Fuzzy Math

[shrader]

2.) Trade Deadline- This category can go under both cheap and spin. The teams that win in this league always do a little tweaking of there roster near the trade deadline or if they know they are going to dump someone they try to get value for them. 2 years ago, we had satan and the deadline we could have dumped for something knowing that we were not going to pick up his contract over the off season, of course they didn't and got nothing for him. Last year we were at 29 million and on the verge of the playoffs and nothing was done because of chemistry. They could have done somthing, I don't care if it was to just add depth, they could have done something.

 

Satan was brought back for the following season. Unfortunately, that season was lost due to the lockout.

 

 

5.) Player's feelings- This is one that could hurt is down the road, there are alot of players that have complianed about how we handle contracts. Tom said if it was up to him he would pay players by the day and that he hates long term deals. It seems as if many players if they the choice between Team A and the Sabres are choosing Team A bevcause they don't want to deal with the team. One last thing I dont expect the Sabres to be Tampa Bay and sign all there best players too long term contracts, but under the Golisano admin, we have you have yet to sign a top guy to long term contract for over 4 million, which in today's NHL is a top 20 guy.

 

I can think of several players who have no problem with the way this team handles contracts:

-Maxim Afinogenov

-Jason Pominville

-Henrick Tallinder

-Toni Lydman

-Chris Drury

-Tim Connolly

-Ales Kotalik

-Jochen Hecht

-Thomas Vanek

-Jaroslav Spacek

 

Each of these guys signed long term deal while the Golisano-Quinn tandem has been in charge. As for your comment about signing someone for over 4 million, we only have one player who was in the position to do that. Briere opted to go to arbitration, maximizing his salary this season. We have no way to tell whether or not a longterm $4+ million contract was ever on the table.

[BetweenThePipes00]

The two sources of my theory are the team's cheapness and spin control. I will now list the facts that I base thse things on.

 

That's all I am quoting because everything after that loses all credibility when you start with this sentence. Your theory IS that they are cheap and are spinning it to look like they are not. That can't be the SOURCE of your theory ... it IS your theory.

 

 

 

Back to reading the CBA. Yes, I have not read it and maybe I am not too informed, but can someone please some answer this question for me. Can my theory be done. Which means you hike the cap, by backloading contracts, (42-44 mill) yet actually only pay 35-37 after trading Biron, and then next year dump your UFA's to drop the actual payroll down. Let's get away from the CBA and how teams use it. Can this be done. And if it can, wouldn't best work in a year that you are under the most pressure to spend money.

 

Obviously you didn't actually read anything I or dave_b wrote before. It's not a question of IF it can be done, but WHY would they do it. They still have to pay the GUARANTEED backloaded contracts in future years, and what you are suggesting would hurt revenues in those years, thereby COSTING them money as opposed to MAKING them money.

 

There's also the fact that while they are doing what you call "tricking" the fans, they are keeping together a Cup-contending team and locking up their best young players for multiple seasons. So you not only want them to win, you apparently want them to win while losing money. Why can't they win and be financially responsible?

[Taro T]

The two sources of my theory are the team's cheapness and spin control. I will now list the facts that I base thse things on.

Spin-

 

1.) Quinn- I call him the private politician. He is as pompous as they come and is at the head of the team's spin department. The jersey fiasco is my proof about how this team will take the goodwill of this community (jersey change coming soon) and then go the way they want whether the fans like it or not. Would have been so hard to get feed back from the fans. His past dealings with the team have shown that instead of making decisions between keeping one of the best gms in the league or a fan favorite coach, he got rid of both. Brilliant.

 

2.) Trade Deadline- This category can go under both cheap and spin. The teams that win in this league always do a little tweaking of there roster near the trade deadline or if they know they are going to dump someone they try to get value for them. 2 years ago, we had satan and the deadline we could have dumped for something knowing that we were not going to pick up his contract over the off season, of course they didn't and got nothing for him. Last year we were at 29 million and on the verge of the playoffs and nothing was done because of chemistry. They could have done somthing, I don't care if it was to just add depth, they could have done something.

 

3.) Free Agency- We have signed 3 players since the new CBA, 3. They are still at 39 mill in cap value, we will see where they end up. But we have lost our best defensive defensemen, our most gritty player and two forwards and have added one player. Im not saying they have to sign Dumont, but they still have room to structure the last two contracts to fit another player, it is not impossible, however we will have to see what they do, but considering they will probably trade Biron they will have room.

