68 replies to this topic

[Superhero]

With there being 2 buyout players after the season, Villie Lieno is an obvious choice as on of them. Who will the 2nd player be?

Edited by Superhero, 07 January 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

The player they trade for at the deadline to eat the buyout for another, less affluent, team.

[tom webster]

LastPommerFan, on 07 January 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

The player they trade for at the deadline to eat the buyout for another, less affluent, team.

That's the only scenario where they would need to use a second buy out. After this season the only players signed for more then an extra year will be Myers and Ehrhoff.

[SwampD]

I'm not sure I like this rule.  Sure, we are a Have team now, but we weren't always, and I'm sure we will be a Have Not team again at some point.  It seems like the Haves are the only ones that are going to be able to use this rule and Have Nots will be stuck with their crappy contracts.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

SwampD, on 07 January 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

I'm not sure I like this rule.  Sure, we are a Have team now, but we weren't always, and I'm sure we will be a Have Not team again at some point.  It seems like the Haves are the only ones that are going to be able to use this rule and Have Nots will be stuck with their crappy contracts.

It's a one time thing, right?

[shrader]

LastPommerFan, on 07 January 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

The player they trade for at the deadline to eat the buyout for another, less affluent, team.

My thoughts exactly.  It should be interesting to see watch the trade deadline and beyond around the entire league.  I wonder if they have limited the timing for the buyout at all.  If they're smart, they'll say you can't buyout someone that you trade for in the offseason.  They probably need to stop teams from making these last second deals come June or July.

[SwampD]

LastPommerFan, on 07 January 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

It's a one time thing, right?

Ah, that makes sense.  Sorry it's early.  Still not sure I like it, though.  One I could see, but two just lets bad GMs hit the reset button.

[dudacek]

I would be very surprised if the Sabres don't take on someone else's mistake to help them make a playoff run.
In fact, I look for Darcy to attempt another Regehr-type deal — give us a second-rounder and we'll take a bad salary.
Shawn Horcoff perhaps? Are there any other other overpaid, but still useful centres out there?

Leino will get this year to try and show his contract was not a mistake.

[Eleven]

SwampD, on 07 January 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Ah, that makes sense.  Sorry it's early.  Still not sure I like it, though.  One I could see, but two just lets bad GMs hit the reset button.

With the cap being lower than anticipated next year, it's almost necessary.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

I think Leino sticks with the Sabres and will not be one of the buyouts.  I don't see the Sabres brass admitting a mistake this soon and will give him more time.  Last season was an adjustment for him and the centre experiment back fired, so he will be on his natural wing this season.

IMO, if the Sabres buyout any contract(s) it would depend how this season goes and where they see the team for next season and beyond.  If the Sabres do not seem likely to seriously contend for a cup this season, or next, I would not be surprised if they used the two get out of jail free cards on two vets with one more year on their contracts.  I could see them, depending how this season goes, dumping Miller and Vanek to free up cap space and then take the team in a whole new direction.

Edited by Sabres Fan In NS, 07 January 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[stenbaro]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 07 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I think Leino sticks with the Sabres and will not be one of the buyouts.  I don't see the Sabres brass admitting a mistake this soon and will give him more time.  Last season was an adjustment for him and the centre experiment back fired, so he will be on his natural wing this season.

IMO, if the Sabres buyout any contract(s) it would depend how this season goes and where they see the team for next season and beyond.  If the Sabres do not seem likely to seriously contend for a cup this season, or next, I would not be surprised if they used the two get out of jail free cards on two vets with one more year on their contracts.  I could see them, depending how this season goes, dumping Miller and Vanek to free up cap space and then take the team in a whole new direction.

Do you mean buying out Miller and Vanek or trading them?

[Sabres Fan In NS]

stenbaro, on 07 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Do you mean buying out Miller and Vanek or trading them?

Either, or.  Although I don't see many teams wanting those kinds of contracts with the cap being lowered next season.  So, the buyout option would be more likely, IMO.

[Spndnchz]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 07 January 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Either, or.  Although I don't see many teams wanting those kinds of contracts with the cap being lowered next season.  So, the buyout option would be more likely, IMO.

There's at least 10 teams that have that much cap space even with the drop next year.

[LGR4GM]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 07 January 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Either, or.  Although I don't see many teams wanting those kinds of contracts with the cap being lowered next season.  So, the buyout option would be more likely, IMO.

