Bmwolf21 Posted October 5, 2006 Report Share Posted October 5, 2006 Yeah, you're probably right - I was looking for info online, and I could not find anything about his salary if he were demoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Yep, you're right - he should be on the top line with Briere and Drury, b/c obviously our Coach of the Year sees something in him - that must be why he gave Peters 1:19 in ice time last night; Andrew responded with no SOG and no PIM. :rolleyes: Come on, don't jump out on some ridiculous limb to make a point - are you saying that you would rather have Peters in the lineup instead of Paille? Really? Do you also think that Lindy would rather have a one-dimensional player like Peters in the lineup instead of Paille, who can be used in a variety of situations? My guess here is that b/c the team is hamstrung by Timmy's injury status, the salary cap (and Marty's salary), and the number of good young players that came into camp (not to mention those who were out of options) Lindy is forced to make due with a lineup that is a little different than the one he wants to use for most of the year. Once a decision is made on Timmy we'll see where Peters, Paille & co. fit into Lindy's lineups. Right now I think he is forced to play the hand he has been dealt. I completely back APus on this one. If Lindy wanted Paille in the lineup, he'd be in the lineup. I know a lot of people on this board don't like Peters, but Lindy does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 I don't think its possible, so the argument is moot. The way it looks, the team is too close to the cap with Timmy's dead cap hit sitting there - and Lindy admitted they had to send Paille down for financial reasons: Sabres coach Lindy Ruff said it was "a difficult decision" to send winger Daniel Paille to Rochester on Tuesday. The move was made not because Paille had a poor camp, but apparently to save money. Paille's NHL salary is $760,000. He would make five figures in the minors. The Sabres are carrying 21 players, leaving them no spare forwards and one extra defenseman: Nathan Paetsch. "I thought Dan played well," Ruff said. "But right now - and part of it is the way everything is broken down - we're going to run as thin as we can, knowing that we can get him here any time we want, as quick as we want. At the same time, if we're not going to play him [in Buffalo] he should be playing [every night in Rochester]." Earlier in the article they talk about how the Sabres are just $50,000 under the the cap, due to Timmy's salary: General Manager Darcy Regier said the Sabres started the season with a salary cap number of $43.95 million, just $50,000 under the ceiling. That pricey number includes - and always will - concussed center Tim Connolly, who is making $2.2 million. Connolly has not been placed on long-term injured reserve yet. Once he is, Regier said the new collective bargaining agreement would allow the Sabres to spend up to Connolly's salary less their $50,000 cap cushion on personnel to replace him. Since Paille's NHL salary is $300,000 more than Peters, the only real move the team had was to keep Peters and send Paille down; otherwise they would have had to send Paetsch down and keep only 6 "D" or make a move off their roster to free up some cap room. Since Paille can go up & down w/out waivers, it is the easiest and most logical move to make. If Lindy had come out and said "Paille had a great camp, but so did Andrew, so Peters will be in the lineup to start the year, and we'll bring up Daniel later" I would totally agree with you. But I think its more of having to play with the hand he has been dealt -- I just simply do not agree that Lindy looked at Paille and Peters and said "I'll take the one-dimensional guy, dress him each night (can't send him to the press box, unless you want to dress 7 D) and nail his butt to the bench, essentially wasting a roster spot." Maybe I am wrong, but the way I am looking at the available cap space (according to Darcy) combined with Paille's NHL salary make keeping him impossible without making an extra move, and sending Peters down to Rochester on a 1-way contract makes no sense - are you going to pay him nearly $500K to skate on the third or fourth line in Rochester? I don't hate Peters, I still think he has a role to fill on this team. But I also don't like the idea of having better players not in the lineup b/c of him, and I don't like that having him in the lineup affects the Sabres' ability to roll four solid lines consistently. He should be in the lineup for about 25 games this year, and not too many more IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I completely back APus on this one. I just gotta bring this up. Am I the only one that reads this as "a puss" ? It's been killing me since the first time I saw it. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 I completely back APus on this one. If Lindy wanted Paille in the lineup, he'd be in the lineup. I know a lot of people on this board don't like Peters, but Lindy does. Lindy's hands are tied on this. It has nothing to do with Lindy wanting Peters in the lineup instead of Paille. It has everything to do with the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 but, but...what about "a puss"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.