Confirmed with Link: Sabres acquire G Ben Bishop and a 7th round pick in 2022 from Dallas in exchange for future considerations

[Djp]

Honestly, from the players perspective, this is much more egregious than the cap circumventions that teams use to go over that cap. The cap floor is designed to force teams to spend a minimum on salaries. By using the LTIR loop hole to avoid spending cash on actual player salaries, it's taking CBA mandated dollars away from the players, whereas spending over the cap doesn't do that. Since this is the 2nd year in a row (and Arizona has been doing it as well), I'm curious if the NHLPA formerly complains about it. Making it a hard floor that teams have to spend cash over.

noits not. These were legit contracts that happened to be front loaded.

if you have an issue with thst then ban front loaded or backloaded contracts.

It's exactly what it is. Cash wise, its by far the cheapest actual spend to get to the cap floor. I was looking at Seabrook's deal that got moved to Tampa and its a 2 year commitment, Weber's is 4 years left, etc

People say I'm harping on the Pegula's being cheap. If you needed additional proof after last year...I'm not sure how you can say they aren't being cheap after using LTIR to skirt the cap floor two years in a row.

the way the rules are structured teams are required to spend to the cap floor. How they do that dies not matter.

the team is young with the need to pay them in the future. No reason to block that

 

[threeVo]

I think people are forgetting that one of the reasons we are under the floor so much is a lot our guys are on either ELC or their 2nd contracts.

I know people see cap space and are in a hurry to spend it. I would be fine running this team back with most of the same roster. Spend some to get a goalie and some vet depth. I don't want them to crazy spending. They tried that before and it doesn't work out. Most times big free agent signings just don't work.

Yes we have a 1-2 year window where we are going to be a floor team simply due to all our youth being good enough (relatively speaking) to be in the NHL on their ELC. Tage(1), Cozens(1), Samuelsson(1), Olofsson(rfa), and Asplund (1) all need new contracts after this year.

Power and Dahlin both expire the same offseason. Add that in with the fact we likely sign 1-2 players in the 2-4 year term range in UFA this year we arent 20 million under the floor every year. Its just a perfect storm this season.

 

[Jacob582]

I think people are forgetting that one of the reasons we are under the floor so much is that we trade or let our veterans walk. We suck!

 

[brian_griffin]

The league needs to start hitting teams who do this stuff with sanctions like taking away draft picks because it's conduct unbecoming of an NHL organization. If you don't want to even spend to the cap floor you don't deserve to own an NHL team. It's even more ridiculous when the owner is among the richest in the entire league.

But aren't player salaries aggregated? I.e., if the league-wide salary midpoint is a fixed percentage of HRR, does it matter if a few teams spend at the floor, vs. 16 teams each spending exactly to the cap and 16 teams exactly spending to the floor? The same midpoint would exist.

What if a team somehow acquired the top 6 draft choices from 4 consecutive drafts and had every player on a 3-year ELC? They would field a young, talent-laden roster and be well below the cap floor. If those contracts were dealt normally through the draft order, it would be simply be distributed around the league.

Honestly, from the players perspective, this is much more egregious than the cap circumventions that teams use to go over that cap. The cap floor is designed to force teams to spend a minimum on salaries. By using the LTIR loop hole to avoid spending cash on actual player salaries, it's taking CBA mandated dollars away from the players, whereas spending over the cap doesn't do that. Since this is the 2nd year in a row (and Arizona has been doing it as well), I'm curious if the NHLPA formerly complains about it. Making it a hard floor that teams have to spend cash over.

See above.

And, to the bolded, who specifically is not getting paid?

I'll use a simple example:
32 teams, $4.48 Billion HRR, 50% player share = $70M midpoint.
Cap set to $80M, Floor set to $60M.
Players pay a percentage into escrow.
Players are paid a pro-rated percentage of their contract proportional to the sum total of all NHL contracts divided by total HRR. It is pure coincidence if that turns out to be the exact face value of their individual contract.

What if every NHL team had LTIR contracts, multiple players on each team, worth exactly $5M AAV per season for each and every team? Are there players not getting paid?