I somehow doubt you would have to buyout Vanek regardless of his cap hit, teams would be fighting to get a guy like him.  Rich Nash got 2 good prospects/guys with NHL games under their belt, 1 somewhat unknown prospect and a pick.  Vanek prob wouldn't get that but I doubt we would have to buy him out, he could easily be traded.

ps I also think you could trade Miller, if Luongo is trad-able than Miller is.

[Sabres Fan In NS]

Spndnchz, on 07 January 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

There's at least 10 teams that have that much cap space even with the drop next year.

So, maybe a trade could be worked out with one, or more, of those teams, if any of those teams would want either Miller, or Vanek.

LGR4GM, on 07 January 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I somehow doubt you would have to buyout Vanek regardless of his cap hit, teams would be fighting to get a guy like him.  Rich Nash got 2 good prospects/guys with NHL games under their belt, 1 somewhat unknown prospect and a pick.  Vanek prob wouldn't get that but I doubt we would have to buy him out, he could easily be traded.

ps I also think you could trade Miller, if Luongo is trad-able than Miller is.

You may be right, but the last time I checked Lu hasn't been traded yet.

[LGR4GM]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 07 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

So, maybe a trade could be worked out with one, or more, of those teams, if any of those teams would want either Miller, or Vanek.



You may be right, but the last time I checked Lu hasn't been traded yet.

Luongo is also signed through 2022, versus Miller who is signed through 2015, if I am a GM that changes my mindset on a trade.

Luongo's lengthy contract is a stumbling block and makes him far more likely for a buyout. Miller is easily trade-able IMPO

[Spndnchz]

LGR4GM, on 07 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Luongo is also signed through 2022, versus Miller who is signed through 2015, if I am a GM that changes my mindset on a trade.

Luongo's lengthy contract is a stumbling block and makes him far more likely for a buyout. Miller is easily trade-able IMPO

I don't see a team spending $27 million to buyout Luongo.  He'll be going to Toronto.

[MattPie]

Sabres Fan In NS, on 07 January 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

You may be right, but the last time I checked Lu hasn't been traded yet.

I'd guess Lu not getting traded may be in part due to the lockout. I think many teams would take on either of Vanek or Miller, they don't have as negative view of them. If you get anything back (even picks), that's better than a buy-out. Leino, maybe. Although at $4.5M (cap-hit), he's not *that* expensive. I suspect you might get a low-budget team to give up a pick or two for him after this season when the signing bonuses are paid out.

[waldo]

LGR4GM, on 07 January 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I somehow doubt you would have to buyout Vanek regardless of his cap hit, teams would be fighting to get a guy like him.  Rich Nash got 2 good prospects/guys with NHL games under their belt, 1 somewhat unknown prospect and a pick.  Vanek prob wouldn't get that but I doubt we would have to buy him out, he could easily be traded.

ps I also think you could trade Miller, if Luongo is trad-able than Miller is.

Seems like most here miss the fact that the buy out provision could also be a great opportunity for the big market teams to temporarily upgrade on the cheap and strengthen a run.They seem to be focusing on teams that need to hit the floor.

Let say the Sabres buy out Vanek , which i agree they would have to be crazy to do. What would stop a team like the Rangers from making enough room in their cap, via their buy outs, and then bringing in a Vanek on a one year deal  for cheap money?

Vanek with a legit one center in a playoff run on a team that needs offense ? Have not seen him with a true one center for 5-6 years now?.The provisions governing  the buy out  and the timing of same will be very interesting to read.

Same with Miller.. He will not need 7 mill to make himself whole after a buy out on a one year deal ..3-4 would do it. Would you take Miller for 3-4..After that it is into the market for a long term deal.

Edited by waldo, 07 January 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[LabattBlue]

LGR4GM, on 07 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Luongo is also signed through 2022, versus Miller who is signed through 2015, if I am a GM that changes my mindset on a trade.

Miller(along with Vanek & Pominville) is a UFA after 13-14 season.

[Spndnchz]

MattPie, on 07 January 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

I'd guess Lu not getting traded may be in part due to the lockout. I think many teams would take on either of Vanek or Miller, they don't have as negative view of them. If you get anything back (even picks), that's better than a buy-out. Leino, maybe. Although at $4.5M (cap-hit), he's not *that* expensive. I suspect you might get a low-budget team to give up a pick or two for him after this season when the signing bonuses are paid out.

