Official Sabres Acquire Ben Bishop and a 2022 7th Rounder for Future Considerations

[French Collection]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

In my opinion, Bishop is grossly overpaid.

Given the fact that he wont even play, there is no other FA we could bring in, no matter how high the price, who would be more grossly overpaid.

I just don’t get why people are okay with that, yet don’t want to “grossly overpay” someone who could actually help the team win. (Unless that isn’t the plan #thisisntatanktank)

I think there is insurance coverage on his salary so the Sabres will only be on the hook for about $1M. Overpaid for what he actually does but the team got a 7th rounder and some cap flexibility.

[SwampD]

19 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I think there is insurance coverage on his salary so the Sabres will only be on the hook for about $1M. Overpaid for what he actually does but the team got a 7th rounder and some cap flexibility.

I really don’t care how much they pay him. Like, at all.

i just wish they would spend their money the one place I actually do care about, on the ice.

 

There will be a day, someday, if I close my eyes, I can see it. Where they will actually care more about the upcoming season than the one following it. Close your eyes. Can you see it, too?

Edited June 24, 2022 by SwampD

[ddaryl]

20 minutes ago, SwampD said:

In my opinion, Bishop is grossly overpaid.

Given the fact that he wont even play, there is no other FA we could bring in, no matter how high the price, who would be more grossly overpaid.

I just don’t get why people are okay with that, yet don’t want to “grossly overpay” someone who could actually help the team win. (Unless that isn’t the plan #thisisntatanktank)

Grossly overpaying a UFA comes with term, No move or no trade clauses, and if it doesn't worked out we screw ourselves again. We can probably sign a couple middle UFA's with vet experience or change of scenery upside players that won't break any banks, and keep our core intact.

Trading for a solid player entering their prime requires sacrificing assets, plus signing them to term which will include no move and no trade clauses. We just built up a decent core after years of trading away assets to speed up the rebuild. Don't want to go backwards... 

Bishop is a one and done contract, we lose nothing and we will still be able to sign our own core over the next few years. We can still sign players they just won't be overpaid FA's or players that require us to trade assets to acquire. 

When we prove we can play consistently (full season) with the core we got and make the playoffs then I can see an aggressive move(s) to push us over the top. 

[dudacek]

@SwampD you’re coming in late to this, and I think you legitimately want to understand, so I am going to try one more time, since you are one of my favourite Sabrespacers.

• Fact: the Sabres cannot carry more than 23 healthy players on their roster.
• Fact: the Sabres must spend at least $61 million to stay above the cap floor
• Generally accepted likelihood: Adams wants Skinner/Thompson/Tuch/ Mitts/Olofsson/Asplund/ Girgs/Okposo/ Krebs/Cozens Quinn/Peterka Dahlin/Power Joki/Mule/Bryson on the roster

We can probably assume Olofsson and Bryson sign for a combined 6 million. That leaves the Sabres about $13 million under the floor and with roster room to add 2 goalies, one defenceman and up to 3 other players.

You with me so far?

The issue is that Adams is so far below the floor that he could acquire 6 $2 million players and he will still be under.

You cant get to the floor with a bunch of Hinostroza/Pysyk type little contracts because you only have room for six of them. Once you get to 23 those guys are getting sent down and most of their cap hit falls off. 

You can acquire some big contracts to make up the $13 million. But it’s not that cut and dried. It’s not that Adams can’t make a deal, or multiple deals, or that he won’t. It’s that it’s a free market. Some people worth those contracts may not want to come to Buffalo at any price, and others are only coming if you take on a bad contract..

What happens if “good” deals don’t materialize for you?

Then, in order to get to the floor you are going to have to take on “bad” deals.

Instead of waiting, Adams made a pre-emptive strike: he took on a bad deal that gives him a $5 million insurance policy.

But the beauty of Bishop's bad contract is that it does not take up a precious roster spot because he’s on IR. It does not cost his owner much in real money - reportedly only $750,000. It has no long-term repercussions since it does not continue beyond the coming season. And it does not bring an unwanted and potentially divisive extra body into the organization. Plus he actually added a 7th in the process.

In short, as far as “bad” contracts go, it’s about as good as it gets.

It doesn’t mean the Sabres won’t be acquiring new players: they still have up to 6 spots to fill and $8 million they will have to spend. (And they can still spend more)

It just means they aren’t backed into a salary cap corner, where they will be forced into making bad deals if the good deals don’t come together. They can now fill out the roster with Hinostrozas for $1 million instead of Mrazeks for $3.

It’s probably going to be meaningless once the rubber hits the road in July.

But it is still smart, prudent GMing.

Edited June 24, 2022 by dudacek

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

@SwampD you’re coming in late to this, and I think you legitimately want to understand, so I am going to try one more time, since you are one of my favourite Sabrespacers.

• Fact: the Sabres cannot carry more than 23 healthy players on their roster.
• Fact: the Sabres must spend at least $61 million to stay above the cap floor
• Generally accepted likelihood: Adams wants Skinner/Thompson/Tuch/ Mitts/Olofsson/Asplund/ Girgs/Okposo/ Krebs/Cozens Quinn/Peterka Dahlin/Power Joki/Mule/Bryson on the roster

We can probably assume Olofsson and Bryson sign for a combined 6 million. That leaves the Sabres about $13 million under the floor and with roster room to add 2 goalies, one defenceman and up to 3 other players.

You with me so far?

The issue is that Adams is so far below the floor that he could acquire 6 $2 million players and he will still be under.

You cant get to the floor with a bunch of Hinostroza/Pysyk type little contracts because you only have room for six of them. Once you get to 23 those guys are getting sent down and most of their cap hit falls off. 

