Sabres and the principle of sunk costs (our bad contracts)

[HogtownSabresfan]

I'm curious how much people think contracts are influencing who are opening day 20.

Specifically, would Okposo really be on this team if his cap hit and salary were not $6. M? To me the question is whether we have a player we can pay $1.075 M (his cap hit if sent to minors) who is better. I say we do do.

Okposo's contract is not really as asset, it's a liability. We can amortize that comtract over a long-period with a buyout or outright be rid of that liability trading assets (players or picks.)

My point is why not think about this rationally and money spent.

I'd make the same argument for Sobotka and Scandella (if D was healthy.)

I just get keeping hearing got play him we are paying him. Why? You make a bad investment, you write it off or sell it.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I'm curious how much people think contracts are influencing who are opening day 20.

Specifically, would Okposo really be on this team if his cap hit and salary were not $6. M? To me the question is whether we have a player we can pay $1.075 M (his cap hit if sent to minors) who is better. I say we do do.

Okposo's contract is not really as asset, it's a liability. We can amortize that comtract over a long-period with a buyout or outright be rid of that liability trading assets (players or picks.)

My point is why not think about this rationally and money spent.

I'd make the same argument for Sobotka and Scandella (if D was healthy.)

I just get keeping hearing got play him we are paying him. Why? You make a bad investment, you write it off or sell it.

Wait, his cap hit would only be 1.075 M if we sent him to the minors? f***, what are we doing then?

Agreed 100% either way- you paid 6 mil a year in an attempt to make your roster better. It didn't work, and you're stuck paying the money either way, but it's no reason to stick with a white elephant when better options exist. I understand they're trying to save face, but a) that's dumb and b) having Okposo out there looks much worse than burying him in the minors. Teams have done it before, everyone understands these things happen.

All that said, I'll give him 10-20 games to prove he belongs in the lineup. I doubt he looks better than anyone who'd replace him, and I'm hoping Krueger then pressures Botts to make the logical move.

 

[HaNotsri]

My guess is optics or silly reasons like Okposo being liked by the GM or owner. Maybe just the consequence of the owner looking like an overpaying buffoon?

If they can frame the contract and Okposo as ”a good presence in the room” and point to his dedication for hockey they can save face and avoid the experience of a loss altogether.

Okposo being sent down this year would be shockingly rational.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

That is not the cap hit that is the cap savings. Okposo would cost us a little over 4.9 AAV in the minors. At this point I wouldn't mind Asplund over Okposo. And his contract is absolutely why he is still in the lineup. He is on the verge of Matt Moulson level ineptitude. Like Moulson got 5 mil per for what 2 full seasons, Okposo will likely have 3 seasons of mega high salary to contribute zero.

 

[Montag DP]

We're gonna pay him what we pay him, but he doesn't belong in the lineup. The way he has looked in the preseason, I doubt he will make it through the season keeping his spot in the lineup.

 

[jc17]

I realize many people think management is incompetent, but I highly doubt they dont understand sunk cost.

It is much more likely, if Okposo stays, that hes on the team not because he makes $6M but because of what he did to make that $6M. He has a history as a good player in the league, he's a vet that has shown he's a good teammate and could be helpful in guiding younger guys.

Not saying any of those are good reasons to keep him here, but they all come into play more significantly than the Sabres not understanding sunk cost fallacy

 

[Hasekperreault23]

I realize many people think management is incompetent, but I highly doubt they dont understand sunk cost.

It is much more likely, if Okposo stays, that hes on the team not because he makes $6M but because of what he did to make that $6M. He has a history as a good player in the league, he's a vet that has shown he's a good teammate and could be helpful in guiding younger guys.

Not saying any of those are good reasons to keep him here, but they all come into play more significantly than the Sabres not understanding sunk cost fallacy

Okposo needs to guide younger guys in Rochester

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Thanks @Der Jaeger - Okposo's cap hit after being sent down would be 4.925 mil. So you have to be certain that a replacement player for under 1.075 mil will not only be faster and more effective on the ice, but that on-ice benefit outweighs the typical mental errors of a young player and lack of experience, leadership and apparently great attitude that Okposo brings to the locker room. Not only that, but there is the long-term outlook of how the organization treats it's players, especially veterans that sign as UFAs.

I don't think it's an obvious decision right now. Later in the season it might be, and next summer's buy out window it might be. I won't flip if he makes the roster this week, I expect it. This problem doesn't have a good answer for now.

 

[jc17]

And he's not saying Okposo would make 1M in the minors, he asking if you send Okposo down, is there a player who makes 1M or less that can be as productive so that the we dont lose cap space.

Also:

 

[jc17]

Okposo needs to guide younger guys in Rochester

I'm not making the argument for him to be in Buffalo. I'm giving possible reasons the organization can make beyond "he gets paid a lot"

 

[Hasekperreault23]

I'm not making the argument for him to be in Buffalo. I'm giving possible reasons the organization can make beyond "he gets paid a lot"

I agree with you i have said since the end of last season he should be a consultant player coach or something of that magnitude to help young players.He should not be in Buffalo

 

[old kummelweck]

I really don't see any risk keeping Okposo as the 13th forward. I don't think it impacts the roster in any dramatic way. Now if they think he should play because of his salary, that's another issue.

You could also look at this the other way. If you are putting players on waivers, who is more likely to get picked up? Okposo, or someone you want to keep as depth in front of KO that is cheap. I think it works the other way - waiving a big salary may make the most sense from an asset management situation.

 

[Djp]

I'm curious how much people think contracts are influencing who are opening day 20.