Everyone already got paid their bonuses on July 1st.

waldo, on 07 January 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Seems like most here miss the fact that the buy out provision could also be a great opportunity for the big market teams to temporarily upgrade on the cheap and strengthen a run. Let say the Sabres buy out Vanek , which i agree they would have to be crazy to do, what would stop a team like the Rangers from making enough room in their cap via their buy outs and then bringing in a Vanek on a one year deal . Vanek with a legit one center? Have not seen that in six years.The provisions of the buy out will and the timing will be very interesting to read.

There are no buyouts until AFTER the season is over.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

LabattBlue, on 07 January 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Miller(along with Vanek & Pominville) is a UFA after 13-14 season.

Pommer will sign an extension, he'll never reach UFA, I intend on making an offer he can't refuse.

[K-9]

People are going to be changing their tune after this season when Leino, like so many FAs in so many sports have done historically, rebounds from his pressure-filled first year with his new team and the stresses of adapting to a new environment and has a great year. Yes. That Ville Leino.

GO SABRES!!!

[MattPie]

Spndnchz, on 07 January 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Everyone already got paid their bonuses on July 1st.

That makes sense. So Leino is now one of those players whose cap hit is higher than is salary, which low-budget teams are supposedly looking for. The only problem there is will anyone want to take on 4 more years. It'd be better if it was only a couple more.

LastPommerFan, on 07 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Pommer will sign an extension, he'll never reach UFA, I intend on making an offer he can't refuse.

Next born son?

K-9, on 07 January 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

People are going to be changing their tune after this season when Leino, like so many FAs in so many sports have done historically, rebounds from his pressure-filled first year with his new team and the stresses of adapting to a new environment and has a great year. Yes. That Ville Leino.

That too, I still have hope for him after watching play here in Philly. FWIW, he showed some nastiness and chirp last season, so he may be useful as-is, just overpaid. As opposed to Boyes who was overpaid and mostly useless.

[waldo]

Spndnchz, on 07 January 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Everyone already got paid their bonuses on July 1st.



There are no buyouts until AFTER the season is over.

i was talking about 2013-14.. Have the buy out provisions been drafted yet ?????? A great opportunity for a Vanek or Miller type to pick a team with a Stanley Cup chance on a one year deal or go ufa early to one of twenty teams that will want them at, near ,or above their current salaries on a longer term deal.

Edited by waldo, 07 January 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[sizzlemeister]

The buy-out provision is a God-send for the Pegula regime.  I won't pretend to know, right now, how they should use it, but this gives them an additional tool to mold the Sabres into a Cup contender.  Between the buy-outs, the infrastructure/facility investments, and the deep pockets for contracts, there should be NO excuse for the Sabres not contending for the cup within the next season or two (at most).

[waldo]

sizzlemeister, on 07 January 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

The buy-out provision is a God-send for the Pegula regime.  I won't pretend to know, right now, how they should use it, but this gives them an additional tool to mold the Sabres into a Cup contender.  Between the buy-outs, the infrastructure/facility investments, and the deep pockets for contracts, there should be NO excuse for the Sabres not contending for the cup within the next season or two (at most).

It is great flexibility.. Contenders two years? No centers, undersize , non physical, no grit team, with one scoring line, no power play and a average defense with a gifted goaltender who can keep them in games.  Within five years maybe, if they go the full blown rebuild route and use the buy out to get there. Assuming they can attract some UFA's to Buffalo and the Lindy system .imo

Edited by waldo, 07 January 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[shrader]

1 year contracts are not the kind of deals the bigger money teams are going to want to buy out.  If you're trying to purchase long term cap flexibility, you don't buy out a deal that is going to expire right away.

[MF1]

I'm glad the buyouts aren't until after the season. Face it Darcy wouldn't buy out Leino right now anyways; if he does it at all it certainly wouldn't be before giving him another year. Darcy is too stubborn for that.

[qwksndmonster]

K-9, on 07 January 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

People are going to be changing their tune after this season when Leino, like so many FAs in so many sports have done historically, rebounds from his pressure-filled first year with his new team and the stresses of adapting to a new environment and has a great year. Yes. That Ville Leino.