Perhaps your reasoning is akin to equating the concepts of equitable (fair) with equal?

It's exactly what it is. Cash wise, its by far the cheapest actual spend to get to the cap floor. I was looking at Seabrook's deal that got moved to Tampa and its a 2 year commitment, Weber's is 4 years left, etc

People say I'm harping on the Pegula's being cheap. If you needed additional proof after last year...I'm not sure how you can say they aren't being cheap after using LTIR to skirt the cap floor two years in a row.

conversely, why isn't it "good business sense" to acquire one of the only 1-year LTIR deals out there?

The NHLPA won't really have a leg to stand on as this doesn't affect the dollars to players in the bigger scheme of thing. The players are still getting more than their allotted share, hence the escrow payments that the players are not getting 100% back after all the numbers are crunched.

That's the way I see it, too.

<snip>
Thanks. I type really fast (150+ WPM) and my brain doesn't really turn off from thinking about the Bills/Sabres, so probably took me ~30mins.

Thanks for clarifying. For a moment, I thought you may have spent more time thinking about the deal than Kevyn Adams.

To your original point #11 in your manifesto, about locker room / culture fit:
I think that concern is dominant in their (KA/DG/Sabres) current thinking.
The Sabres will likely acquire additional players this offseason. (Most of us agree 1-2 goalies who will actually suit up, at least one d-man, hopefully a defensive-minded vet forward.) I think a good fit is more important to the overall team progression than the incremental talent added by spending Bishop's cap hit on someone else. To me, it is far more critical to get an incremental 5-10% growth from the youth #89, #37, #72, #24, #74, #19, #22/Quinn, #77/Peterka, #10, #23, #78, #45, #25, even if not all of them are on the roster, and not have any of them, nor the older players not listed on there "tune out" or be disrupted by a "misfit" of a new Sabre who hasn't been part of the ride so far.

===========================
My view? The Bishop trade was the best-value insurance policy they can get for cap compliance in the offseason, and next year, and does not prevent them from anything they could conceive of doing this offseason.

Is there a rule BUF can't trade Bishop in-season if the Sabres wanted to?

I fail to see this move as signaling anything other than Adams is smarter than Botterill and Murray (and perhaps, both of them combined).

 

[Rowley Birkin]

We were never going to hit the cap ceiling so it's redundant. If we miss out on a Letang or Kuemper or Campbell it makes sense for us not to overpay some random body just to get us over the hump. What signings were you hoping for beyond that except maybe going big for Forsberg?

Looking at the roster it's not like there are a ton of holes needing to be filled. We need to observe what these young guys can do and see what we have still.

I think most people who are anti this move would agree with all of this (i certainly do).

But make it AFTER you have tried (maybe failed) to bring in the likes of Letang & Campbell on huge money / short term contracts.

The timing of this move suggests that they aren't even considering any major additions at all. This is what I see as worrying, personally.

 

[TehDoak]

Good job, you can isolate a single portion of a sentence while completely ignoring the context around it.

Every team in the league has young players developing in the NHL. They aren't going to improve playing in the AHL against non NHL competition. At some point they need to be in the NHL and developing against the competition at that level. The biggest difference is most teams have 1 or 2 players in that age range they are developing and they are able to shelter, the Sabres will have 7 or 8 of them under 22 years old. I suppose we should just leave 6 of them in the AHL and bring up 2 a year for the next 4 seasons so they can maybe get another 2 or 3 wins.

This is a larger conversation than just this. But sure, NHL teams do develop youth at the NHL level.

But typically, that is surrounded by veterans. I'm thinking back to how Boston developed Pastranak. He was on a line with two veterans and setup to succeed. That isn't what we are doing with our youth. There isn't a veteran core here to support and help them adjust to the NHL. There are very few resources for your young players to lean on. The gold standard still is Detroit in their heyday of the early 00's when they'd have players spend time in the AHL well beyond when they were NHL ready and those players earned their way onto the team.

By gutting out any semblance of a veteran core, I fear that we are going to have severe growing pains and inconsistency that will plague the young team as the 'good vibes' from last season start to fade.