 

4.) Affiliation/Scouting- This is a cost cutting move plain and simple and one that could hurt a team that relies so heavily on prospects. Gaustud probably would have slipped through cracks if he was on last year's Rochester team. And in regards to scouting the spin is on, innovative are you kidding me it is blatant reason to dump money.

 

5.) Player's feelings- This is one that could hurt is down the road, there are alot of players that have complianed about how we handle contracts. Tom said if it was up to him he would pay players by the day and that he hates long term deals. It seems as if many players if they the choice between Team A and the Sabres are choosing Team A bevcause they don't want to deal with the team. One last thing I dont expect the Sabres to be Tampa Bay and sign all there best players too long term contracts, but under the Golisano admin, we have you have yet to sign a top guy to long term contract for over 4 million, which in today's NHL is a top 20 guy.

 

I could go on but I can't think of everything right now. Am I pessimistic about the Sabres, maybe too much. But as much as I am moron for my views, I think defending the Sabres over everything could be questioned also. The topic on scouting is a prime example. I have read how innovative it is and how we could be ahead of the curve. But I would imaginemost unbiased opinions would be that is cheap.

Comments.

 

1. Larry is clearly a politician, you are correct on that count. I don't know how his being a politician leads automatically to Tom being cheap. One does not follow logically from the other.

 

2. I wanted very much to see another D-man brought in and believed that Spacek was available at a reasonable price (he definitely was in January, rumor had him available in March). What player(s) would you have brought in and what would you have given up? Now, would the player(s) have realistically been available for the price you were willing to offer? I am sorry, but just saying they "should have done something" doesn't bring much to the discussion.

 

3. The Sabres are at $39MM (w/ $5MM available) and still have Ryan Miller and Dmitri Kalinin to sign. That gives the Sabres 21 NHL players, the roster limit is 23, so the Sabres still have to add 2 more players to the mix if they play with a full roster. (They may very likely play with only 22 on the roster.) The league minimum salary is $450k, so if the Sabres go with a 23 man roster they have ~$4MM to sign Dmitri and Ryan AND leave room to replace injured players that haven't been out long enough to warrant an IR SC exemption. If you honestly believe that Ryan and Dmitri can be signed for significantly less than $4MM combined, then there is little point in continuing discussions with you.

 

If Ryan and Dmitri sign long term deals, they would probably be for ~$2.5MM and $2.0MM respectively. That puts the team $400k OVER the SC! You mention "structuring contracts", which tells me you are still looking at this like the NHL has the NFL's CBA. It doesn't. There are no bonuses for the vast majority of contracts, no option years, and they can't be renegotiated. You CAN'T structure contracts to hide $'s. If you give Ryan a 3 year deal that pays him $1.5MM, $3.0MM, and $4.5MM, it counts as $3MM against your cap. You can't fit a $2.5MM player into a $1MM/year contract. This seems to be the point you are having the most difficulty grasping. Once you accept this, hopefully the rest of this stuff will make sense, but until you do accept it, you will believe your "conspiracy theories" no matter how bloody my or anyone else's fingers become typing while trying to continually find a way to make you understand this. You may still come up with LEGITIMATE conspiracy theories AFTER you understand the CBA (heck, in my last post, I even suggested a direction you could try to follow), but until you TRY to understand the CBA, your theories are going to be primarily hooey (and others here will probably call you on them, I doubt that I will respond to any more of your posts as you appear to refuse to expend any effort to understand to situation).

 

Other than signing Danny to a LT deal, which the Sabres tried to do but couldn't get a deal done, what other $4MM+ LT contract do you want to see the Sabres take on? Remember, anyone they add WILL mean they have to drop someone off the roster (depending on how big the deal is, they will have to drop several people off the roster).

 

Replacing Marty with a cheap backup (say $800k) only frees up $1.3MM, so the team would have less than $1MM to bring in injury replacements for guys that are hurt for ~3 weeks or less.

 

4. Affiliation - no, you are wrong. Scouting - you MAY be right. Either way on scouting, whether the video scouting works or not, I'd like to see the scouting budget where it's been not reduced.

 

5. Tom CAN'T give players 1 day deals, so whatever his philosphy on contracts is, it is moot (especially when the Sabres are handing out 3 and 4 year deals). I disagree with your assessment of player sentiment, if Campbell, Tallinder, Lydman, Spacek, Connolly, Kotalik, Afinogenov, Gaustad, Pominville, and Teppo didn't want to be in Buffalo they wouldn't have signed deals longer than they had to sign. Grier did not want to be in Buffalo as his wife had family near San Jose. Again, other than Danny, whom the Sabres WANTED to sign LT but couldn't get a deal done with, who would you have given a $4MM+ contract to? (Remember the salary cap heck the team is in before you chime in with "Jay McKee".) And, if you throw in $1.7MM/year for Mike Grier, what other player making at least that much scratch do you bump off the roster to make room for him under the NHL's SC?

