LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 You think this had NOTHING to do with his play last season (and its subsequent influence on this season) and is only about 5 years from now? Was his attitude at the end of the season a factor? Yes. That being said this was almost inevitable. 5 years from now when you are top of the league in payroll and you have a 37/38 yr old Ehrhoff retire, that cap penalty would screw us over. I think that was more of a major factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Was his attitude at the end of the season a factor? Yes. That being said this was almost inevitable. 5 years from now when you are top of the league in payroll and you have a 37/38 yr old Ehrhoff retire, that cap penalty would screw us over. I think that was more of a major factor. So now you say it does have something to do w/ last season. OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 So now you say it does have something to do w/ last season. OK. I am saying that the primary reason Christian Ehrhoff is currently a UFA is his backdiving contract and cap recapture penalties associated with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I agree with the move the way the new CBA stands now. I don't agree that the Sabres were put in this situation in the first place because a pre-CBA contract SHOULD NOT have to abide by new rules put into play after said contract was signed. Especially considering the NHL approved the contract. I also do not agree that Ehrhoff mailed it in. He has been one of the most consistent and professional players we've had the last three years. He's had to play with the worst roster in the NHL, be the whipping boy for all things bad defensively, not to mention his game suffering because he was on the worst offensive team in 75 years. Did he mail it in right at the end? Sure.......... so did the rest of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I am saying that the primary reason Christian Ehrhoff is currently a UFA is his backdiving contract and cap recapture penalties associated with that. It is a primary reason which is what we've been saying all day long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 It is a primary reason which is what we've been saying all day long. What have I been saying then? Please tell me what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 @TheRealHoff10 Thanks to the great community of WNY, sabres fans and sabres organization for welcoming me and my family with open arms these past 3 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 What have I been saying then? Please tell me what I think. Are you asking for an interpreter of your own posts? If you'd read what you've written as opposed to your apparent reading of what you thought you'd written, you probably wouldn't be asking for one. You'd stated that the buyout had NOTHING to do w/ last year. That is not accurate. Which YOU apparently agree w/ as evidenced by then stating that his attitude last year WAS a factor in the buyout. Had Ehrhoff not (quite understandably) gone into the tank after the Olympics, he MIGHT still be a Sabre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Are you asking for an interpreter of your own posts? If you'd read what you've written as opposed to your apparent reading of what you thought you'd written, you probably wouldn't be asking for one. You'd stated that the buyout had NOTHING to do w/ last year. That is not accurate. Which YOU apparently agree w/ as evidenced by then stating that his attitude last year WAS a factor in the buyout. Had Ehrhoff not (quite understandably) gone into the tank after the Olympics, he MIGHT still be a Sabre. No what I said was "Yea but this buyout really has nothing to do with that." The THAT to which I was referring was his play. I think his attitude was a problem, yes. I think for the most part his game was solid all year. At the end did the attitude effect the play? Obviously. PA to me was implying Ehrhoff played poorly all year. I don't think that is the case. But you wanted an "Aha! Got YA!" moment so whatever. Ehrhoff was not bought up because of his play. He was bought because of a sour attitude and much more importantly a backdiving contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 @TheRealHoff10 Thanks to the great community of WNY, sabres fans and sabres organization for welcoming me and my family with open arms these past 3 years! And thank you for the payday :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 No what I said was "Yea but this buyout really has nothing to do with that." The THAT to which I was referring was his play. I think his attitude was a problem, yes. I think for the most part his game was solid all year. At the end did the attitude effect the play? Obviously. PA to me was implying Ehrhoff played poorly all year. I don't think that is the case. But you wanted an "Aha! Got YA!" moment so whatever. Ehrhoff was not bought up because of his play. He was bought because of a sour attitude and much more importantly a backdiving contract. If I wanted 'aha, got ya' moments, you wouldn't be on ignore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 If I wanted 'aha, got ya' moments, you wouldn't be on ignore. I love you too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I love you too. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I don't think you're daft, but I don't exactly get your question. If they use an ordinary course buyout, they have a cap hit of $4M annually. If he retires, they have the cap hit in the first chart in the link provided. If he is traded and then retires, they have the cap hit in the second chart. There is no way to keep him and avoid some sort of salary cap consequence down the road. I'm talking about an ordinary buyout 5 years from now. Ya if they use it now they're on the hook for a decent size cap hit. But buying out 2 years and $2 million of a contract can't have that same cap hit, right? Because the cap hit is based on how much is still to be paid out, in cash, not the cap hit, unless I'm totally botching the buyout calculation. So if in 5 years he tells the Sabres he's going to retire, couldn't we just ask him to hold off, we buy him out, and then he retires? Surely we wouldn't face recapture penalties for a contract we've bought out, and the cap hit would be tiny at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) A few thoughts on this.. 1. It's totally accurate that having him is not going to improve the team. They are going to be brutal and everyone knows it. The hope is that the youth plays better than expected. 