In the end, its too early to judge even this move as its June still, as we don't know the plans for next year. But it certainly appears to be setting up for a cap floor team again with minimal veteran influence, not because we are capped out don't have the resources to improve our team...but because ownership is unwilling to spend to even the cap floor to improve the team. Not the cap, not the midpoint, but the floor.

 

[TehDoak]

But aren't player salaries aggregated? I.e., if the league-wide salary midpoint is a fixed percentage of HRR, does it matter if a few teams spend at the floor, vs. 16 teams each spending exactly to the cap and 16 teams exactly spending to the floor? The same midpoint would exist.

What if a team somehow acquired the top 6 draft choices from 4 consecutive drafts and had every player on a 3-year ELC? They would field a young, talent-laden roster and be well below the cap floor. If those contracts were dealt normally through the draft order, it would be simply be distributed around the league.

See above.

And, to the bolded, who specifically is not getting paid?

I'll use a simple example:
32 teams, $4.48 Billion HRR, 50% player share = $70M midpoint.
Cap set to $80M, Floor set to $60M.
Players pay a percentage into escrow.
Players are paid a pro-rated percentage of their contract proportional to the sum total of all NHL contracts divided by total HRR. It is pure coincidence if that turns out to be the exact face value of their individual contract.

What if every NHL team had LTIR contracts, multiple players on each team, worth exactly $5M AAV per season for each and every team? Are there players not getting paid?

Perhaps your reasoning is akin to equating the concepts of equitable (fair) with equal?

My point is, if a team had to spend actual cash to the cap, they'd more likely want to spend it on players they choose over UFA rather than take on other teams bad contracts. So those mythical one year overpay deals we talk about that never actually happen? We could see those. By shuffling LTIR around to get to the floor, there is money being left on the table that could otherwise go to players. Dallas wasn't hurt by Bishops LTIR, and moving it doesn't mean they will spend more.

Practically speaking, the amount not being spent may not add up to enough to raise a fuss over from the NHLPA standpoint, but if it were more widespread I think they probably would.

My view? The Bishop trade was the best-value insurance policy they can get for cap compliance in the offseason, and next year, and does not prevent them from anything they could conceive of doing this offseason.

Is there a rule BUF can't trade Bishop in-season if the Sabres wanted to?

I fail to see this move as signaling anything other than Adams is smarter than Botterill and Murray (and perhaps, both of them combined).

Yeah you are going to have to qualify what moves he's made to build the team that would make him smarter than any GM, previous or otherwise. Easiest thing in the world to do is sell off assets. Hardest thing is to build a team. In the last year, Kevyn Adams has not pursued or added a player that he handpicked as a player to help this team. Every single move he has made has been to further one singular goal: Save the Pegula's money. Every major trade he's made, he's sent the best player the other way. This offseason is going to say a lot about his skills as a GM because it will be the first where he is in charge of actually building something.

I think most people who are anti this move would agree with all of this (i certainly do).

But make it AFTER you have tried (maybe failed) to bring in the likes of Letang & Campbell on huge money / short term contracts.

The timing of this move suggests that they aren't even considering any major additions at all. This is what I see as worrying, personally.

I'd actually disagree that the Sabres need 'major' moves. I think the ideal would be a lot of small and medium moves to really shape the roster to fit the style and system Grananto wants while adding veteran bodies to address roster deficiencies. I don't think its appropriate or smart to swing for the fences this summer, what we need is to hit 3 singles and 2 doubles and move the process forward.

 

[jc17]

Why would the NHL care about this? They worry about circumvention used to increase payroll.

And why do they care about that?

Because it is circumventing a rule present for parity. Circumventing the floor hurts parity just as much

 

[Jim Bob]

And why do they care about that?

Because it is circumventing a rule present for parity. Circumventing the floor hurts parity just as much

The cap floor is not about parity.

It is about making sure teams spend a minimum amount on player salaries. Bishop is getting paid regardless of whether he is on the Stars' books or the Sabres' books.