 

Your final comment is telling regarding your reading comprehension. Many of the posts regarding the scouting department changes were of the tone that we don't like the change but hope that it does work out and several of us will wait to see how it plays out before making a final decision on it. I'm not certain how that is "defending" the decision.

 

Back to reading the CBA. Yes, I have not read it and maybe I am not too informed, but can someone please some answer this question for me. Can my theory be done. Which means you hike the cap, by backloading contracts, (42-44 mill) yet actually only pay 35-37 after trading Biron, and then next year dump your UFA's to drop the actual payroll down. Let's get away from the CBA and how teams use it. Can this be done. And if it can, wouldn't best work in a year that you are under the most pressure to spend money.

Releasing guys who will be UFA's next year DOESN'T DO WHAT YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY HOPES IT DOES.

 

Trading guys under contract who's contracts are now at actual values above their average value DOES do it, ASSUMING the team can find a willing trading partner. That is a big #!%!% assumption and the major hole in your theory. Well, let me rephrase that, it is the 2nd biggest hole in your theory. The 1st is that you have repeatedly stated that you don't understand and have no intention of trying to understand the CBA, which is the source of all this underhandedness that you rail against.

 

EVERYTHING IS IN THE OPEN, YET YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT IT. WHY IS THAT?

[BuffalOhio]

 

I also don't know how you can question Golisano's dedication to this team. You are right, it is not charity and it is a business, but I don't know many owners that were as passionate about their team in the playoffs last year like this guy...or even the regular season for that matter

 

Apparently, Uptick75 and his passion were not in the parking lot at the RBC Center when Golisano came strolling through the crowd of Sabres fans that I was proud to be part of. The man is as passionate an owner as I have seen.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Uptick save us all a headache and become a leaf fan, they will give you plenty of things to complain about, you will be busy 24/7.

[shrader]

I just did a little research. The Sabres currently have 13 players with an average salary of $1 million or higher. After they sign Miller and Kalinen, they will have 15. Only two other teams, the Flyers and Canadians have that many. This doesn't come across as being cheap if you ask me.

 

If it means anything, Koivu and Kovalev are the only players on either of these teams that are signed to long term deals for more than $4 million a year.

 

And yes, our number probably will go down by one when Biron is moved.

[uptick75]

Wow 80 posts on my first topic, can you guys al least give me credit for that. Well I am sure you guys are sick of responding to me about this topic and there is a chance I might be wrong about the whole thing. Dave B thanks for responding to the heart of the issue with that explanation on whether this thing is possible. I still believe that this year is an enigma, you guys think that the Sabres have changed their philosophy and will now be a (financially) competitive team for years to come. I hope for all of us, you guys are right. I still (and im sure you are not surprised by this) have my doubts.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Wow 80 posts on my first topic, can you guys al least give me credit for that. Well I am sure you guys are sick of responding to me about this topic and there is a chance I might be wrong about the whole thing. Dave B thanks for responding to the heart of the issue with that explanation on whether this thing is possible. I still believe that this year is an enigma, you guys think that the Sabres have changed their philosophy and will now be a (financially) competitive team for years to come. I hope for all of us, you guys are right. I still (and im sure you are not surprised by this) have my doubts.

 

I must admit, that is one hell of a discussion with your first post.

 

For the record, I don't think the Sabres are going to spend to the cap or as much as most teams every year. If that is what you are trying to say, you are correct. I just don't feel tricked or cheated out of a good on-ice product as a result. If they do it right, it can work. If they start putting half a team of cheap minor leaugers out there, then i will feel cheated or tricked.

 

Hang around, uptick, we're not all bad ... we just like to argue.

[X. Benedict]

 

 

Hang around, uptick, we're not all bad ... we just like to argue.

No we don't. ;)

[LabattBlue]

No we don't. ;)

YES WE DO! I thoroughly enjoy the arguments I have with DeLuca about Briere! :angry:

[Barnabov]

One thing that jumps out at me is that if you take the cap, subtract Briere, Dumont & Biron's salaries (roughly 10 mil), you are right at about the level that Mgmt/Ownership foreshadowed payroll to be at for this coming season: $34 million.

