The new Core

[Thorny]

22 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think there is a high likelihood that the cap will not be any higher in the summer of 2022 than it is this summer, and that for the next 4-5 years it will be substantially lower than it was last summer.

At some point I'm going to start a thread on this, but in the meantime, I will say that I think the NHL is going to absorb an enormous economic hit in the next 12 months, and the players are going to have to eat 50% of it.  It will probably be spread out over time, and will be implemented partially via increased escrow and partially via reduced cap.

What about UFAs in 2022. Do you think they'll get a lot more than RFAs in 2020?

Sam waiting would be far more about reaching UFA status. To me it comes down to what Sam would fetch in arbitration. If he's going to be ~ the number owners would be willing to commit to long term, why not wait, with the stellar health record he has. 

It's a very reasonable bet. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

What about UFAs in 2022. Do you think they'll get a lot more than RFAs in 2020?

Sam waiting would be far more about reaching UFA status. 

Not necessarily. Some expect teams to be so squeezed keeping their young core guys happy, there just won’t be any money available to pay UFAs, even two years from now.

Its why guys like Granlund and Hall and Holtby will be going for a lot less this off-season.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not necessarily. Some expect teams to be so squeezed keeping their young core guys happy, there just won’t be any money available to pay UFAs, even two years from now.

Its why guys like Granlund and Hall and Holtby will be going for a lot less this off-season.

This gets a big "meh" from me. I think it's really quite likely you'd get more as a UFA than an RFA. Hope I'm wrong on this one and Sam settles for a team-friendly deal. 

Granlund and Hall....might get less relative to normal UFA, but still substantially more than an RFA deal. All it takes is ONE other bidder. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

The logic is that you can’t pay your foot soldiers less because of league minimums, and you don’t want to alienate your RFAs so much they go to UFA, so it is the UFA class that will get crushed.

Good piece a week or so ago on it in the Athletic. The money isn’t there this summer and it will be a few summers before it comes back. The players get 50 per cent of the pie, the pie will be a lot smaller and the guys under contract right now aren’t getting their wages rolled back.

Edited June 25, 2020 by dudacek

[Curt]

8 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

The cap won't go down in literal number but it may not move for a few years.

We don’t know, it might!  They’ve already lost lots of money.  What if they need to cancel the playoffs and can’t have fans in the seats next season?  Somethings gotta give.

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The logic is that you can’t pay your foot soldiers less because of league minimums, and you don’t want to alienate your RFAs so much they go to UFA, so it is the UFA class that will get crushed.

Good piece a week or so ago on it in the Athletic.

Maybe the market as a whole. If we want to bet on a player like Sam finding UFA a tougher road than RFA...I hope he doesn't call our bluff. 

I'll trust years of established practices over a theory in the Athletic speculating about a future 2 years away, as it applies to a general group of theoretical players. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I hear you, but where we differ is I believe this to be an issue that needs to be remedied immediately, heading into next season. Which RHD do we have that is capable of playing well on the left? It's not really like forwards that are interchangeable. 

There are two sides to the equation. If you don't have a lefty on the roster then who are you going to give up to get one? I would rather work with what we got until a deal can be made to balance out the unit. If you can't get one in a deal that works for you then you work with the players you have. Acting out of desperation to fill a need is not usually better than working with what you got for the short term.

In a cap system you can't always perfectly address all your needs. How you manage your limitations is an issue that all organizations have to contend with.  As I previously stated I would rather play the more talented right hand player on the left side than play the less talented leftie on that side. It's not a perfect situation but you work with what you got until better options are available. 

 

 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There are two sides to the equation. If you don't have a lefty on the roster then who are you going to give up to get one? I would rather work with what we got until a deal can be made to balance out the unit. If you can't get one in a deal that works for you then you work with the players you have. Acting out of desperation to fill a need is not usually better than working with what you got for the short term.

