TSN: Sabres use compliance buyout on Christian Ehrhoff/Signs 1 Year w/Pens

[dotcommunism]

1) Expecting the worst case scenario out of the old contract is at best logically inconsistent and at worst willfully stupid in the Buffalo woe-is-me perspective. I trust you understand why I feel that given what I've outlined even if you disagree.

2) What's more likely, then, is a 3 or 5 million dollar penalty. You must understand why I feel this penalty is minor given my argument, even if you disagree.

3) With this likely 3 to 5 million dollar penalty over a period of 3 or 2 years, respectively, trading Ehrhoff for an asset is approximately equivalent to taking on salary for an asset. It's just that the salary taken on is applied later rather than sooner.

Firstly, you seem to be assuming that Ehrhoff is, essentially, a "rational actor". I don't think that's a particularly reliable model for human behavior.

Anyway, as to your point about the cap penalty being the equivalent of taking on bad salary now. Regardless of how accurate that may or not be in the abstract, you are willfully ignoring how highly circumstantial the appeal of taking on bad salary is. The reason that taking on bad salary now is appealing is because the team is not close to competing, and has a significant cap space (and in fact might need to take on quite a bit of bad salary to make the cap floor). Applying a similar scenario to an unknown cirumstance is not really equivalent at all. We have no idea what position the team will be in at the time that recapture would become an issue. In fact, the plan is for the team to be good enough that taking on bad salary would be detrimental. The fact that taking on bad salary now is appealing has no bearing on how appealing it would be in unknown future circumstances.

In fact, one could argue that treating the recapture penalty as the same as taking on bad salary now, in the circumstances the Sabres are in, requires that one assumes that the Sabres will be in similar circumstances when such penalties would take effect. In other words, that equivalence is dependent on the Sabres continuing being terrible with cap space to burn. I think one could argue that embodies the "Buffalo pessimism" that you allude to.

 

[Paxon]

The worst case scenario is predicated on Ehrhoff for whatever reason getting tired of what he's been paid for the two years previous and suddenly deciding to retire despite still being in NHL shape.

If he wasn't still in NHL shape/NHL spirit, he wouldn't be in the position to retire before the final year. If he wanted home over a paltry salary, he wouldn't have stayed the two previous years.

If he's hit with a career ending injury, he goes to LTIR. If a horrific personal scenario forces him to retire, the NHL would likely grant exceptional dispensation of the contract and penalties

You're assuming one possible reason for retirement and then arguing why that reason wouldn't align with the scenario. There are many possible reasons. Just because he plays for $1m for a year or two doesn't mean he would be willing to do it for eternity. We can then assume he might desire to stop playing under those circumstances at any point, including year 3.

You keep saying "logically" when it's not a matter of logic -- you certainly aren't attacking this from a logical perspective. You're attempting to rationalize, but are only focusing on one potential rational outcome. He could retire because his play declines at any point over those last years. He could retire because the team declines, or because his role declines. He could retire because at any point he wants to play overseas for more money. He could retire because he's just sick of playing. $1m isn't incentive.

Your conjecture as it applies to the final year is simply bogus. It is a possibility he'd have retired during any of those three remaining years, before then, or not at all. You don't need to pretend otherwise to make a point of displeasure with the decision.

It's a demonstrative example as to why accepting the likely penalty of X cap hit along with an asset is preferable to paying out cash and losing him for nothing.

If terrible player was traded to the Sabres along with a 1st round pick, and terrible player basically served as dead weight but wasn't able to be moved for the purpose of the comparison, that's equivalent to the scenario of moving ehrhoff for an asset with expectation of penalty down the road.

This is also ridiculous. Buffalo has shown no indication that they're willing to take on a cap dump four or more, not even three, years into the future.

 

[Beerz]

Sure. It's not a perfect equivalency. But that dead weight at 3 or 5 million would be the "cost" for either the haul Ehrhoff returns in trade or 5 or so years of his service. To me, that's manageable for what the return would be.

So if we were strapped with a 5 million penalty on Ehrhoffs contract and the asset we brought in from trading him was making 5 million ... he'd essentially have a 10 million cap hit. I don't find that to be a good thing or worth the risk. Now if we're talking prime assets being brought in for trading Ehrhoff I might find it worth the risk...but since we don't know the offers that were made it's kind of hard to judge.

 

[enthusiast]

Firstly, you seem to be assuming that Ehrhoff is, essentially, a "rational actor". I don't think that's a particularly reliable model for human behavior.

I wouldn't go that far, I'd just assume he's not an irrational actor. I hope that's not hedging too much.