 

Dumont is already gone - Biron would be gone if there were any value out there in a trade (which there will be eventually) and I think that accepting Briere's arbitration award was the only choice - couldn't give up such a valuable asset for nothing.

 

I think it'll be hard to get any kind of long term deal done with Briere (he's going to see $5 mil as the base with raises in future years), so unless he puts up 20-30 goals in the first half of the season and is on pace for a major 100+ point year, he'll be shipped off too. May not be for much return either but that's the budget constraints of the Sabres.

 

Now if everyone wanted to pay NY Rangers ticket prices & sell out every game, we could scream about not spending near the cap but until that happens, we are destined to aim for the lower half of the league in payroll.

[shrader]

YES WE DO! I thoroughly enjoy the arguments I have with DeLuca about Briere! :angry:

 

You're an idiot! :angry: ;)

[PASabreFan]

Hang around, uptick, we're not all bad ... we just like to argue.

 

BTP, this thread went well beyond arguing. From almost the first reply, it got nasty and vicious, and I was surprised by that given the history of this board and its regular posters. To uptick's credit, he didn't respond in kind. If he hangs around, I give him credit. But he's playing the role of the nail that sticks up, and I've learned that around here, that usually means you are about to get pounded. I think he makes some very good points and expressed them more clearly as the thread wore on. I don't agree entirely with his theory of what is going on, but he is right that "spending to the cap" is a bit of an optical illusion.

[hopeleslyobvious]

BTP, this thread went well beyond arguing. From almost the first reply, it got nasty and vicious, and I was surprised by that given the history of this board and its regular posters. To uptick's credit, he didn't respond in kind. If he hangs around, I give him credit. But he's playing the role of the nail that sticks up, and I've learned that around here, that usually means you are about to get pounded. I think he makes some very good points and expressed them more clearly as the thread wore on. I don't agree entirely with his theory of what is going on, but he is right that "spending to the cap" is a bit of an optical illusion.

 

I think in general people around here are just not fans of conspiracy theories. They are however fans of well thought arguments supported by facts.

 

If you don't like the way the CBA handles long term contracts and the salary cap, your problem should be with the NHL and the NHLPA for agreeing on that term of the cap.

[PASabreFan]

Buffalo sports fans don't love conspiracy theories!? Please. Puh. Lease. :) Most Sabre fans believe Gary Bettman made the "No Goal" call (from the hallway behind the benches, no less) because he didn't want a small-market team to win the Cup. Or something.

[hopeleslyobvious]

Buffalo sports fans don't love conspiracy theories!? Please. Puh. Lease. :) Most Sabre fans believe Gary Bettman made the "No Goal" call (from the hallway behind the benches, no less) because he didn't want a small-market team to win the Cup. Or something.

 

The average Buffalo sports fan may, but they don't go over to well here.

 

EDIT: At least on no goal, the "goal" should have been called back according to the rulebook at the time. As opposed to some other theories that are contrary to all facts and completely out of left field.

[Bmwolf21]

BTP, this thread went well beyond arguing. From almost the first reply, it got nasty and vicious, and I was surprised by that given the history of this board and its regular posters. To uptick's credit, he didn't respond in kind. If he hangs around, I give him credit. But he's playing the role of the nail that sticks up, and I've learned that around here, that usually means you are about to get pounded. I think he makes some very good points and expressed them more clearly as the thread wore on. I don't agree entirely with his theory of what is going on, but he is right that "spending to the cap" is a bit of an optical illusion.

 

I know you like to play devil's advocate, PA, which is why I am not surprised to see you come to uptick's defense. FWIW, my initial problem was not in his arguments or theories; rather, it was how dismissive he was to the posters who tried to help him understand the nuances of the cap hit vs. actual payroll, by flat out arguing his theory, and explaining that he didn't read (and doesn't need to, IIRC) the CBA or the section on the salary cap.

 

And FWIW, he managed to confuse me with his posts; having gone back and look through them again, I really don't see what "good points" he made. The only thing I could glean is: TG is cheap, and is trying to make money off the team; uptick has a theory, and we'll see if he is correct come Oct. 1; and that our cap hit is higher than the actual payroll this year.

 

Look, most Sabre fans are not complete idiots, so I am sure that when they hear there is a difference in the actual payroll vs. salary cap hit/#'s, they will ask the same thing - Why is that? But most will look for the answer, either by reading the newspaper/websites, or listening to the radio shows; searching for the answers online; or asking someone to help them understand. I'd also bet once they look at the brief, simple explanation of what the concept is, most will be satisfied. Sure, some of the resident crackpots/conspiracy theorists will complain no matter what, but let them.

