Jump to content

Jeff Skinner rumors, trade and buyout speculation swirling


Flashsabre

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

There are big reasons why I wouldn't buy out Skinner

1. The cap is far more tolerable next year with a buyout

2. I don't want him to sign in Toronto on the cheap and give them a 30 goal scorer for free. You should see all the salivating people on Twitter hoping to give him a Duchene deal to play with the Leafs, Rangers, Vegas, etc. 

3. I have zero interest in buying out Skinner so we can turn around and spend it on Necas or like player.

I'd much rather trade him at 50% retention to be perfectly honest.

I will say this however; if Skinner departs; I'd be all for bringing P. Kane here on a 1x3mil deal with incentives. Defensively he's no better but he does bring legitimate playoff experience and drive.  

In response to your reasons:

1.) I am trying to understand, but can't begin to see how it is "far" more tolerable waiting a year.  "Ever so slightly" more tolerable?  Sure.  "Far" more.  I just don't see where people are getting this.  The math does not lie.  The difference between a buyout this year and next is $444K per year from 2025/26 through 2028/29 and then only in year-six, 2029/30, do we have one year with a significant difference ($2.44 million).  

2.) I don't think the Sabres should worry about what other teams do and should just worry about icing the best possible team we can this year.

3.) It would be wrong, in my opinion, post- buy-out, to look at any particular contract or contracts and say "this is what we bought with the Skinner buyout".  If we buyout Skinner it opens up a multitude of options that just don't exist without a buyout.  We could add a player like Necas in a trade and upgrade the bottom 6 with players who will earn more than your average 4th line player and pursue an upgrade to the top 4 D (DeMelo, Roy, Tanev).  No single upgrade would be directly because of a buyout,  but rather the upgrades in total are possible, in part, because of a buyout.

My 1st choice would be a trade also. The barriers to this are too significant to overcome though.   

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn’t there a thread last summer asking if Skinner would be a HOF candidate?  We haven’t spent to the cap yet so his contract hasn’t impacted who we could sign.  
 

Rather than dumping Skinner I’d rather KA focus on getting a center first.  If that requires a buyout so be it.  Tage had an off year and as I’ve said before as his center goes, so goes Skinner.  He actually looked re-energized when they put him with Mitts.  Unless it’s a locker room issue he is way down the list of issues with this team.  

  • Thanks (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't think we would need to add anything at all to get a team to take 50pt Jeff Skinner at 4.5mil for 3years. If he didn't have a NMC, I bet that trade could be made tomorrow without us including "a substantial asset" or any asset other than Jeff and the retention. 

Maybe I am overstating his negative value a bit. In a world where he has no NMC, yeah, maybe a team takes him for nothing and maybe even returns something. As is though, the trade partners will be few, if any, and I think we would need to give up an asset to make the deal, even at 50%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mr Peabody said:

Wasn’t there a thread last summer asking if Skinner would be a HOF candidate?  We haven’t spent to the cap yet so his contract hasn’t impacted who we could sign.  
 

Rather than dumping Skinner I’d rather KA focus on getting a center first.  If that requires a buyout so be it.  Tage had an off year and as I’ve said before as his center goes, so goes Skinner.  He actually looked re-energized when they put him with Mitts.  Unless it’s a locker room issue he is way down the list of issues with this team.  

Thank you lol 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should not do it this year because it does not make sense. That means it's definitely happening because I can't remember the last time the Sabres did anything right, honestly. Nothing they ever do makes sense, it's really quite remarkable how poorly run this org is, brutal.

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CallawaySabres said:

They should not do it this year because it does not make sense. That means it's definitely happening because I can't remember the last time the Sabres did anything right, honestly. Nothing they ever do makes sense, it's really quite remarkable how poorly run this org is, brutal.

It makes total sense if Lindy thinks he is a problem and doesn’t want him on the team.

This team hasn’t made the playoffs in 13 years and there are still people saying “just wait til next year so they save a few bucks”🤯

Brindamour punted him the second he got promoted to HC in Carolina. He has never made the playoffs in his career. Why are people so desperate to hold on to him?  Cap is going up every year now.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I struggle to think of why you would do this now instead of waiting another year. The Sabres have some potentially big contracts/decisions upcoming in the next few years. They have cap room THIS year to pay him. Why buy him out now, which will make the upcoming years a lot worse on the cap than simply waiting another year?

You don't want to play him, then "Ralph Krueger" him, but a buyout this year instead of next year makes little sense to me.

They may have some big FA targets they really really like. If so - you take the pain now to get the guys you feel like can change your organization. While I am not saying they should do it - that could very well be a reason - and a reason I would explore if I were them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CallawaySabres said:

They should not do it this year because it does not make sense. That means it's definitely happening because I can't remember the last time the Sabres did anything right, honestly. Nothing they ever do makes sense, it's really quite remarkable how poorly run this org is, brutal.

It does not make sense if:

A) you believe Skinner is a good fit within the type of roster/system the Sabres want to run this year under Ruff

B) you believe the Sabres have no intention of using the cap savings this creates over the next two seasons.

It makes sense if they are filling the cap and roster vacuum with a better fit.

Just now, OverPowerYou said:

So Jeff Skinner wins the cup next year with…?

If the league’s longest playoff drought continues while the league’s longest playoff player drought ends in a Stanley Cup, you know the curse is real.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Buyout Skinner and offer sheet Mitts.

Buyout capfriendly and delete Skinner’s data 

Edited by Thorny
  • Haha (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is bound to happen. And I believe it's this year for the sole reason some have stated. Lindy's taken control of the room.

Yes Adams is the GM, but you have to look at the falling short of the goal years. I believe Lindy was brought in to right the ship. He most likely looked at his beloved Sabres and said enough is enough.

Just my view of the situation is all.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE! make this reality and not just a rumour. 

Guys, it's not about the money or the perfect economic scenario, it's about a culture change and getting him out of the room that Ruff and a new captain is coming in to. It has to happen now! Doesn't matter if that costs us a few coins down the road. We have enough entry level deals for that not to matter. 

2 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

Barclay Goodrow on waivers by Rangers... any interest 3.6 cap hit

If they don't have a better plan in mind I'd say yes. Overpaid, but he'd still be a solid addition and he plays the right way and we could use him. Depends if they have a better plan or not though. Definitely a better option than Krebs as 3C. 

Edited by PerreaultForever
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Effectively trading Kane for Skinner is a big win in my books.

It's true...  if you do buy out Skinner, then you put Benson (at 19) in the bottom 6 where he belongs at this point in his career...  you shuffle Quinn to the left wing, and there's your spot for Kane. Make the bottom 6 "difficult to play against" which Benson definitely does, and there's some potential. I still don't advocate for Kane, but there's one possible path to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DarthEbriate said:

It's true...  if you do buy out Skinner, then you put Benson (at 19) in the bottom 6 where he belongs at this point in his career...  you shuffle Quinn to the left wing, and there's your spot for Kane. Make the bottom 6 "difficult to play against" which Benson definitely does, and there's some potential. I still don't advocate for Kane, but there's one possible path to it.

The reason we're getting rid of Skinner is because he is a one-way player. So why would we be interested in Kane? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ... said:

The reason we're getting rid of Skinner is because he is a one-way player. So why would we be interested in Kane? 

The main reason is because Kane wouldn’t be 9mil and has tons of playoff experience. If Skinner were making 6 mil you wouldn’t hear anything. If Kane makes 4mil, he ends up better bang for the buck. Still a one way player but it’s far less troublesome when said player isn’t your 2nd highest cap hit on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...