[News] Buffalo to compliance buyout Ehrhoff

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calf

They're going to feel real stupid if they lose their 2015 first round pick.

I doubt they'd lose it, but it would be even more ironic if it was designated as de facto 30th.

Originally Posted by sun

This team is gonna next-level UGLY next year.

They should just make Edmonton and Buffalo play each other 82 times next season.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Umm yeah just last year in the Avalanche. The Avs managed to get the first overall pick with a roster good enough to make the playoffs in the toughest conference of the NHL. That actually took a lot of hard work and effort to pull off. The Sabres were going to be front and center in the McDavid/Eichel sweepstakes with or without Ehrhoff.

Based on what? Nothing? Oh ya forgot.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by theoforever

It's different type of a tank.
Avalanche kept the worst coach in NHL and made no effort to win.
Sabres are selling assets, they are in it for the long haul.

Either way is despicable.

Worst coach in NhL yet was a Jack Adams finalist a couple seasons before.

[djsFlames]

Okay fine, Buffalo, you can take first overall.

We'll take Eichel.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Worst coach in NhL yet was a Jack Adams finalist a couple seasons before.

The players tuned him out and truly hated his guts.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

A 32 year old player with 7 years left on his contract, this is a good decision for the Sabres. This is a horrendous contract for a rebuilding team. It would be an anchor by the time they are a playoff team.

Hitting the salary cap floor is easy without wasting money. They have three months to do it.

Some options to do it smartly:

• offer to take assets along with bad contracts to teams close to the ceiling
• bonus laden contracts
• short term UFAs, which also have the potential to be flipped for assets at the deadline
• retaining salary on trades

I agree. They just don't want to get stuck with that contract, which will ruin their cap space the last 7 years. It cost them money now and it might cost them money this season when they try to overpay some UFA for a short period time. I am sure some average players would be willing to get overpaid for just a season or two. That means 4 or 5 wasted contracts this season for at least $4M or so a season.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by theoforever

The players tuned him out and truly hated his guts.

Forgot you played on the team.

They fired him immediately after the poor season. Why not fire him mid season? Because they wanted Patrick Roy who already had a job. The guy they tried to hire when they hired Sacco but he felt he wasn't ready and declined. Same guy they actually hired after firing Sacco. So rather than looking at what actually happened you try to create some elaborate conspiracy theory of how it was all a plan to land Mackinnon.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Forgot you played on the team.

They fired him immediately after the poor season. Why not fire him mid season? Because they wanted Patrick Roy who already had a job. The guy they tried to hire when they hired Sacco but he felt he wasn't ready and declined. Same guy they actually hired after firing Sacco. So rather than looking at what actually happened you try to create some elaborate conspiracy theory of how it was all a plan to land Mackinnon.

Besides... They won the lottery to get first pick, but let's not let reality or fact get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
The Flames tanked far harder, based on the lineup they iced. Problem was... the kids refused to lose.

[Racki]

@SportsnetSpec: With Ehrhoff buy out, EDM's needs on defence, and Draisaitl draft, betting Oil will approach Ehrhoff camp today.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see him end up in Edmonton

[FireGilbert]

This is not tanking, it's a good long term decision. I agree Buffalo is ahead in the McDavid sweepstakes but lets wait and see what they do in free agency before calling them tankers.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Forgot you played on the team.

They fired him immediately after the poor season. Why not fire him mid season? Because they wanted Patrick Roy who already had a job. The guy they tried to hire when they hired Sacco but he felt he wasn't ready and declined. Same guy they actually hired after firing Sacco. So rather than looking at what actually happened you try to create some elaborate conspiracy theory of how it was all a plan to land Mackinnon.

The reports of players not wanting to play for Sacco were everywhere.

The management played hardball with ROR, the entire team was demoralized. The end effect was a terrible year and Colorado simply decided to play out the string, lucky break.
A year later magically, they got a lot better, not just a little but a lot.

[Hackey]

Their playing hardball with ROR again this year after winning their division. I'm sure it's all part of the grand plan to tank again and land McDavid.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Their playing hardball with ROR again this year after winning their division. I'm sure it's all part of the grand plan to tank again and land McDavid.

I didn't say they started the year planning to be in a basement.
Once they were going there, they did nothing just wrote the year off.
Everyone knew that the changes would come after the season.


Facts are the players had a bad year due in part to poor coaching and bad management.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Facts are the players had a bad year due in part to poor coaching and bad management.

Yes, but I'm not sure doing nothing (in a short season) is tanking. Flames management tried to tank.
They traded Bouwmeester who was not a soon to be UFA, and only for marginal return.
They sat veterans down in large numbers (at times) to play the kids.