Anyway, as to your point about the cap penalty being the equivalent of taking on bad salary now. Regardless of how accurate that may or not be in the abstract, you are willfully ignoring how highly circumstantial the appeal of taking on bad salary is. The reason that taking on bad salary now is appealing is because the team is not close to competing, and has a significant cap space (and in fact might need to take on quite a bit of bad salary to make the cap floor). Applying a similar scenario to an unknown cirumstance is not really equivalent at all. We have no idea what position the team will be in at the time that recapture would become an issue. In fact, the plan is for the team to be good enough that taking on bad salary would be detrimental. The fact that taking on bad salary now is appealing has no bearing on how appealing it would be in unknown future circumstances.

In fact, one could argue that treating the recapture penalty as the same as taking on bad salary now, in the circumstances the Sabres are in, requires that one assumes that the Sabres will be in similar circumstances when such penalties would take effect. In other words, that equivalence is dependent on the Sabres continuing being terrible with cap space to burn. I think one could argue that embodies the "Buffalo pessimism" that you allude to.

Not at all. I'd argue that a contending Buffalo in 19-20 and 20-21 would still have 3-5 million in cap space to fit Ehrhoff's penalty or free it up through trades such as the Bollig move I pointed to.

You're assuming one possible reason for retirement and then arguing why that reason wouldn't align with the scenario. There are many possible reasons. Just because he plays for $1m for a year or two doesn't mean he would be willing to do it for eternity. We can then assume he might desire to stop playing under those circumstances at any point, including year 3.

I listed NHL shape, NHL spirit, career ending injury, out-of-scope incidents. What else is left?

You keep saying "logically" when it's not a matter of logic -- you certainly aren't attacking this from a logical perspective. You're attempting to rationalize, but are only focusing on one potential rational outcome. He could retire because his play declines at any point over those last years. He could retire because the team declines, or because his role declines. He could retire because at any point he wants to play overseas for more money. He could retire because he's just sick of playing. $1m isn't incentive.

covered above.

Your conjecture as it applies to the final year is simply bogus. It is a possibility he'd have retired during any of those three remaining years, before then, or not at all. You don't need to pretend otherwise to make a point of displeasure with the decision.

It's the most believable worst case scenario if we presuppose he's going to retire in those years at all. Assuming the alarm bells doomsday scenario is anything short of a perfect storm is disingenuous


This is also ridiculous. Buffalo has shown no indication that they're willing to take on a cap dump four or more, not even three, years into the future.[/QUOTE]

 

[enthusiast]

So if we were strapped with a 5 million penalty on Ehrhoffs contract and the asset we brought in from trading him was making 5 million ... he'd essentially have a 10 million cap hit. I don't find that to be a good thing or worth the risk. Now if we're talking prime assets being brought in for trading Ehrhoff I might find it worth the risk...but since we don't know the offers that were made it's kind of hard to judge.

I'd assume the asset would be youth/picks as per the current Murray behavior, and wouldn't be making that much by then.

 

[dotcommunism]

Not at all. I'd argue that a contending Buffalo in 19-20 and 20-21 would still have 3-5 million in cap space to fit Ehrhoff's penalty or free it up through trades such as the Bollig move I pointed to.

Even if Buffalo were able to free such room to deal with Ehrhoff's recapture, it would still not be remotely the equivalent of taking on dead salary now, as you have contended, because the circumstances are not the same or even similar.

 

[enthusiast]

Even if Buffalo were able to free such room to deal with Ehrhoff's recapture, it would still not be remotely the equivalent of taking on dead salary now, as you have contended, because the circumstances are not the same or even similar.

The circumstances are 1) having the room and 2) being desirous of the asset.

 

[Paxon]

I listed NHL shape, NHL spirit, career ending injury, out-of-scope incidents. What else is left?

covered above.

You didn't cover these things, you merely shoehorned them into your predetermined position. Why would you assume his shape, spirit, level of play, desire to play, etc would magically have to hold consistent over the last three years just because they all involve playing for $1m? That is not 'logical'. It's speculative and quite obviously not the only likely possibility.

It's the most believable worst case scenario if we presuppose he's going to retire in those years at all. Assuming the alarm bells doomsday scenario is anything short of a perfect storm is disingenuous

All of the outcomes are believable. You're talking about likelihood, not believability -- either that, or you need to readjust what you find believable. Yes, the worst possible outcome is not the most likely one. That's true of almost anything. That doesn't mean it doesn't pose a risk of coming true, or that the other possible bad outcomes are negligible.

The circumstances are 1) having the room and 2) being desirous of the asset.

