HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Temporary salary cap

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2012, 01:08 PM
  #26
aceface33
Registered User
 
aceface33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Herkimer, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrison View Post
It was 24%.
First post in 4 years, nicely done.

aceface33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 01:58 PM
  #27
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
I really hope that they don't go nuts and spend to the temporary cap HOPING that they get some sort of relief after the CBA is agreed upon.

Part of their issue right now is lack of cap space. I hope they have learned their lesson there.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:07 PM
  #28
ShaPow
Registered User
 
ShaPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I really hope that they don't go nuts and spend to the temporary cap HOPING that they get some sort of relief after the CBA is agreed upon.

Part of their issue right now is lack of cap space. I hope they have learned their lesson there.
If they can deal Roy and Leopold prior to the deadline or at the draft, they would help their cap situation for next year expedientially.

ShaPow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:19 PM
  #29
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaPow View Post
If they can deal Roy and Leopold prior to the deadline or at the draft, they would help their cap situation for next year expedientially.
True, but I was referring to what to do with the cap space during the time that they could spend over $75M against the cap without knowing what the cap will really be and what mechanisms would be available to them to reduce cap space.

I would be very, very, very careful about spending over the $56M against the cap that they have today during the off-season.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:29 PM
  #30
ShaPow
Registered User
 
ShaPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
True, but I was referring to what to do with the cap space during the time that they could spend over $75M against the cap without knowing what the cap will really be and what mechanisms would be available to them to reduce cap space.

I would be very, very, very careful about spending over the $56M against the cap that they have today during the off-season.
Agreed. I would hope they just completely ignore the temporary increase.

There is plenty of dead money tied up in players they don't need. Trim a few of those from the roster in any way possible, and stick with the current cap number moving forward, with the possible 4 million increase in mind for next season.

ShaPow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 01:05 PM
  #31
punkr0x
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaPow View Post
If they can deal Roy and Leopold prior to the deadline or at the draft, they would help their cap situation for next year expedientially.
I don't know where this statement comes from. Leopold's cap hit is reasonable and Roy is an absolute steal at $4m. Anyone you bring in to replace them would be similar cap hits if not higher. When you look at reducing our cap hit I would point to guys like Stafford, Miller and Leino as well as UFAs Boyes and Hecht.

punkr0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 01:29 PM
  #32
ShaPow
Registered User
 
ShaPow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkr0x View Post
I don't know where this statement comes from. Leopold's cap hit is reasonable and Roy is an absolute steal at $4m. Anyone you bring in to replace them would be similar cap hits if not higher. When you look at reducing our cap hit I would point to guys like Stafford, Miller and Leino as well as UFAs Boyes and Hecht.
This statement comes from naming players that are far easier to trade than a thrice concussed forward who can't even play right now (Hecht), a player that can't actually do anything at all on the ice (Boyes), and players that have 12 million or more remaining on their deal (Stafford, Leino, Miller).

Neither Roy, nor Leopold are part of the solution here. They cost 7 million dollars against next years cap. We have a wealth of defensemen. Tyler Ennis' emergence at center makes Roy far easier to move along.

The return for Roy and Leopold is almost definitely more than it would be for Leino or Stafford, strictly because of their remaining salary.

I'd much rather spend that 7 million on a player like Zach Parise.

ShaPow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:22 PM
  #33
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyMy57 View Post
You would still have to pay the buyout, so buying him out and re-signing him would likely cost the same. I don't know if it's a free buyout period, but even then I doubt Leino would do it, I could only see a guy like Gomez doing that or a guy with a ridiculous contract that deserved it for a while, but has had his skills drop off but has been there his whole career.
This year, that's 2/3 of the Sabres roster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I really hope that they don't go nuts and spend to the temporary cap HOPING that they get some sort of relief after the CBA is agreed upon.

Part of their issue right now is lack of cap space. I hope they have learned their lesson there.
I usually agree with you 100%, Jim Bob, but their issue is lack of both talent and depth at the center position, a plethora of injuries, and an "all planets alignment" of sub-par seasons from too much of the roster. Having more cap space at the beginning of this season wouldn't have solved that, IMO (speculating what would have been done with that cap space is just that, speculating). Nor do I feel it's an issue this offseason, as it's more speculation, and the FA class at center isn't a guaranteed signing by BUF anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaPow View Post
Agreed. I would hope they just completely ignore the temporary increase.

There is plenty of dead money tied up in players they don't need. Trim a few of those from the roster in any way possible, and stick with the current cap number moving forward, with the possible 4 million increase in mind for next season.
Also reads correctly as "there is plenty of money tied up in dead players".

I'm a novice on anything CBA related, but I assume a viable option may be a one-time restructuring exemption of any contracts >$XX cap hit.
e.g., if a current SPC exceeds say, e.g., $6M cap hit, and is structured as $24M over 4 years, regardless of actually payment plan for each of those 4 years, the league and the Union could jointly agree to add an extra year (or more) to those contracts. So, the $24 is now spread over 5 years, or $4.8M cap hit per year. But the player is not bound to the team for the 5th year, and is eligible to collect the salary while moving to another team, under the terms of a new SPC contract (i.e., double dip).

I think that would be a win-win for both constituencies. Owners get a lower cap, and reduced total future cash outlay (because of the lower cap). High-$-contract players still get all their $, and an opportunity to move teams when their current contracts expire. There most likely would need to be an incentive to the affected players, however, e.g., half of that extra year(s) would be paid in year 1 of the restructured deal, such that players have the time-value-of-money incentive to take such an offer.

It's like a mortgage refinancing.

I think that's conceptually different from a buyout.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:43 PM
  #34
McTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaPow View Post
This statement comes from naming players that are far easier to trade than a thrice concussed forward who can't even play right now (Hecht), a player that can't actually do anything at all on the ice (Boyes), and players that have 12 million or more remaining on their deal (Stafford, Leino, Miller).

Neither Roy, nor Leopold are part of the solution here. They cost 7 million dollars against next years cap. We have a wealth of defensemen. Tyler Ennis' emergence at center makes Roy far easier to move along.

The return for Roy and Leopold is almost definitely more than it would be for Leino or Stafford, strictly because of their remaining salary.

I'd much rather spend that 7 million on a player like Zach Parise.
That's a pretty good point, if we moved them, replaced them with Parise, and inserted grigs/Galchenyuk into Roy's spot, it would be similar salary and a lot more production

McTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.