In a cap system you can't always perfectly address all your needs. How you manage your limitations is an issue that all organizations have to contend with.  As I previously stated I would rather play the more talented right hand player on the left side than play the less talented leftie on that side. It's not a perfect situation but you work with what you got until better options are available. 

 

 

When did I say we need to act out of desperation? There's an in-balance. It needs to be addressed. I would not take a poor deal to make it happen. 

There's no guarantee a supposed talent surplus gets adequately converted, either. What do we have to show for our D surplus heading into last season?

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

We don’t know, it might!  They’ve already lost lots of money.  What if they need to cancel the playoffs and can’t have fans in the seats next season?  Somethings gotta give.

Any cap decrease would have to be done with an equal % contract change thus effectively meaning no difference.

The last thing the NHL is going to do is drop the cap without any reducing cap hits because they would put 3/4th of the league in untenable positions. That's just plain bad for business.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

When did I say we need to act out of desperation? There's an in-balance. It needs to be addressed. I would not take a poor deal to make it happen. 

There's no guarantee a supposed talent surplus gets adequately converted, either. What do we have to show for our D surplus heading into last season?

As imbalanced as it was our defensive unit was not the primary source of this team's struggles last year. Secondary scoring, non-existent second line, PK and inconsistent goal tending did more to hurt this team. Probably the biggest priority is getting a genuine second line center. If a major asset/s had to be dealt I would focus on that bigger need. 

[dudacek]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Maybe the market as a whole. If we want to bet on a player like Sam finding UFA a tougher road than RFA...I hope he doesn't call our bluff. 

I'll trust years of established practices over a theory in the Athletic speculating about a future 2 years away, as it applies to a general group of theoretical players. 

Established practices of spending on UFAs are based on it being them being the most malleable class of player. When there is lots of money, it’s the most logical place to spend it. When there is no money, it’s the most logical place to avoid.

https://theathletic.com/1860985/2020/06/10/what-a-flat-salary-cap-is-going-to-mean-for-the-nhls-free-agent-market/?article_source=search&search_query=NHL salary cap

 

“It’s not possible to squeeze the guys on the bottom of the depth chart. It’s dangerous to be too aggressive with key restricted free agents, though doubtless they’ll feel some of the pinch, perhaps with more teams/players opting for bridge deals over long-term pacts. Trading away money will be difficult and in some cases impossible, while buyouts leave long and ugly blocks of dead money years into the future.

The most squishable class of player is the unrestricted free agent, and this offseason it’s going to be squished.“

It’s not theoretical that there is literally 36 percent less money to spend per roster spot this summer. And as @nfreeman points out that’s with an artificially flat cap, which might be artificially flat for a few years until the pandemic hit can be absorbed.

There’s a reasonable chance there won’t be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in two years for Sam.

Edited June 25, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorny]

37 minutes ago, JohnC said:

As imbalanced as it was our defensive unit was not the primary source of this team's struggles last year. Secondary scoring, non-existent second line, PK and inconsistent goal tending did more to hurt this team. Probably the biggest priority is getting a genuine second line center. If a major asset/s had to be dealt I would focus on that bigger need. 

Oh, I agree. It wasn't the primary source in and of itself, but perhaps because the GM failed to convert said surplus into assets capable of addressing those more problematic areas you mentioned. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorny]

39 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Established practices of spending on UFAs are based on it being them being the most malleable class of player. When there is lots of money, it’s the most logical place to spend it. When there is no money, it’s the most logical place to avoid.

https://theathletic.com/1860985/2020/06/10/what-a-flat-salary-cap-is-going-to-mean-for-the-nhls-free-agent-market/?article_source=search&search_query=NHL salary cap

 

“It’s not possible to squeeze the guys on the bottom of the depth chart. It’s dangerous to be too aggressive with key restricted free agents, though doubtless they’ll feel some of the pinch, perhaps with more teams/players opting for bridge deals over long-term pacts. Trading away money will be difficult and in some cases impossible, while buyouts leave long and ugly blocks of dead money years into the future.