GO SABRES!!!

And if we got rid of Vanek before letting him play with Grigorenko or Hodgson for an entire season, I would jump off a building.

[waldo]

shrader, on 07 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

1 year contracts are not the kind of deals the bigger money teams are going to want to buy out.  If you're trying to purchase long term cap flexibility, you don't buy out a deal that is going to expire right away.

big one year contracts?

[sizzlemeister]

waldo, on 07 January 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

It is great flexibility.. Contenders two years? No centers, undersize , non physical, no grit team, with one scoring line, no power play and a average defense with a gifted goaltender who can keep them in games.  Within five years maybe, if they go the full blown rebuild route and use the buy out to get there. Assuming they can attract some UFA's to Buffalo and the Lindy system .imo

Nah, between sunsetting contracts, some rookies coming up, trades, and now buy-outs, it's completely possible to be a contender in two years.  No one knows what this season's roster will look like yet, let alone seen them on ice, so we have no idea if the additions and subtractions have addressed any of the issues you listed, except the number one center slot I would say.

Frankly, I think the grit and physical issues could have well been addressed, as long as the coaching is there to take advantage of it.  I think the D is, on paper, slightly above average compared to the rest of the league, but, again, coaching needs to take advantage of it.  PP, can't say at all.  I don't think the Sabres are undersized, on average, any more, although the offense can be by itself.  Also, on paper, I think you can certainly put together two scoring lines, but whether they score or not is up in the air.

[Taro T]

Spndnchz, on 07 January 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Everyone already got paid their bonuses on July 1st.



There are no buyouts until AFTER the season is over.

So there's 2 total buyouts per team and they're valid during summer '14 '13 and summer '15 '14 where each may be used during either time frame.  If you don't use 1 or both of your buyouts by fall '15 '14 they expire.  And they are not transferable to another team.

Is that a correct understanding of the buyout provision?

EDIT: Thanks Tom W for catching the typos.

Edited by Taro T, 07 January 2013 - 03:17 PM.

[tom webster]

Taro T, on 07 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

So there's 2 total buyouts per team and they're valid during summer '14 and summer '15 where each may be used during either time frame.  If you don't use 1 or both of your buyouts by fall '15 they expire.  And they are not transferable to another team.

Is that a correct understanding of the buyout provision?

Think you mean 13 and 14.

[Taro T]

tom webster, on 07 January 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Think you mean 13 and 14.

Yep.  

[Spndnchz]

Taro T, on 07 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

So there's 2 total buyouts per team and they're valid during summer '14 '13 and summer '15 '14 where each may be used during either time frame.  If you don't use 1 or both of your buyouts by fall '15 '14 they expire.  And they are not transferable to another team.

Is that a correct understanding of the buyout provision?

EDIT: Thanks Tom W for catching the typos.

Correct.  There may be more to it as far as trading buyouts, signing someone you just bought out, etc.  But haven't heard anything else besides the number and years so far.

[shrader]

Taro T, on 07 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

So there's 2 total buyouts per team and they're valid during summer '14 '13 and summer '15 '14 where each may be used during either time frame.  If you don't use 1 or both of your buyouts by fall '15 '14 they expire.  And they are not transferable to another team.

Is that a correct understanding of the buyout provision?

EDIT: Thanks Tom W for catching the typos.

"Not transferable".  So what exactly do we mean by this?  Does that stop them from immediately buying out someone they just traded for?

[d4rksabre]

shrader, on 07 January 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

"Not transferable".  So what exactly do we mean by this?  Does that stop them from immediately buying out someone they just traded for?

I don't think so. But I think it does mean that buyouts can't be traded as a commodity, so a team couldn't stockpile other teams buyouts.

[MattPie]

d4rksabre, on 07 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

I don't think so. But I think it does mean that buyouts can't be traded as a commodity, so a team couldn't stockpile other teams buyouts.

That's how I read it. You can't trade Stafford + a 2nd round pick + 2013 buy-out for Nugent-Hopkins.

[shrader]

d4rksabre, on 07 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

I don't think so. But I think it does mean that buyouts can't be traded as a commodity, so a team couldn't stockpile other teams buyouts.

It sounds like a no brainer that it would be set up that way, so I was holding out hope that they would create a window where you can't buyout someone you added to the roster in the last X months.