Again, it didn't work because the kids refused to lose - and credit to them, but one can certainly suggest management sure tried hard enough to sink to the bottom of the tank.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes, but I'm not sure doing nothing (in a short season) is tanking. Flames management tried to tank.
They traded Bouwmeester who was not a soon to be ufa for marginal return.
They sat veterans down in large numbers (at times) to play the kids.

Again, it didn't work because the kids refused to lose - and credit to them, but one can certainly suggest management sure tried hard enough to sink to the bottom of the tank.

That just proves that Calgary management cannot do anything right.
I liked that the kids played well.

Colorado with better roster did better job at sucking than Flames.

As for Bouwmeester, I didn't see the point of trading him, looking back I don't have a problem with the return anymore as Poirier looks like he will be a very good player.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes, but I'm not sure doing nothing (in a short season) is tanking. Flames management tried to tank.
They traded Bouwmeester who was not a soon to be UFA, and only for marginal return.
They sat veterans down in large numbers (at times) to play the kids.

Again, it didn't work because the kids refused to lose - and credit to them, but one can certainly suggest management sure tried hard enough to sink to the bottom of the tank.

Really backward logic there.

The Flames tanked, but the players refused to lose?

One of the main reasons people pointed at Colorado tanking in that shortened season was the talk of players in the dressing room having gave up (talking about partying in Vegas etc). That's in addition to their management making terrible personel decisions and not addressing glaring problems.

Sorry, but when you combine the management and the players with the Avs that year, they were clearly the bigger tank job.

The Flames made a long overdue decision to tear down and rebuild. Hard to call that tanking when it when it was a decision they should have made two seasons ago.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Really backward logic there.

The Flames tanked, but the players refused to lose?

The Flames made a long overdue decision to tear down and rebuild. Hard to call that tanking when it when it was a decision they should have made two seasons ago.

Yes, that's exactly what happened - the players wouldn't lose.
Return for Iginla could not be helped.
Return for JBo was brutal and could have waited.
There were games down the stretch where cammalleri, Hudler, Backlund, etc were all sat down for kids.
I'm not sure what else you call that?

What doesn't look like tanking?
Keeping expiring UFA because you don't like the returns (Cammalleri, Butler).
Icing your best possible lineup every night, like Flames did this year

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Based on what? Nothing? Oh ya forgot.

Head in sand.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yes, that's exactly what happened - the players wouldn't lose.
Return for Iginla could not be helped.
Return for JBo was brutal and could have waited.
There were games down the stretch where cammalleri, Hudler, Backlund, etc were all sat down for kids.
I'm not sure what else you call that?

What doesn't look like tanking?
Keeping expiring UFA because you don't like the returns (Cammalleri, Butler).
Icing your best possible lineup every night, like Flames did this year

I just explained it but I'll try and be more clear:

Colorado had a very good team with many good young players who (admittedly) had quit on trying according to their goalie. They had terrible personell problems that were purposely not addressed.

That's why they were called out on tanking (and for good reason).

The Flames had an aging roster that should have been torn down to rebuild two seasons prior.

It's really pretty simple when you look at it, especially with how good Colorado was this year and how bad we were. You are clearly caught up in semantics as it pertains to the Flames. They obviously moved out experienced players with the goal of getting younger and committing to a several-year rebuild. This is supported by giving the kids a long long at the end of the year once the trades were made. Colorado, who are already rebuilt, just laid down for a high pick.

Saying Calgary tanked in the lockout season and Colorado didn't is preposterous.

Aside from that (which seems obvious) I think the return for Bouwmeester is going to turn out to be better than you're trying to paint it. I think Porier is going to be a gem.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I just explained it but I'll try and be more clear:

Colorado had a very good team with many good young players who (admittedly) had quit on trying according to their goalie. They had terrible personell problems that were purposely not addressed.

That's why they were called out on tanking (and for good reason).

The Flames had an aging roster that should have been torn down to rebuild two seasons prior.

It's really pretty simple when you look at it, especially how good Colorado this year and how bad we were. You are clearly caught up in semantics as it pertains to the Flames. They very clearly moved out experienced players with the goal of getting younger and committing to a several-year rebuild. Colorado, who are already rebuilt, just laid down for a high pick.

Saying Calgary tanked in the lockout season and Colorado didn't is preposterous.

Aside from that (which seems obvious) I think the return for Bouwmeester is going to turn out to be better than you're trying to paint it. I think Porier is going to be a gem.

I think Poirier is outstanding, but, among other things, the return for the Bouwmeester trade cost Feaster his job.

But you're missing the point:
I find it amusingly hypocritical for posters around here to talk about anyone tanking that season when Flames management clearly tried to tank as well.
I am very happy that Burke had none of that stupidity this season, and most likely never will.

Anyway - I guess I've derailed another thread - so I'll stop now.