The most squishable class of player is the unrestricted free agent, and this offseason it’s going to be squished.“

It’s not theoretical that there is literally 36 percent less money to spend per roster spot this summer. And as @nfreeman points out that’s with an artificially flat cap, which might be artificially flat for a few years until the pandemic hit can be absorbed.

There’s a reasonable chance there won’t be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in two years for Sam.

Venturing into terrain of opinion, what do you think? Do you think Sam fetches more as an RFA with us or as an UFA on the market? If you had to guess? 

Our best hope is the things you mention put enough doubt in his mind he signs. I still think we'll have to make it well worth his while. It's gonna start with a 7, at least. My 2 cents. Again, if his arb payouts are going to be close to what he'd make on a LT deal, why not wait?

No one is going to argue he'd sign for less in UFA than he would with us in RFA, I'm thinking?

Edited June 25, 2020 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

Any cap decrease would have to be done with an equal % contract change thus effectively meaning no difference.

The last thing the NHL is going to do is drop the cap without any reducing cap hits because they would put 3/4th of the league in untenable positions. That's just plain bad for business.

Only if the cap goes down severely & only for guys who would end up with a salary over the new max.

As the CBA is currently written, regardless of what the cap is & a player's nominal contract say he earns, the players receive collectively exactly 50.0% of HRR and how that gets divvied out to the players is proportional to their nominal contract value.  Regardless of what the final pie is, Eichel will get $10 for every $9 that Skinner gets, and so on and so forth.  If revenues actually come in at 90% of original projections & the players nominal contracts put them ~10% over 50% of revenues, then after escrow/ clawbacks then Eichel grosses $9MM & Skinner grosses $8.1MM in actual $'s.

Really expecting the cap stays close to what it is & escrow gets bumped up & the league allows players a smidge over 50% this year to see the cap stay comparable the following year & players get a smidge less than 50% that year.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Taro T

[sabresparaavida]

I don't really have anything to back it up, but I think that the top tier UFAs are still going to make top dollar, and not significantly less than they would have without the corona. I think teams will be bidding on difference makers, and that the role players (the 2-3 million players) are the ones that will feel it the most.

[dudacek]

20 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Venturing into terrain of opinion, what do you think? Do you think Sam fetches more as an RFA with us or as an UFA on the market? If you had to guess? 

Our best hope is the things you mention put enough doubt in his mind he signs. I still think we'll have to make it well worth his while. It's gonna start with a 7, at least. My 2 cents. Again, if his arb payouts are going to be close to what he'd make on a LT deal, why not wait?

No one is going to argue he'd sign for less in UFA than he would with us in RFA, I'm thinking?

I’d argue that 6 years, 40-45 million would have been a fair contract for Sam prior to COVID and I would guess that he will not be offered a significantly better deal than that as a UFA two years from now, assuming the cap will be flat, revenues start to return, and Sam continues to be a reliable 25ish goal, 60ish point man in the meantime.

What Granlund gets this year as a percentage of the cap might be a good marker, assuming the GM who signs him correctly judges where the market is going. The difference is the GM signing UFA Sam will have a helluvalot more certainty than GMs this summer and how much not just cap, but real money they will have to spend.

But I honestly think people aren’t fully grasping the impact of COVID on the way NHL teams will do business and how business-savvy the Pegulas are to be streamlining.

[dudacek]

Just as a postscript to the above, Taylor Hall said he would be taking term when he signs, knowing full well he might be signing at a depressed value. The reason was security and peace of mind.

[nfreeman]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

The cap won't go down in literal number but it may not move for a few years.

I hope you’re right, because it would mean the NHL is more economically healthy than I expect it to be.

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

What about UFAs in 2022. Do you think they'll get a lot more than RFAs in 2020?

