dudacek Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 As for the RBO/CBO debate: If the team anticipates no need to use the other CBO it has (or using 1 more at most), what is the harm in "squandering" one on Gerbe? What is the value of holding onto both of the CBO's? If you had a conditional pick that could be used in this year's draft or next year's, and the highest rated player available was Gerbe would you use the pick now, or roll the dice that there will be better prospects available next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Doesn't say compliance buyout. If he were on regular waivers wouldn't they just say that? Teams do not have to specify "buyout waivers", if they just plan on sending the player to the AHL. Not sure, maybe that's wrong. Also, his agent reported that Gerbe is done with the Sabres. They are buying him out. Something like that was posted up thread. Maybe I'm wrong again, but why would Gerbe be done with the Sabres if he was on regular waivers to be sent to Rochester? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 one idea on the value of holding onto your CBO's even if you don't see any other candidates on your current roster: you may need them to complete a transaction whereby you take on a problematic contract from another team as part of the deal (and then use a CBO on that acquired contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 If he were on regular waivers wouldn't they just say that? Teams do not have to specify "buyout waivers", if they just plan on sending the player to the AHL. Not sure, maybe that's wrong. Also, his agent reported that Gerbe is done with the Sabres. They are buying him out. Something like that was posted up thread. Maybe I'm wriong again, but why would Gerbe be done with the Sabres if he was on regular waivers to be sent to Rochester? Because they're buying him out, not sending him to Rochester. Whether that means regular buyout or compliance buyout, we will have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 If he were on regular waivers wouldn't they just say that? Teams do not have to specify "buyout waivers", if they just plan on sending the player to the AHL. Not sure, maybe that's wrong. Also, his agent reported that Gerbe is done with the Sabres. They are buying him out. Something like that was posted up thread. Maybe I'm wriong again, but why would Gerbe be done with the Sabres if he was on regular waivers to be sent to Rochester? It could be a RBO as a 1/3 eligible player since he's under 26. At least based on my understanding (and hoping we didn't use a CBO on a small contract) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Again, you're running too far with this. His agent saying "we had no warning" could mean they learned about this through the media OR (more likely IMO) they had no warning leading up to today that this could be an option and the Sabres did indeed contact Gerbe's agent to inform them of their intentions. Well, I hope Gerbe sets the record straight. The McKenzie connection is beyond obvious now however. In the grand scheme of things, good luck to Gerbe....I can't be upset about the hockey move of him not being on the roster. It's just interesting how many little shady things come together in this story. Gerbe is told he has a back strain and is forced to play through it, only to find out in the offseason it was broken and he needed surgery Gerbe makes it public Gerbe gets bought out Darcy says 24 hours earlier there will be no buyouts Tim Kennedy's history with the club Bob McKenzie breaking the story Gerbe not having been informed ahead of time McKenzie's exclusive Pegula interview at the height of the Penn State scandal when nobody would comment to the local media, and never once mentioning a key executive linked to both the scandal and the Sabres, and further breaking stories that they were done at the trade deadline, and correctly having both Sabres picks before they were drafted Sunday. This isn't some Ironsides stretch here.....these are all facts. Again...good luck Gerbe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Nothing, theoretically. However, there are plenty of CBO targets on the current roster in the eyes of the fans that would incite venom in not using the percieved opportunity cost of CBO'ing larger contracts. There are still plenty of fans who hold the misunderstanding that we can CBO Leino... How close are the Sabres to the contract limit (50?)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macsabre Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 So people want the team to score more and want the team to be bigger and more physical, then complain when we waive an undersized player who doesn't score? In 42 games last year, Gerbe had a whopping 10 points. Right on, I totally agree. Gerbe had plenty of time to prove himself and it didn't work out. Thank God the experiment is over! And the "no warning" comment, this is business, he was paid big bucks and didn't produce. NO Darcy shouldn't take him out for a send off dinner at his favorite restaurant. Darcy - Thank You! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 If he were on regular waivers wouldn't they just say that? Teams do not have to specify "buyout waivers", if they just plan on sending the player to the AHL. Not sure, maybe that's wrong. Also, his agent reported that Gerbe is done with the Sabres. They are buying him out. Something like that was posted up thread. Maybe I'm wriong again, but why would Gerbe be done with the Sabres if he was on regular waivers to be sent to Rochester? If you read through McKenzie tweets he explains how you can put a player on waivers for the purpose of a regular buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, I hope Gerbe sets the record straight. From Bill Hoppe: When asked if Gerbe had any warning, Neumann replied, “Absolutely none.” The Sabres still hadn’t contacted Neumann as of early this afternoon. Sabres general manager Darcy Regier said Tuesday he had no plans for buyouts. http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/report-sabres-put-nathan-gerbe-on-waivers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 one idea on the value of holding onto your CBO's even if you don't see any other candidates on your current roster: you may need them to complete a transaction whereby you take on a problematic contract from another team as part of the deal (and then use a CBO on that acquired contract). Right, as evidenced by the tons of trade proposals around here calling to acquire DiPietro to use a CBO on him in order to get a quality prospect in Nieterriter (sic?). With TP around here, this is certainly an option to snag prospects from small-market cash strapped teams. Much like the NBA making uneven trades for the benefit of expiring