This is not circumventing anything.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

My point is, if a team had to spend actual cash to the cap, they'd more likely want to spend it on players they choose over UFA rather than take on other teams bad contracts. So those mythical one year overpay deals we talk about that never actually happen? We could see those. By shuffling LTIR around to get to the floor, there is money being left on the table that could otherwise go to players. Dallas wasn't hurt by Bishops LTIR, and moving it doesn't mean they will spend more.

Practically speaking, the amount not being spent may not add up to enough to raise a fuss over from the NHLPA standpoint, but if it were more widespread I think they probably would.



Yeah you are going to have to qualify what moves he's made to build the team that would make him smarter than any GM, previous or otherwise. Easiest thing in the world to do is sell off assets. Hardest thing is to build a team. In the last year, Kevyn Adams has not pursued or added a player that he handpicked as a player to help this team. Every single move he has made has been to further one singular goal: Save the Pegula's money. Every major trade he's made, he's sent the best player the other way. This offseason is going to say a lot about his skills as a GM because it will be the first where he is in charge of actually building something.


I'd actually disagree that the Sabres need 'major' moves. I think the ideal would be a lot of small and medium moves to really shape the roster to fit the style and system Grananto wants while adding veteran bodies to address roster deficiencies. I don't think its appropriate or smart to swing for the fences this summer, what we need is to hit 3 singles and 2 doubles and move the process forward.

It depends on your definition of major, i guess.

I really don't think many additions are required. At most - its:

A) 1A calibre goalie
B) Top 4 calibre RHD
C) Shut down 3/4C to play predominantly with Girgensons/Okposo

The rest of the roster is pretty much set IMO. But these are all quite difficult roles to fill.

For A/B i think the obvious move would be to go very big salary for 2 years maximum (UFA or trade). That's not going to be a problem for the long term cap.

C is going to be cheaper to fill naturally - but I'd still be fine slightly overpaying to get the guy i wanted.

 

[Jacob582]

but because ownership is unwilling to spend to even the cap floor to improve the team.
Not the cap, not the midpoint, but the floor.

And certainly not "above" the cap where over half the teams reside. (through LTIR)

 

[Zach716]

I think most people who are anti this move would agree with all of this (i certainly do).

But make it AFTER you have tried (maybe failed) to bring in the likes of Letang & Campbell on huge money / short term contracts.

The timing of this move suggests that they aren't even considering any major additions at all. This is what I see as worrying, personally.

I would agree with you (and did earlier when I first saw this move I posted sigh) but that was because I believed Pegula was going to be on the hook for the 4.9m in actual salary. Knowing he’s only going to be paying Bishop 700k, I don’t think it says anything about how they are going to spend. I view it as a move that if they miss out on our preferred targets we won’t be forced to spend 7m on guys like Husso or Subban for example. It preserves Kevyn Adams negotiating power.

If we miss out on some top preferred UFA targets and you are an agent of a second or third tier guy and know the Sabres need to hit the cap floor you are going to use it as leverage.

 

[threeVo]

I think most people who are anti this move would agree with all of this (i certainly do).

But make it AFTER you have tried (maybe failed) to bring in the likes of Letang & Campbell on huge money / short term contracts.

The timing of this move suggests that they aren't even considering any major additions at all. This is what I see as worrying, personally.

The thing is that this trade doesnt stop them from doing whatever they want in free agency. Someone else could have traded for Bishop and any other similar contracts. There is not an infinite number out there. Getting it out of the way now was the best thing to do.

How often has someone signed for like 1 year 10 Mil when their market value is half of that? Its just something that doesnt happen. If that player has 1 year left in the league they dont get 10M a year out from retirement. If that player wants another big payday why do they sign with Buffalo and expect to tear it up and get another big contract? The Sabres are going to give quality minutes to their younger players not Kris Letang on a 1 year 10M deal so he can play PP and top 4 mins on a middling team expecting to get paid in UFA.

 

[Jacob582]

I view it as a move that if they miss out on our preferred targets we won’t be forced to spend 7m on guys like Husso or Subban for example. It preserves Kevyn Adams negotiating power.

I think you are experiencing Stockholm Syndrome (or like Jokiharju likes to call it, "Helsinki Syndrome").

