that he completely missed the boat on that point. And 2, they tested a counter intuitive theory that it isn't so much maturity and experience are the keys to having a successful club; with experience a lack of maturity can be overcome. There is a reason the theory was counter intutive; turns out, players (unless they are truly exceptional, and even those aren't completely immune from the effects) really do need to be in their prime to hit their true peaks. You can't goose it along by forcing kids into roles they aren't ready for. And yeah, you need a really good GM to make it work. They had 2 chances to get that GM and whiffed both times. But, had they grabbed Zito, truly don't believe they'd still be in this weird spending place they're at (which they seem through the plan progressing as planned though far less successfully than they'd anticipated it happening as they will be within $5MM of the cap and really should be ~$1MM from it because they SHOULD bring in either another $3-4MM D-man should they trade Byram for F help or a $3-4MM F should they keep Byram; expecting they won't do that but they should and won't claim unequivocably they won't until we're setting the lineup in October) because the team would be having success and spending extra money on players would be increasing that success as well. And THAT would be translating into full (and in October, nearly full; go Bills) buildings and more revenue coming it. The winning and finances tend to feedback on each other. Let Adams be the guy interacting with ownership (if we have to, and it seems clear we're going to have to whether we like it or not) but DON'T let him be the guy trying to build the team. But get a REAL GM in house. AND take the tethers off. (Pretty sure we both agree on those last 2 points. 😉 )

And yet, the Sabres 2nd best GM not only accepted the challenge of putting together a team on a budget, he got that team to 1 SCF and 2 other ECFs on a budget. (And because he did such a good job, that next year after the 2nd non-SCF ECF led to them being a cap team and still getting to the ECF once again.) He proved it CAN be done, but you have to hit on picks outside just the 1st round and you have to make shrewd trades and get more than just a bit of luck. Saying "no, I won't fire people that are loyal to ME" isn't staying loyal to the crest; it is staying loyal to yourself. And, honestly, the Sabres WEREN'T drafting well prior to cleaning out the scouting department and much as this kid personally thought Taylor and crew were doing a good job in Ra-cha-cha, they never could get past the Marlies. Botterill, rather than simply saying no needed to explain WHY he was saying no and convince management why. But, Botterill was the guy that only drafted ONE CHL player in his drafts (and that was Cozens in the top 10) and chose two HORRIBLE HCs. Losing him wasn't the loss. Passing on Zito once again on the the do over was the tragedy. Zito could've made it work.

Thought in the past that the Sabres took an extra game that didn't end up counting towards the overall standings to let all the visitors take 3 games each. Though seem to recall the B's or Joisey only playing 2 last year because they weren't bringing as many prospects as the rest brought.

Wonder if Boston requested being the team with only 2 games or if it was just luck of the draw.

To the bit about the D, yes, the Sabres would be well served to have guys that would clear the crease. They'd ALSO be served by having a coach running the D that actually emphasizes/encourages that skill. The Sabres could have the 2nd coming of Scott Stevens on the roster and they still wouldn't box guys out away from the crease as long as Wilford is gainfully employed by this organization.

Yep. There's a reason that, as bad as the Sabres have been, that ESPN & TNT keep wanting Sabres games.

Pretty sure you're giving Adams "we only want guys that want to be here" a bit too much to heart.