Specifically, would Okposo really be on this team if his cap hit and salary were not $6. M? To me the question is whether we have a player we can pay $1.075 M (his cap hit if sent to minors) who is better. I say we do do.

Okposo's contract is not really as asset, it's a liability. We can amortize that comtract over a long-period with a buyout or outright be rid of that liability trading assets (players or picks.)

My point is why not think about this rationally and money spent.

I'd make the same argument for Sobotka and Scandella (if D was healthy.)

I just get keeping hearing got play him we are paying him. Why? You make a bad investment, you write it off or sell it.

1.073 (or MAX AHL salary) is what subtracts from his cap hit in a buried contract. Just like Moulson last year.

they can send him down and call up an ELC and break even.

Just about every team has 1-2 of these overpaid players.

Was he paid $3M he would be fine where he can play bottom 6 and be a PP specialist

buffalo could buy him out but it doesnt save much in his contract years due to signing bonus money.

a bigger influence is who could get claimed on waivers vs being sent down for free.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Was Okposo one of the worst players in the NHL last year? I'm not sure he was quite the low, he's one of the worst values! "Replacement" level players are worse then some people are letting on. They're generally less effective than almost all players in the NHL.

 

[Djp]

I really don't see any risk keeping Okposo as the 13th forward. I don't think it impacts the roster in any dramatic way. Now if they think he should play because of his salary, that's another issue.

You could also look at this the other way. If you are putting players on waivers, who is more likely to get picked up? Okposo, or someone you want to keep as depth in front of KO that is cheap. I think it works the other way - waiving a big salary may make the most sense from an asset management situation.

Having him at 4th line and a PP specialist is pefectly fine.

You could also trade him at 50% and someone takes him. If he can put up 15 PP goals over a season and has 25 points that can be worth something.

What I dont know on him is the veteran leadership component he has in the locker room.

 

[old kummelweck]

Having him at 4th line and a PP specialist is pefectly fine.

You could also trade him at 50% and someone takes him. If he can put up 15 PP goals over a season and has 25 points that can be worth something.

What I dont know on him is the veteran leadership component he has in the locker room.

He was one of the first shooters Bales sent out the other night too. So there's that.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

That is not the cap hit that is the cap savings. Okposo would cost us a little over 4.9 AAV in the minors. At this point I wouldn't mind Asplund over Okposo. And his contract is absolutely why he is still in the lineup. He is on the verge of Matt Moulson level ineptitude. Like Moulson got 5 mil per for what 2 full seasons, Okposo will likely have 3 seasons of mega high salary to contribute zero.

Yes, savings, that's what I mean. Tell me Thompson isn't better than Okposo.

 

[Chainshot]

Cut loose bad players. Find ways in the future to divest from those salaries if possible, but it is so much more in their favor to have competent players who can contribute SOMETHING in a roster slot on the ice than it is to have guys who regularly contribute nothing positive.

 

[Buffaloed]

If you're really desperate to get rid of him and have no scruples; tell Kyle he's our enforcer. He's a big guy and a veteran leader. It's his job to make sure no one takes liberties with our young stars. Tap him on the shoulder when there's any enforcing to be done. The Sabres play the Caps on Nov 1. Send a message to Tom Wilson.

 

[Steddy33]

Cut loose bad players. Find ways in the future to divest from those salaries if possible, but it is so much more in their favor to have competent players who can contribute SOMETHING in a roster slot on the ice than it is to have guys who regularly contribute nothing positive.

Also if you want a team that's about winning games then send a message that it's about icing the best roster possible. That means getting Okposo and Sobotka gone. Figure out a way. Good teams do

 

[Tatre]

If you're really desperate to get rid of him and have no scruples; tell Kyle he's our enforcer. He's a big guy and a veteran leader. It's his job to make sure no one takes liberties with our young stars. Tap him on the shoulder when there's any enforcing to be done. The Sabres play the Caps on Nov 1. Send a message to Tom Wilson.

You can do better than that.

 

[brian_griffin]

I realize many people think management is incompetent, but I highly doubt they dont understand sunk cost.

It is much more likely, if Okposo stays, that hes on the team not because he makes $6M but because of what he did to make that $6M. He has a history as a good player in the league, he's a vet that has shown he's a good teammate and could be helpful in guiding younger guys.

Not saying any of those are good reasons to keep him here, but they all come into play more significantly than the Sabres not understanding sunk cost fallacy

No issues with your argument, but then is the Moulson scenario viewed through a same or different lens? Was Moulson demonstrably worse as a player or role model? There's plenty of crap talent on both last year's and this year's opening roster, so you can't say either Moulson or Okposo were singularly keeping someone more deserving down in the minors.

 

[kenfury]

Yes, savings, that's what I mean. Tell me Thompson isn't better than Okposo.

Thompson is not better than Okposo if you look at player development.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

No issues with your argument, but then is the Moulson scenario viewed through a same or different lens? Was Moulson demonstrably worse as a player or role model? There's plenty of crap talent on both last year's and this year's opening roster, so you can't say either Moulson or Okposo were singularly keeping someone more deserving down in the minors.

I can tell you with confidence that Moulson had a poor attitude about having a diminished role on the Sabres, and an accommodation was made that was best for everyone. Okposo is about the polar opposite off the ice.

 

[Buffaloed]

Thompson is not better than Okposo if you look at player development.

You sure told him!

 

[Buffaloed]

You can do better than that.

My original plan involved Lazar placing a giraffe head in Okposo's bed and Botterill making him an offer he couldn't refuse.