 

I think in general people around here are just not fans of conspiracy theories. They are however fans of well thought arguments supported by facts.

 

If you don't like the way the CBA handles long term contracts and the salary cap, your problem should be with the NHL and the NHLPA for agreeing on that term of the cap.

 

I don't have a problem with conspiracy theories, but for God's sake, at least make sure your theory makes some sense. NBA rigging draft order to make sure the incoming new stars go to the best markets? OK, I can buy that one. TG "pulling the wool over our eyes" to save a few bucks, payroll & salary cap evidence to the contrary? Not as much. If this thread would have been started 5, 6 weeks ago, after losing McKee & Grier and before we started signing our RFAs like mad, then it would have made more sense to me. But now? Until I see some sort of Adelphia Criminals scheme unfolding, I'll take my chances that TG isn't going to pull a "Florida Marlins fire sale" on our Sabres.

Buffalo sports fans don't love conspiracy theories!? Please. Puh. Lease. :) Most Sabre fans believe Gary Bettman made the "No Goal" call (from the hallway behind the benches, no less) because he didn't want a small-market team to win the Cup. Or something.

 

Anyone who truly believes that sort of conspiracy theory needs to put their foil helmet back on. Everyone knows David Stern told Bettman that the Stars needed to win on the road, in Game Six, so he could get the Dallas media to focus on something other than Mark Cuban. ;)

[deluca67]

YES WE DO! I thoroughly enjoy the arguments I have with DeLuca about Briere! :angry:

 

It's what makes the board fun. Otherwise it's just one big O-jerk. ;)

[PASabreFan]

Show of hands: who here has read the CBA?

 

Oh, look, right on cue, here's DeLuca. He used to be a nail that stuck up -- until he started working for The Man.

[deluca67]

Show of hands: who here has read the CBA?

 

Oh, look, right on cue, here's DeLuca. He used to be a nail that stuck up -- until he started working for The Man.

 

I am more of a hammer. :P

[hopeleslyobvious]

Show of hands: who here has read the CBA?

 

Oh, look, right on cue, here's DeLuca. He used to be a nail that stuck up -- until he started working for The Man.

 

I have been browsing through it lately.

 

People around here don't mind others who have contrary opinions. But those opinions have to have at least some basis in fact to be taken seriously.

[shrader]

And FWIW, he managed to confuse me with his posts; having gone back and look through them again, I really don't see what "good points" he made. The only thing I could glean is: TG is cheap, and is trying to make money off the team; uptick has a theory, and we'll see if he is correct come Oct. 1; and that our cap hit is higher than the actual payroll this year.

 

The way I see it is that there's a good point that could be made with everything that he's trying to say. He just hasn't gotten to it yet.

[Bmwolf21]

I'm still waiting for that good point. ;)

 

PA, like hoplessleyobvious points out, I really don't have a problem with contrary opinions - all I ask is that we can understand your points and you have some sort of evidence to back up your assertations. BTW, I don't think the thread would have turned so quickly if he had phrased his initial post with his concerns/questions/comments a little better, and then listened to some of the answers about the CBA.

 

To be completely fair, I am in the same boat as hopeleslyobvious - I have started reading more of the CBA lately, but to be honest, I have learned more about it by reading dave's insightful posts, and reading stuff on various websites - TSN, the newspapers, this message board, etc. I am sure it bugs dave when we pepper the board with things like "i'm sure dave can correct me on this, but..." or even "dave - can the Sabres do X-and-Y if they walk away from the arbitrator's award?"

 

Guess my point is, there is a LOT of information about the CBA out there - there is no excuse for not knowing some of it (if you are planning on talking about the business side, that is... ;))

[deluca67]

I have been browsing through it lately.

 

People around here don't mind others who have contrary opinions. But those opinions have to have at least some basis in fact to be taken seriously.

 

 

When did this rule start? :blink: Does this mean all the posts about Briere being a 100 point scorer will be deleted? :rolleyes:

[Bmwolf21]

I have been browsing through it lately.

 

People around here don't mind others who have contrary opinions. But those opinions have to should have at least some basis in fact to be taken seriously.

 

 

When did this rule start? :blink: Does this mean all the posts about Briere being a 100 point scorer will be deleted? :rolleyes:

 

FIxed it for you guys. DeLuca - is that better? Or do you want a constitutional amendment banning speculation and opinion? ;)

(BTW, I hope the "Briere would have been a 100-pt scorer" posts would disappear as well, but you know how pesky those threads can be.) :P