You can acquire some big contracts to make up the $13 million. But it’s not that cut and dried. It’s not that Adams can’t make a deal, or multiple deals, or that he won’t. It’s that it’s a free market. Some people worth those contracts may not want to come to Buffalo at any price, and others are only coming if you take on a bad contract..

What happens if “good” deals don’t materialize for you?

Then, in order to get to the floor you are going to have to take on “bad” deals.

Instead of waiting, Adams made a pre-emptive strike: he took on a bad deal that gives him a $5 million insurance policy.

But the beauty of Bishop's bad contract is that it does not take up a precious roster spot because he’s on IR. It does not cost his owner much in real money - reportedly only $750,000. It has no long-term repercussions since it does not continue beyond the coming season. And it does not bring an unwanted and potentially divisive extra body into the organization. Plus he actually added a 7th in the process.

In short, as far as “bad” contracts go, it’s about as good as it gets.

It doesn’t mean the Sabres won’t be acquiring new players: they still have up to 6 spots to fill and $8 million they will have to spend. (And they can still spend more)

It just means they aren’t backed into a salary cap corner, where they will be forced into making bad deals if the good deals don’t come together. They can now fill out the roster with Hinostrozas for $1 million instead of Mrazeks for $3.

It’s probably going to be meaningless once the rubber hits the road in July.

But it is still smart, prudent GMing.

Great post. The number of roster spots was a new angle for me.

UR purty smart.

Yet,… the why doesn't really make me any less angry.

I still long for the day when our GM isn't preemptively making moves that ensure we get to to the cap floor.

[JustOneParade]

Perfect post @dudacek. It's a preemptive 'Plan B' (that doesn't inhibit the Sabres at all from properly bolstering the roster, BTW) in case KA's Plan A gets 'Ullmarked'. If so, he then has to tell the owners they need to spend $3 or $4M on a worthless asset (Boychucked) to get to the floor. He has basically protected the organization from that scenario for a 'mere' $750k. (yes, I created a couple new verbs 😄).

[kas23]

$750k appears to be the magic number nowadays. 

[LGR4GM]

 

20 hours ago, SwampD said:

Great post. The number of roster spots was a new angle for me.

UR purty smart.

Yet,… the why doesn't really make me any less angry.

I still long for the day when our GM isn't preemptively making moves that ensure we get to to the cap floor.

We spent to the cap for a decade and won nothing. Why do you equate spending money on UFA players with winning when you have 10 years worth of evidence that isn't how this works? We have 4 RFAs in 2023 and another 5 in 2024 that we need to think about but here you are WHINING about not spending more money in 2022. I hate losing too but I am sick and tired of watching fans and management piss away tomorrow so they can win an extra game today. It 2 steps back and 1 step forward.

RFAs

2023: Cozens, Thompson, Asplund, Samuelsson

2024: Mitts, Krebs, Joker, Dahlin, Power (note that Dahlin and Power might be 18-20million in cap)

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

We spent to the cap for a decade and won nothing. Why do you equate spending money on UFA players with winning when you have 10 years worth of evidence that isn't how this works? We have 4 RFAs in 2023 and another 5 in 2024 that we need to think about but here you are WHINING about not spending more money in 2022. I hate losing too but I am sick and tired of watching fans and management piss away tomorrow so they can win an extra game today. It 2 steps back and 1 step forward.

RFAs

2023: Cozens, Thompson, Asplund, Samuelsson

2024: Mitts, Krebs, Joker, Dahlin, Power (note that Dahlin and Power might be 18-20million in cap)

1st bolded: I never did that.

2nd bolded: Wait, what?!

History has also showed us that us that pissing away today (as in, 2+ seasons of todays) in order to maybe win an extra game tomorrow (as in 3 to 5 years of tomorrow) also isn’t the way this works,… oh, wait, maybe it is the way this works because we get to do for a second time in a decade.

To use your logic, why do you equate losing now with winning later?

As to all of those future RFAs, there are very few on that list that I wouldn’t give up for a proven talent

[thewookie1]

17 minutes ago, SwampD said:

1st bolded: I never did that.

2nd bolded: Wait, what?!

History has also showed us that us that pissing away today (as in, 2+ seasons of todays) in order to maybe win an extra game tomorrow (as in 3 to 5 years of tomorrow) also isn’t the way this works,… oh, wait, maybe it is the way this works because we get to do for a second time in a decade.

To use your logic, why do you equate losing now with winning later?

As to all of those future RFAs, there are very few on that list that I wouldn’t give up for a proven talent

And there in lies your problem.

Of the listed, there are untouchables important to the team's future

2023: Cozens, Thompson, Asplund, Samuelsson

2024: Mitts, Krebs, Joker, Dahlin, Power

There goes over half

Then we are left with

2023: Asplund - Barring a huge year, isn't valuable enough to bring in anything far better 

2024: Mitts - While the most likely; I personally don't see it as a wise move

           Krebs - No chance Adams trades him after he sought him out in the Eichel deal

           Joker - won't be moved in the immediate regardless due to his handiness; technically could be next year if we get a good RHD prospect and Dahlin solidifies 1D on the right.

 

Otherwise it isn't smart asset management to move future growing key pieces for proven talent when the core itself is future growing key pieces. The time you go after a few proven players is after the core has solidified itself and can actually take advantage of the proven players. To me, Fiala for example, would be a fool's errand as he won't give us anything vital to team growth, and potentially might eat far more cap than he's worth. Fiala is a good player but could easily be a 1-hit wonder and is a 1-dimensional player. He's great offensively; but when he doesn't or cant bring his A game he's utterly worthless. Want a proven player, go get a Palat or Letang to bring Cup winning experience to the team while still being useful players. Sign a player who will bring a myriad of assets to the table; not just exist or score. (We already have Jeff Skinner who embodies the score or invisibility role rather well)