 

[brian_griffin]

I would agree with you (and did earlier when I first saw this move I posted sigh) but that was because I believed Pegula was going to be on the hook for the 4.9m in actual salary. Knowing he’s only going to be paying Bishop 700k, I don’t think it says anything about how they are going to spend. I view it as a move that if they miss out on our preferred targets we won’t be forced to spend 7m on guys like Husso or Subban for example. It preserves Kevyn Adams negotiating power.

If we miss out on some top preferred UFA targets and you are an agent of a second or third tier guy and know the Sabres need to hit the cap floor you are going to use it as leverage.

Perhaps. But it certainly does not constrain his options. Let's say the Sabres miraculously want to spend to the cap. They can use Bishop's contract to obtain an LTIR overage. The Sabres can also trade Bishop to another cap-strapped team (without available LTIR overages) to give that team an LTIR overage.

Sabres basically paid $700k for a lottery ticket and to take a contract they can trade for more assets in-season or in this offseason if the opportunity presents itself, and in doing so, did not constrain either their budget or their roster in any way which can't be easily overcome at any point they wish from now until the contract expires.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

And why do they care about that?

Because it is circumventing a rule present for parity. Circumventing the floor hurts parity just as much

The league cares cap circumvention because they don't want 90's style spiraling payroll costs. When they locked out the players it was to force a cap down their throats, not increase parity.

We should expect an NHL clamp down on LTIR payroll during the regular season long before they'll address retirement contracts potentially qualifying the floor. Although I don't think they'll address that issue anytime soon. It allows a sort of high risk soft cap for certain rich teams.

Game management appears to be their one stop shopping for parity.

 

[Gras]

For all the people what claim that we are spending to the floor only because the Pegula's are cheap, what is the minimum cap hit this team would need to have for you to change that opinion.

 

[TehDoak]

For all the people what claim that we are spending to the floor only because the Pegula's are cheap, what is the minimum cap hit this team would need to have for you to change that opinion.

Honestly, there are logistical problems to them spending to even the mid point given the volume of ELC's they have. My hope was to see them spend to slightly above the floor without taking on a LTIR/retention deal, just showing the Pegula's were willing to spend more than the absolute bare minimum, even if it was a relatively small amount.

We will see what happens this summer. My guess they'll spend a few million under the cap floor and the Bishop contract will bridge the gap.

 

[Dex]

Yeah you are going to have to qualify what moves he's made to build the team that would make him smarter than any GM, previous or otherwise. Easiest thing in the world to do is sell off assets. Hardest thing is to build a team. In the last year, Kevyn Adams has not pursued or added a player that he handpicked as a player to help this team. Every single move he has made has been to further one singular goal: Save the Pegula's money. Every major trade he's made, he's sent the best player the other way. This offseason is going to say a lot about his skills as a GM because it will be the first where he is in charge of actually building something.

I think Alex Tuch and Peyton Krebs would qualify as handpicked players to help this team. You can add Devon Levi, albeit he is a few years away. He's only had two drafts as GM, but I think you can count Owen Power, Jack Quinn and JJ Peterka as players who were hand picked to help this team. Isak Rosen is also someone I'd put in the hand picked category, but he's a few years away as well.

Counter to you suggestion that he's only out to save the money for the Pegulas is my, and many others, belief that he is saving cap room for the time 2-5 years from now when the contracts for all of the excellent young talent the Sabres have come due to be increased. The difference from the cap floor to the cap ceiling is not that great - just $20M. That will get eaten up very quickly by the likes of Dahlin, Power, Cozens, et al.

Seems to me Adams has a plan and he's not deviating from it at this point

 

[TehDoak]

I think Alex Tuch and Peyton Krebs would qualify as handpicked players to help this team. You can add Devon Levi, albeit he is a few years away. He's only had two drafts as GM, but I think you can count Owen Power, Jack Quinn and JJ Peterka as players who were hand picked to help this team. Isak Rosen is also someone I'd put in the hand picked category, but he's a few years away as well.