Why do you believe we would have the room in 4, 5, 6 years to take on dead money for a pick? Why would we want to? Why do you not concede that this analogy is just very bad?

 

[brian_griffin]

Ignoring the past 2 pages of this thread... I'm fine with this move.

To me, this move is all about future risk management (re: the potential for a near-crippling cap recapture in the hopeful timeframe of a deep playoff contender).

It is also Tim Murray's likely final move to unburden himself of the vestiges of the negatives from the Regier regime.

Everything else Murray inherrited is either positive (i.e., future picks, this weekend's picks, current prospects, certain players), or neutral (i.e., certain other players). All the contracts he has in terms of both term and dollar are manageable and don't carry downside risks in future. I think the only risks / uncertainties Murray now has is whether or not prospects and/or current players pan out (every GM's risk), and whether he can attract UFA's when the time requires - Murray can control this somewhat by improving BUF on ice, and having both the cap room and Pegula's wallet to do it. Murray will never be able to keep UFA's hell-bent on going to NY or TOR or MTL from doing so, if they wish.

I'm sure many other (majority?) NHL GMs would do the same thing in the same Ehrhoff situation.

 

[enthusiast]

You didn't cover these things, you merely shoehorned them into your predetermined position. Why would you assume his shape, spirit, level of play, desire to play, etc would magically have to hold consistent over the last three years just because they all involve playing for $1m? That is not 'logical'. It's speculative and quite obviously not the only likely possibility.

Because the situation is inherently no different? Pick a motivator to split before contract expiration. Speculation. Pick a year. Speculation. Say anything at all about the future grounded in logic, fantasy, expectation, ignorance, it's all varied levels of speculation. Don't mess about with the semantic game because it's just meaningless obfuscation

All of the outcomes are believable. You're talking about likelihood, not believability -- either that, or you need to readjust what you find believable. Yes, the worst possible outcome is not the most likely one. That's true of almost anything. That doesn't mean it doesn't pose a risk of coming true, or that the other possible bad outcomes are negligible.

All outcomes aren't equivalent just because they all could occur. It, like everything, is by degree

Why do you believe we would have the room in 4, 5, 6 years to take on dead money for a pick? Why would we want to? Why do you not concede that this analogy is just very bad?

Just ~speculation~ I suppose. 3 million of a likely 80 million or more is less than 5% of total cap. With all the elc and bridge deals inherent to the success of this roster that's a drop in the bucket:

As to the analogy, it's the closest there is. Dead space is dead space, and if the excess room is there it's there

 

[Crazy Tasty]

What if the cap goes down again, after the current CBA expires. Any potential amount could be very detrimental to team that will have a much higher salary as the kids get their 2nd and 3rd contracts.

The risk was valid. I'm not upset about it.

 

[Clock]

The cost of this was basically nothing but money and arguably beneficial to a team that's not exactly concerned about optimizing its chances for a championship, while the risk of not doing it was... well, plenty.

I guess it could be argued either way, but on a scale from "YOU IDIOT!" to "BEST GM EVER!", this has to fall pretty darn close to "Sure."

 

[Chad Thundercock]

I'd just like clarification if Ehrhoff stayed on the Sabres, was the potential recapture hit if he retired in 2019, $3M, $10M, xxx amount... if it's $3M, then I still think this was pretty awful unless Ehrhoff demanded to be out of here, which I doubt happened.

 

[Paxon]

I'd just like clarification if Ehrhoff stayed on the Sabres, was the potential recapture hit if he retired in 2019, $3M, $10M, xxx amount... if it's $3M, then I still think this was pretty awful unless Ehrhoff demanded to be out of here, which I doubt happened.

Every Scenario Regarding Ehrhoff and Recapture Penalties and Buyouts

If Ehrhoff Retires following the the 2017-18 season, the sabres will be assessed a recapture penalty as follows (the traded-to team will not receive recapture penalties nor credits):
Cap Benefit: $10,000,000
Years Remaining: 3
Penalty per season: $3,333,333 assessed 3 years from 2018-19 through 2020-21)

If Ehrhoff Retires following the the 2018-19 season, the sabres will be assessed a recapture penalty as follows (the traded-to team will not receive recapture penalties nor credits):
Cap Benefit: $10,000,000
Years Remaining: 2
Penalty per season: $5,000,000 assessed 2 years from 2019-20 through 2020-21)

If Ehrhoff Retires following the the 2019-20 season, the sabres will be assessed a recapture penalty as follows (the traded-to team will not receive recapture penalties nor credits):
Cap Benefit: $10,000,000
Years Remaining: 1
Penalty per season: $10,000,000 assessed 1 years in 2020-21)