contracts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Because they're buying him out, not sending him to Rochester. Whether that means regular buyout or compliance buyout, we will have to wait and see. It could be a RBO as a 1/3 eligible player since he's under 26. At least based on my understanding (and hoping we didn't use a CBO on a small contract) OK. Thanks, guys. I guess I'll just shut up now and wait. Nothing "official" from the Sabres yet. Not on their twitter, or team web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Bob McKenzie breaking the story I don't think he did anything but access the waiver wire information available to the press generally. McKenzie and LeBrun were both tweeting within seconds of each other (at precisely 12:00 noon) about today's news from the waiver wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaLaLaFontaine Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 You do not tell a player that you will trade him, or try to do it. Darcy did not find a partner so he buys him out. I hope he told him before it broke to the media, then everything would be fine. If the Sabres use a CBO, then the market is not there to trade for a buyout candidate and to buy him out. Even the Islanders did not trade away DiPietro, but buy him out themself. But i think it is a regular BO without doing any research on the topic. Good Bye Nathan, you had some BIG moments, unfortunately not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 This.... Fake Darcy @FakeDarcy 34m Here's the problem with some of our fans: They're too in love with their players. #TablesTurned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 [/size] I don't think he did anything but access the waiver wire information available to the press generally. McKenzie and LeBrun were both tweeting within seconds of each other (at precisely 12:00 noon) about today's news from the waiver wire. Fair point if that is the case. Still doesn't change the other instances, but if it is that easy to see, then quite possible. And again, I'm fine with letting Gerbe go. Not sure why the buyout angle was needed, but I guess we wait to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 I met Gerbe once at LaSalle dog run. Thought his dog's name was Cash. Same breed as that one, though. Correct - his dog is named Cash. Now I can go back to thinking it is bad management rather than any other nefarious reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Once the Sabres found out there was no trade interest, they still could have given his agent and Gerbe a heads up as a courtesy. No harm in that. He's called everyone else first. I don't see Nathan being any different. No, you just tell Bob McKenzie ahead of time...just like they dropped their draft picks to him for his broadcast...in return for fluff pieces when the team needs it, like never asking about Cliff Benson's role on the team as he was the Financial Chairman of the charity used to procure little boys to be raped at PSU....and continues to run Buffalo youth charities with an interactive role to this day. McKenzie knows because TSN has access to the NHL service. Waivers get posted at noon, Bob tweets at noon. Given the post above from Aud Smell, it would make sense that it would be a RBO and not a CBO given that the Sabres would gain additional cap space due to the cap credit gained from the above calculation. This makes sense to me in that Pegula would be paying real cash for a cap benefit. No way Regier used a CBO on Nathan effin' Gerbe. Not even he is that stupid... There is no cap credit for a regular buyout on Gerbe. His buyout savings is less than the cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Correct - his dog is named Cash. Now I can go back to thinking it is bad management rather than any other nefarious reason. But let us not be hasty in relinquishing the idea that young Nathan was sent packing because he was caught inflagrante delicto with a Pegula girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 So people want the team to score more and want the team to be bigger and more physical, then complain when we waive an undersized player who doesn't score? In 42 games last year, Gerbe had a whopping 10 points. I'm not one of those people. It's important to have size, it's also important not to have too much size. The best team in the league this year and Cup winners are far from big, and rarely hit. But, I agree with you. The majority on here prefers size over speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 There is no cap credit for a regular buyout on Gerbe. His buyout savings is less than the cap hit. Au contraire. Based on the formula posted at CapGeek, the buy-out savings on an RBO would have been $1,541,666 (that is the amount of actual salary due to him ($1,850,000) less one of the two annual payments due to him ($308,333)); cap hit would have been $1,450,000. By my math, there was a $91,666 cap credit to be had. Again, unless I am missing something or my math is off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 Gerbe had no idea this was coming: @BillHoppeNHL Per his agent, Nathan Gerbe is done with the #Sabres. They're buying him out. They had no warning, either. #Buffalo I've been laid off (no buyout, mind you) 4 times in my career. No one gave me any warning. I'd like to buy a vole. :flirt: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 He's called everyone else first. I don't see Nathan being any different. McKenzie knows because TSN has access to the NHL service. Waivers get posted at noon, Bob tweets at noon. There is no cap credit for a regular buyout on Gerbe. His buyout savings is less than the cap hit. Au contraire. Based on the formula posted at CapGeek, the buy-out savings on an RBO would have been $1,541,666 (that is the amount of actual salary due to him ($1,850,000) less one of the two annual payments due to him ($308,333)); cap hit would have been $1,450,000. By my math, there was a $91,666 cap credit to be had. Again, unless I am missing something or my math is off. Chz, I was referencing Aud Smell's calculation per the CapGeek formula. Normally I take your word as truth, but that would imply that CapGeek's formula is wrong. What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 McKenzie knows because TSN has access to the NHL service. Waivers get posted at noon, Bob tweets at noon. He has posted the name of every single player placed on waivers, so clearly listing Gerbe shows that he has some in with the Sabres front office. :rolleyes: :doh: Certain people just see whatever they want to see whenever anything happens. Meanwhile tin foil stocks are soaring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 I'd much rather have Tropp at 1.5 than Gerbe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.