2. Ehrhoff had a bad contract. It's a factor, no matter what. 3. He didn't want to be here. He's a veteran. The Sabres win points by releasing a player to pursue his dream. Everyone knows Ehrhoff was brought in to be one of the pieces to put the old core (remember them?) over the top. It didn't happen. Let him go. 4. He's one less contract on the books. 5. The Sabres could be looking to help out a few teams near the cap limit who need space to sign two superstar players to $11MM contracts. What's the play here? Think about Stafford and a couple of second round picks for Sharp, Oduya, and Chicago's 1st in 2015? Perhaps we toss in another defense to make it work? The Hawks remove $3.3MM next year and go from $5.8MM to $4MM on Stafford who is then off the books the following year freeing up space for the Hawks to sign their top players? I love speculating of course. Edited June 29, 2014 by LTS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Mike Schopp @Schopptalk 4h Last-place, small-market team that cites revenue sharing to defend perennial ticket-price hikes hands its best player $12M to leave. #sabres Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) I'm talking about an ordinary buyout 5 years from now. Ya if they use it now they're on the hook for a decent size cap hit. But buying out 2 years and $2 million of a contract can't have that same cap hit, right? Because the cap hit is based on how much is still to be paid out, in cash, not the cap hit, unless I'm totally botching the buyout calculation. So if in 5 years he tells the Sabres he's going to retire, couldn't we just ask him to hold off, we buy him out, and then he retires? Surely we wouldn't face recapture penalties for a contract we've bought out, and the cap hit would be tiny at that point. The cap hit is better if the Sabres buy him out rather than a trade partner buy him out But even if he retires a Sabre / gets bought out by the Sabres, those years he was paid more than his cap hit have to get accounted for. (edit: which is where the $3MM penalty that site is showing comes from. That's on top of the $'s that will actually get paid w/ an ordinary course buyout.) In the old CBA, those uncaptured cap dollars simply disappeared. IIRC, he's been paid $10MM more than he's cost in cap $'s to date which is why the penalty at the end is currently $10MM. (Edit: and why he was virtually untradeable) By taking a compliance buyout, the Sabres are essentially (not exactly, but kind of) still working in the old system. Edited June 29, 2014 by Taro T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Mike Schopp @Schopptalk 4h Last-place, small-market team that cites revenue sharing to defend perennial ticket-price hikes hands its best player $12M to leave. #sabres Gotta love Mike Schopp's total ignorance of the revenue sharing system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Gotta love Mike Schopp's total ignorance of the revenue sharing system. What did he say that was incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 Gotta love Mike Schopp's total ignorance of the revenue sharing system. Who's got time for understanding the CBA when there's Luke Skywalker dolls action figures in original packaging to place a value on? What did he say that was incorrect? Neglected to include the players collecting 50% of HRR and their having an issue w/ the Sabres potentially not collecting any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) It really makes sense because of the potential recapture penalty. I don't think there's a need to read into it beyond that. It's irrelevant how good he is now. The team is going to suck for at least one more year with or without him, and likely will not be a playoff contender for 3 more years, at which time Erhoff will be 36, so its not like he would be in his prime...he'd be on a down swing and would really hurt us against the cap if he retired, just at the time we need the cap space to sign all the young talent we are stockpiling... Sucks the CBA punishes teams retroactively, but it punishes all the teams that did this, not just us... Edited June 29, 2014 by matter2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 The cap hit is better if the Sabres buy him out rather than a trade partner buy him out But even if he retires a Sabre / gets bought out by the Sabres, those years he was paid more than his cap hit have to get accounted for. (edit: which is where the $3MM penalty that site is showing comes from. That's on top of the $'s that will actually get paid w/ an ordinary course buyout.) In the old CBA, those uncaptured cap dollars simply disappeared. IIRC, he's been paid $10MM more than he's cost in cap $'s to date which is why the penalty at the end is currently $10MM. (Edit: and why he was virtually untradeable) By taking a compliance buyout, the Sabres are essentially (not exactly, but kind of) still working in the old system. Okay, so recapture applies to buyouts too. That's what I was looking for...which I'm pretty sure Eleven said, so yea, I'll just go sit in a corner now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 What did he say that was incorrect? All of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBillsFan Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I'm just shocked they couldn't trade him. Come on we couldn't get some more picks for him. I could see buying Leino out but I thought Erhoff could have been moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 29, 2014 Report Share Posted June 29, 2014 I'm just shocked they couldn't trade him. Come on we couldn't get some more picks for him. I could see buying Leino out but I thought Erhoff could have been moved. The recapture penalty seemed to be the major sticking point. No one wanted to take that on. 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.