Sam waiting would be far more about reaching UFA status. To me it comes down to what Sam would fetch in arbitration. If he's going to be ~ the number owners would be willing to commit to long term, why not wait, with the stellar health record he has. 

It's a very reasonable bet. 

It is indeed a reasonable bet, and a path that I might expect him to take if the Sabres egregiously lowball him.  But I think it’s more likely that the Sabres end up in the low to mid 6MM per year range for 6 or 7 years and he and his agent (and perhaps his parents) decide to be prudent and accept.  
 

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not necessarily. Some expect teams to be so squeezed keeping their young core guys happy, there just won’t be any money available to pay UFAs, even two years from now.

Its why guys like Granlund and Hall and Holtby will be going for a lot less this off-season.

I wouldn’t mind giving Holtby a 2-year deal at $3MM or so per year assuming they replace Hutton.  
 

3 hours ago, Curt said:

We don’t know, it might!  They’ve already lost lots of money.  What if they need to cancel the playoffs and can’t have fans in the seats next season?  Somethings gotta give.

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Maybe the market as a whole. If we want to bet on a player like Sam finding UFA a tougher road than RFA...I hope he doesn't call our bluff. 

I'll trust years of established practices over a theory in the Athletic speculating about a future 2 years away, as it applies to a general group of theoretical players. 

As Curt notes, those years of established practice weren’t anything like this year or perhaps next year.  

The NHL is looking at 2 seasons in a row in which revenues will be down by... who knows how much?  15%?  25%? 35%?  And the CBA says the players eat half of that loss.  
 

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Any cap decrease would have to be done with an equal % contract change thus effectively meaning no difference.

The last thing the NHL is going to do is drop the cap without any reducing cap hits because they would put 3/4th of the league in untenable positions. That's just plain bad for business.

The NHL and the PA will probably work out a way to spread the impact over 3 or 4 years.  There might be compliance buyouts or other mechanisms.  But the teams are going to spend much less on payroll than they did last year.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

This situation is all the more reason to have hired an experienced GM.  Oh well!

 

[Andrew Amerk]

On 6/23/2020 at 11:27 PM, SwampD said:

Do you even watch the Sabres?

Currently? No, there’s no hockey. 

[DarthEbriate]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

I'm going to continue asking why Sam wouldn't just arb-arb-UFA, because that's what I would do if I was him and I want my worries to be soothed. 

I think in a normal continually rising cap scenario he'd be foolish not to go to arbitration and UFA. But if the cap is lower in 3 years, even after expansion, then getting term and stability now, then taking a percentage of that high salary might be better for him. It's all unknown with a recession and loss of gate revenue.

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

I think in a normal continually rising cap scenario he'd be foolish not to go to arbitration and UFA. But if the cap is lower in 3 years, even after expansion, then getting term and stability now, then taking a percentage of that high salary might be better for him. It's all unknown with a recession and loss of gate revenue.

Also, it’s interesting how few good young players follow the path @Thorny lays out for Reinhart.

Most elect the path of long-term security.

[LGR4GM]

I think my favorite thing is that the complaint against Reinhart is actually he plays good with other good players (ROR, Eichel). Would you prefer he played bad with them? 

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think my favorite thing is that the complaint against Reinhart is actually he plays good with other good players (ROR, Eichel). Would you prefer he played bad with them? 

That and the “bad in traffic” thing. 

There is not a winger in Buffalo who makes more plays along the boards than Sam - getting pucks and moving them to the right places. It’s not even close.

That’s what it’s all about. Not who gets knocked down.

[DarthEbriate]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

There is not a winger in Buffalo who makes more plays along the boards than Sam - getting pucks and moving them to the right places. It’s not even close.

That’s what it’s all about. Not who gets knocked down.

Agreed on the former. As to the latter, everybody gets knocked down. Larry did. Girgs did. Sam definitely did. They've all improved a ton at maintaining balance in all the varied battles and situations as the years progress. Even Crosby is knocked down a ton. Just get up quickly and get back in the play.