nfreeman

Yikes. Hubie just turned 29, and this extension starts a year from now -- so they will be paying him $10.5MM per year in his age 34, 35, 36 and 37 seasons. And the cash is $10.5MM every year, so he's fully incentivized to stick it out until the end. By comparison, Skinner's contract ends after his age 34 season. I understand why Calgary did this, but I don't think I'd be happy about it if I were a Flames fan.

What about the superfly TNT?

Separately, that article in the Athletic was pretty well written IMHO and makes the coach look like a real piece of work. Yuck.

No one knows the exact percentage other than Watson. But I am pretty confident the percentage is higher than zero -- confident enough, and above zero enough, that I am OK with the suspension. Are you not OK with the suspension?

Well, I'm not sure why you're shaking your head. We're in a situation where the information is imperfect and the NFL and the arbitrator needed to make a decision. If you think they made the wrong decision, then you should say what you think the right decision is. Instead, you're lobbing accusations of...something (bias? racism? rushing to judgment? other?) at those who think the sheer number of accusations means that Watson must have crossed the line -- when it seems like just about everyone feels that way. Yes, it's an easy story to copy. Do you think 1 woman made something up and 29 women copied it? Has that ever happened to any athlete? Plenty of athletes have been shaken down over the years -- have any been shaken down by 30 different women? Can you give an example of standards of proof varying based on the situation or person?

Well, if Watson had been found guilty of something, the suspension would've been much longer. Serious question: what do you think the right outcome here is? This wasn't a one-time incident where maybe there was a misunderstanding or a shakedown. 30 different women accused him of pretty much the same thing.

Sure -- very possible. I do think though that as others have noted, based on the facts we know and what we can reasonably expect in terms of consequences for the program, it seems pretty likely that Portillo will stay the course. If the program gets shut down for next season (which seems highly unlikely)? Yes, he would probably bail.

I think Portillo will evaluate this situation as he evidently has conducted his career to date — ie by dispassionately choosing the best path for his long term personal situation. If the coach is fired, Portillo isn’t going to get PO’d and leave the team.

Yes — a happy ending seems pretty unlikely. I think the consistent moral of this show and Breaking Bad is that consequences are inevitable.

Good man.

Ok — but just for poops and giggles and the sake of argument — what is your prediction? As between Joki and Loobie, who will get more time with Power (or Dahlin), and who will spend more time on the 3rd pair with Bryson or Fitzie? I’ll predict Joki gets quite a bit more time with Power/Dahlin and Loobie spends quite a bit more with Bryson/Fitzie.

Take it down a notch please.

Well, TP did retain Darcy, who was a respected and experienced GM at the time, as his initial GM.

It’s more that I think some opinions of Joki’s lack of efficacy in the D zone are a bit exaggerated. I think he’s good there too and getting better, and that he’s a smart player who will learn to complement Power’s game well.

One nugget from the KO interview that I found interesting: when they asked him about the Sabres D corp, he spoke highly of Dahlin and Power, but also mentioned that Joki is an under-the-radar really good defenseman. This jibes with the consistent praise of Joki that we saw from DG last year, and further supports the notion that Joki is pretty much a lock to be top 4 this year, likely as Power's partner.

Just listened to it. Good stuff. I came away liking KO quite a bit. And the meatheads were pretty funny.

I might agree if they hadn’t just lost Gaudreau for nothing, but I don’t think they can live with a similar outcome with Hubie and Weegar.

Good stuff here boys. I think @Ducky is right though — they have to trade them.

I agree with most of this, and I sure hope you’re right about the bolded. Mitts delivering a good top 6 forward season would be a great addition to the lineup.

This is a compelling argument on paper. Florida was a great team and offensive juggernaut last year though and a strong cup contender this coming season as well. They just traded their 2nd best player, who was tied for 2nd in the NHL in scoring last year, and their 2nd best defenseman. That creates a significant likelihood that they won’t be as good next year as they would’ve been without this trade. And this coming year could very likely be their best chance at a cup in their entire contender window. In theory yes it extends their window. And it’s quite possible that Tkachuk shines in the playoffs and they go on a deep run, or even a few of them. But it seems like they took an actual, tangible step back and hurt their chances, which were really good, in the here and now, in exchange for a good theory. It seems maybe too clever by half. I don’t think I’d have wanted the Sabres to do this if they were In Florida’s position.

I agree with this. although Florida got younger and tougher, they also got slower and worse on D and they changed the chemistry of a very successful team. And I could easily see Calgary going into a nose dive. Florida is still going to be a very tough opponent for the Sabres though.

It just seems pretty likely that at least 1 of Hubie and Weegar isn't going to re-sign with Calgary, especially since they both came from Florida, which most Canadian NHL players seem to love, and given the twitter reports about Hubie already saying he's not re-signing. So, unless Calgary signs them this summer, their impending departures are going to hang over the team all year, and they will most likely be traded at the deadline. I think it would've been wiser for Calgary to trade Tkachuk for younger players that they could keep control of for several year. This seems like an ill-advised, desperate move by a franchise reeling and under pressure from the departures of their 2 best players.

Well, you certainly could be right that it was CBJ‘s decision to keep it a short term deal. I suspect though that it was more Laine’s decision, because CBJ has had a very difficult time keeping its high end talent. I’d be interested to hear the answer on that question if anybody comes across it.

I find it interesting that Laine’s contract is only 4 years. I’m assuming that CBJ would’ve preferred a longer deal, but Laine wanted another big contract in 4 years when the cap will likely be higher and he’ll be 28 with 4 years of big numbers from playing with Gaudreau under his belt. Still, it’s a risky move by him.

There is some truth in this, but I think your post isn't quite accurate when it comes to the Bills. The contracts they gave Diggs, JA, and Tre were all among the top 3 or so in the NFL for their respective positions at the time they were signed. While I agree that those players weren't looking to gouge every last possible dollar out of the team, they also weren't taking substantial discounts to stay. I think that type of "discount" is the most that can be reasonably hoped for in the Sabres' extensions with their key players over the next few years. In that scenario, if TT has another season in the 35-35-70 range, he won't demand to be paid $10MM-$11MM at the top end of the #1C market with Matthews, Barkov etc. (and Eichel!), but it's not realistic to expect him to be in the same $7MM tier as Barzal or Keller, either. $8MM-$8.5MM would put him in the Zibenijad, Hertl, Duchene and Norris tier, which seems about right. This will be expensive, but still a better deal for the Sabres than, say, what Ullmark seems to have required, which was to pay more than anyone else was willing to pay for him.