apuszczalowski Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 There are only two compliance buyouts, and they are RESERVED. Sure, one for Leino I understand, although with his history, they might be able to just keep him on IR and might not be able to buy him out since he's always hurt I assume the other is for Stafford, but with how he has been playing, they may be able to move him in a trade and actually get some kind of asset for him (even a low pick might be better then a buyout). There were rumors about the Habs being interested just before he got hurt, and their deal with the Avs for Paranteau fell through...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 There are only two compliance buyouts, and they are RESERVED. Stafford ain't happening, no matter how much we pray. Poor asset management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 There are only two compliance buyouts, and they are RESERVED. No point to wasting a compliance buyout on Drew. A regular buyout eats cap and they appear to be closer to the floor these next 2 years than the ceiling. Eating 1 year of a contract via compliance buyout doesn't make sense to me at this point. Do it the old fashioned way instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 No point to wasting a compliance buyout on Drew. A regular buyout eats cap and they appear to be closer to the floor these next 2 years than the ceiling. Eating 1 year of a contract via compliance buyout doesn't make sense to me at this point. Do it the old fashioned way instead. I think the NHL should have a rule in place that says the Buyouts can not be used to help you reach the Cap Floor, It should count against the Cap, but not against reaching the Cap floor. It would keep teams from being able to make these horrible contracts with players, then find bad teams that they can dump them on when the player struggles and get out of it. The Cap floor amount should be on actual money spent on contracts that year to players playing for the team, the cap amount should include buy outs and other things like the average of a contract over its term Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 No point to wasting a compliance buyout on Drew. A regular buyout eats cap and they appear to be closer to the floor these next 2 years than the ceiling. Eating 1 year of a contract via compliance buyout doesn't make sense to me at this point. Do it the old fashioned way instead. Not a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Do it the old fashioned way instead. Unmarked grave in a cornfield? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think the NHL should have a rule in place that says the Buyouts can not be used to help you reach the Cap Floor, It should count against the Cap, but not against reaching the Cap floor. It would keep teams from being able to make these horrible contracts with players, then find bad teams that they can dump them on when the player struggles and get out of it. The Cap floor amount should be on actual money spent on contracts that year to players playing for the team, the cap amount should include buy outs and other things like the average of a contract over its term The problem with that is that you can end up forcing a team to give mediocre guys deals that they shouldn't have, which then further distorts the market and comparables. And considering the 700 or so players in the league split up the same $'s, just the allocation is adjusted by nominal contract $'s then you are giving additional reward to lousy players on lousy teams once the EoY accounting is fnalized. Of course, from the other side maybe that helps bring more parity to the league in some warped way; though I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 The scary thought for me is Miller Mania making its way to Terry (he already said he wants him to retire a Sabre), and Terry making some kind of power play with PLF and TM. "An offer Miller can't refuse." That's a bad scenario on several fronts. More meddling. Another yes man as GM. Trying to build a contender around Miller (again). Financial implications down the road when the team might be good again. More WTF waves. More threads like this with terrible titles. And so on. Wow you really work hard to have an answer that fits your narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 No point to wasting a compliance buyout on Drew. A regular buyout eats cap and they appear to be closer to the floor these next 2 years than the ceiling. Eating 1 year of a contract via compliance buyout doesn't make sense to me at this point. Do it the old fashioned way instead. But this coming summer is the last opportunity to use the compliance buyout. So if they don't use both of them this summer, they are gone forever. So I don't see the downside to using one on Stafford (relative to the regular kind), unless the Sabres would otherwise be unable to make it to the floor. It's just time to move on from Stafford and Leino. There will be other guys out there to spend enough on to get to the floor. Unmarked grave in a cornfield? Very nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 But this coming summer is the last opportunity to use the compliance buyout. So if they don't use both of them this summer, they are gone forever. So I don't see the downside to using one on Stafford (relative to the regular kind), unless the Sabres would otherwise be unable to make it to the floor. It's just time to move on from Stafford and Leino. There will be other guys out there to spend enough on to get to the floor. Very nice. I think Taro's point to me was that if the Sabres had to take on an undesirable (e.g. Erat) as part of a trade, they could use the compliance buyouts on Leino and the undesirable, and buy out Stafford in the conventional manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 There will be other guys out there to spend enough on to get to the floor. Prediction: John Scott is signed to $3.5m per for 3 years in August 2014. