Two in the Box

Debate over using a buyout on Jeff Skinner has simmered for a few months. Skinner’s usage declined as the season wrapped up as did his production. As a result, some consideration over parting ways has been a topic of conversation going back to early spring.

Things changed on Tuesday, June 18 when a clip of Elliotte Friedman on The Jeff Marek Show was shared online in which Friedman reported that a buyout is a possibility. 

Friedman’s report will significantly increase the heat around Skinner’s situation. It’s no secret the Sabres are desperate to break their playoff drought. Kevyn Adams has hung a for sale sign on the 11th overall pick and there is an expectation that he will be aggressive this summer. Skinner is a complicating factor to any attempts to make significant changes to the Buffalo lineup. Not only does his $9 million cap hit account for over 10% of Buffalo’s cap, but his decline in production came, in part, with his move down the lineup this past spring. It’s a very difficult proposition to manage a $9 million cap hit if the player is only going to be effective in a top six role. 

It’s not entirely fair to hang Skinner’s scoring drought on his demotion, he showed signs of struggles after being injured in Colorado and missing three games in December. He didn’t seem able to shake whatever was ailing him after that injury. Skinner amassed 19 points (9+10) in 39 games after January 1 and only managed four goals and six points over his final 20 games, finishing the year on a 13-game goalless drought. As JJ Peterka took over his role on the Tage Thompson line, Skinner saw his icetime dwindle. He played 15 minutes or more just four times over the final 20 games of the season

The relationship between Skinner’s decline in production and decline in usage will be hard to overlook when you consider the struggles he had under Ralph Krueger. If Skinner has truly been passed on the depth chart, what does that mean for his outlook over the final three years of his deal? Further, as has been mentioned countless times since Lindy Ruff was hired, is it possible Skinner could see even less ice if his playing style doesn’t jive with Ruff’s expectations or demands? 

All of these factors contribute to a tricky situation for the Sabres. The center of the issue is that Skinner carries a hefty cap hit and isn’t ideally suited for a role where icetime won’t be as abundant and his linemates may not be as talented. It’s much harder to keep Skinner around if you feel you have to play him with other playmakers to get anything close to full value from him. Between progression from young players like Zach Benson and outside acquisitions, it could be increasingly difficult to justify a top six roster spot for Skinner. Depending on the moves Adams makes, it may be hard to fit all of those players in the lineup on a nightly basis. Removing him means a new acquisition could slot in next to Thompson or Dylan Cozens and Zach Benson could combine with a newly acquired center to form a dogged matchup line. There could even be a more prominent role for the likes of Jiri Kulich to step into. Of the many lineup permutations available, it’s much easier to find space for new talent with some subtraction from Buffalo’s current crop of forwards. Right or wrong, it appears Skinner could be the odd man out. 

A buyout becomes a more realistic option if they determine Skinner can no longer offer them proper value. It’s hard to say if we’ve reached that point (was his decline rooted in the injury or has he truly been passed by younger talent?) but the short term benefits of a buyout are obvious. Not only would a buyout afford Adams and Ruff more lineup flexibility, it would give the Sabres an additional $7.5 million in cap to work with this summer. That’s a significant amount of space. 

A buyout doesn’t come without its pitfalls. The Sabres would be on the hook for a $6.4 million dead cap hit in 2026-27 and three additional years with $2.4 million on the books. Even if the cap continues to increase, that $2.4 million is nothing to sneeze at. Those hits are hardly prohibitive, but it’s the amount you’d spend on a third or fourth line player. For a team that will have additional extensions to manage, that could be valuable space when the time comes. It’s hard to square that against the short term benefits a buyout would offer.

The most obvious and beneficial solution would be to trade him while retaining a portion of his salary. Easier said than done given his no trade clause. But, in a situation where Adams found a location Skinner would be willing to waive for, the Sabres would enjoy many of the benefits of a buyout with far fewer pitfalls. This route would also be cheaper for ownership as a trade with retention would leave the Sabres on the hook for a portion of Skinner’s salary for three years as opposed to upwards of six. The complications of dealing him shouldn’t be overlooked as the Sabres may be asked to add a sweetener and the no movement clause looms large. 

The potential roadblocks to a trade make a buyout the path of least resistance for the Sabres. It’s hardly an ideal solution, but this is going to be a summer where Adams needs to make hard decisions. The short term gains may ultimately outweigh the penalty of those three additional years of dead cap and the large hit in 26-27. For a team with Buffalo’s aspirations, they may need to take on those risks in order to get their roster closer to playoff contention.