At the point of the Eichel trade, he had backed himself into a corner with one realistic buyer. Thankfully he got as much as he did given how it was handled. As for Levi, again, he likely was weighing Florida's offer against others, if another team had offered more he would have taken their offer. When you are giving up the best player (which he did in both trades), you didn't pick a player out and pursue them. You made a player available and teams gave you their best offer. The scouts offer their opinions, but he didn't call up Vegas and ask "what do you want for Tuch", same with Levi. Selecting the best piece from a pre set list of options, while important, isn't quite the same as saying "We need this guy to fill this role, let's go pursue him". Adams hasn't done that post Krueger, not yet. This is where team building is hard, and we don't know if Adams is good at it. What he has done is asset collection, which is also important, but far easier than building out a functional championship caliber team.

Counter to you suggestion that he's only out to save the money for the Pegulas is my, and many others, belief that he is saving cap room for the time 2-5 years from now when the contracts for all of the excellent young talent the Sabres have come due to be increased. The difference from the cap floor to the cap ceiling is not that great - just $20M. That will get eaten up very quickly by the likes of Dahlin, Power, Cozens, et al.

Seems to me Adams has a plan and he's not deviating from it at this point

Not taking on long term or bad contracts (via UFA or otherwise) is different than not spending in the short term. Lots of good players whose contracts expire in one or two years that are available. I'd agree he shouldn't take on any/minimal long term commitments if he can avoid it. My anger isn't about them not going all in, my anger is about them (evidently) planning evade the spending floor, even though the team has more than enough roster construction issues that need to be sorted and can be solved by spending.

 

[BUCKSHOT]

Not taking on long term or bad contracts (via UFA or otherwise) is different than not spending in the short term. Lots of good players whose contracts expire in one or two years that are available. I'd agree he shouldn't take on any/minimal long term commitments if he can avoid it. My anger isn't about them not going all in, my anger is about them (evidently) planning evade the spending floor, even though the team has more than enough roster construction issues that need to be sorted and can be solved by spending.

How can you be upset with something that hasn't happened ..... (yet) ?

 

[Zach716]

How can you be upset with something that hasn't happened ..... (yet) ?

I've noticed there are some people on here, twitter and reddit (I only lurk the latter 2 I don't post) that just view every move we make as pessimistic. The Sabres have failed in the past so apparently we have no hope for the future. This one has no bearing on management's intentions this offseason. Maybe they do end up massively disappointing us, but it's entirely not relevant here or now.

 

[TehDoak]

How can you be upset with something that hasn't happened ..... (yet) ?

You are correct, and if the Sabres spend over the floor (without Bishop), I'll have crow to eat. But given the contract taken back, it's not about getting assets, the value on a that cap hit simply doesn't line up with the price. What does line up with the cash vs cap hit, which was the same with boychuk last year when we took on the contract for nothing. So, the Sabres went out and got the cheapest, cash wise, amount of dead cap they could and were paid a pittance for it.

It seems pretty clear that their plan is to spend below the cap floor again. After a NHL record postseason drought. I hope I'm wrong and the Pegula's and management come out ready to invest in the team this year. This seems, at least for now, to confirm my worries that this is another year of clearance shelf shopping for Adams and co.

 

[5 Minute Major]

I think people are forgetting that one of the reasons we are under the floor so much is that we trade or let our veterans walk. We suck!

Actually, we are better than we have been with all those vets you are fretting about.

 

[BUCKSHOT]

You are correct, and if the Sabres spend over the floor (without Bishop), I'll have crow to eat. But given the contract taken back, it's not about getting assets, the value on a that cap hit simply doesn't line up with the price. What does line up with the cash vs cap hit, which was the same with boychuk last year when we took on the contract for nothing. So, the Sabres went out and got the cheapest, cash wise, amount of dead cap they could and were paid a pittance for it.

It seems pretty clear that their plan is to spend below the cap floor again. After a NHL record postseason drought. I hope I'm wrong and the Pegula's and management come out ready to invest in the team this year. This seems, at least for now, to confirm my worries that this is another year of clearance shelf shopping for Adams and co.

Do you (or anyone) expect the Sabres to be a 'solid' playoff team next season ?