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think Taro's point to me was that if the Sabres had to take on an undesirable (e.g. Erat) as part of a trade, they could use the compliance buyouts on Leino and the undesirable, and buy out Stafford in the conventional manner. Which is a great way to spend Terry's money and help us get the rebuild moving. I hope TM is looking into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 But this coming summer is the last opportunity to use the compliance buyout. So if they don't use both of them this summer, they are gone forever. So I don't see the downside to using one on Stafford (relative to the regular kind), unless the Sabres would otherwise be unable to make it to the floor. It's just time to move on from Stafford and Leino. There will be other guys out there to spend enough on to get to the floor. I think Taro's point to me was that if the Sabres had to take on an undesirable (e.g. Erat) as part of a trade, they could use the compliance buyouts on Leino and the undesirable, and buy out Stafford in the conventional manner. This sure, but also more. As much as we are done with him, he (unlike Leino) is still a legitimate every-game forward on this roster, and likely still will be after the deadline dump offs and the summer signings. Then there is the fact that next year is Stafford's contract year. I would bet he shows enough that we can trade him at some point as a rental. Might as well get something out of the millions we will have to spend regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Leino should absolutely be bought out, but that's the only one on the team I would buyout. I would use the other for another team's player that helps us get a good package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Wow you really work hard to have an answer that fits your narrative. Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yawn. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 This sure, but also more. As much as we are done with him, he (unlike Leino) is still a legitimate every-game forward on this roster, and likely still will be after the deadline dump offs and the summer signings. Then there is the fact that next year is Stafford's contract year. I would bet he shows enough that we can trade him at some point as a rental. Might as well get something out of the millions we will have to spend regardless. This is reasonable and I can see it happening. But I think I prefer sending a message that severe, prolonged underperformance has no place on this roster or in this organization. It's time to cut him loose. His production, such as it is, will not be hard to replace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 It's probably the wrong thread, but I just wanted to add on the Stafford front: he is one of only seven Sabre forwards with a contract next year. Of those, the only ones we can count on being back (barring a trade) are Hodgson and Girgensons. Leino, we all expect to be bought out. Kaleta and Ellis have both cleared waivers and Flynn could easily be back in the minors. Ennis and Foligno are RFAs. Moulson, Konopka, McCormick, Scott, Omark, D'Agostini and Ott are all UFAs. Out of the 16 guys who are the current Sabre forward corps this year, I expect maybe half of them to be with us next year. If Murray wants to, he can pretty much wipe the slate clean. Considering how bad this group has been, that can only be considered a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 It's probably the wrong thread, but I just wanted to add on the Stafford front: he is one of only seven Sabre forwards with a contract next year. Of those, the only ones we can count on being back (barring a trade) are Hodgson and Girgensons. Leino, we all expect to be bought out. Kaleta and Ellis have both cleared waivers and Flynn could easily be back in the minors. Ennis and Foligno are RFAs. Moulson, Konopka, McCormick, Scott, Omark, D'Agostini and Ott are all UFAs. Out of the 16 guys who are the current Sabre forward corps this year, I expect maybe half of them to be with us next year. If Murray wants to, he can pretty much wipe the slate clean. Considering how bad this group has been, that can only be considered a good thing. No, we need to re-sign most of these guys. The Tank must roll on and Ville shouldn't be bought out, we need him as our Tank Commander :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Prediction: John Scott is signed to $3.5m per for 3 years in August 2014. Last I checked, he has more goals than Leino does. I think he deserves Leino money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think Taro's point to me was that if the Sabres had to take on an undesirable (e.g. Erat) as part of a trade, they could use the compliance buyouts on Leino and the undesirable, and buy out Stafford in the conventional manner. Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBillsFan Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 No, we need to re-sign most of these guys. The Tank must roll on and Ville shouldn't be bought out, we need him as our Tank Commander :P I'm all for one more year at the tank job and a solid shot at McDavid. We know Leino sucks but we still need some salary on this team so we don't fall below the league minimum. Even if we land a top 3 pick this year we could use at at one more to help out. Players like McDavid don't come around that often. Right now we have one second line and 3 fourth lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 We have to buyout Leino. This is the last offseason for buyouts. Get him out of town. Sign some random average vet to his salary on a one-year basis. Then spend big next (2015) offseason and extend contracts to get to the floor again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Prediction: John Scott is signed to $3.5m per for 3 years in August 2014. I think I suggested this in another thread, but my "plan" would be to give a scrub a $6M/1 year deal each year until there's a better way to spend that money. No reason to commit for longer than a year, and it's not like Scott or Ellis or similar is going to turn down the deal because they want a longer deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Is anyone going to miss Miller when he leaves? I ask because he is really the only Sabres goalie I know. When Haske was here I was young and I do remember him but Miller is really the one guy I have always watched. Part of me will be sad when he leaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.