Thorny

He’s not gonna to ask for 20 million and I don’t think he asks for 12.5 like also mentioned above but there’s definitely nothing “selfish” about an individual employee asking to be paid their actual worth from their corporate bosses, especially considering the injury risks and his short careers tends to be. I really dislike this implication that players are selfish for wanting to be paid accurately and that they somehow owe something to tune of willfully taking less. It’s corporate bs. There’s nothing wrong with a player taking a bit less than they could get, not saying that either. Of course not. But it’s not owed. It’s not a “selfish or not” proposition

Ya for sure was just pointing out why he included MacKinnon

John Carlson signed 5 years ago, and his highest point total was 68 at the time of signing. Dahlin might top 90 this year. In addition Carlson was *28* at time of deal and Dahlin is 22. Frankly, Carlson getting that deal, when he did is as much an argument for Dahlin deserving to bump that up by AT LEAST 2 million than anything. Hedman’s deal was 7 years ago, that’s an eternity by way of contract upscaling. He did take 10% of the cap his first season, whereas if Dahlin gets 10 mil, he’ll be taking about 11%. If we’d like to see Dahlin come in at the same % he’d come in at 8-something a season. Can’t see it personally. Ekblad is just a bad comp, I know you aren’t saying he’s Dahlin but the comparables here are miles apart. He signed off his ELC 7 years ago for 7.5 per after a career high 36 points. On a per point basis that would track Dahlin for over 15 mil per. Yes, I know there’s more than points but clearly they were at way way different stages at time of deal. Maybe Power can get an Ekblad deal. - - - I don’t think it would be “unreasonable” for Dahlin to come in at 9.5, I just think that to the best of my abilities to look at this objectively and pretend Dahlin isn’t a Sabre, I think I’d have to have the league’s probable best, but if not soon to be, defenseman making at least 10 million

That next Tuch contract is one we need to be super careful with. Potentially even a candidate for ELC replacement

This is a good argument for not passing up the opportunity to go for a little winning now, if it can be had. Dahlin / Thompson in their primes where Dahlin, Quinn, Peterka aren’t breaking bank, etc. We’ve seen it in the past where teams (Chicago, Kane/Toews) have won with key players on ELCs In my experience the window opens a little quicker than people think and closes a little quicker too unless yo bahston

Took me a while to understand why Buffalo was listed at 0% lol It’s this or “pregame ceremony”

Guys like Alan Eagleson would lead off the 5 o’clock news around these parts back in his controversy heyday. Saturday Early

It admittedly does seem odd that we’re getting 8.5 projections for Power off an ELC and 9.5 projections for Dahlin coming off two bridges. I don’t see any way those valuations jive unless they really are doing the shiny-happy-people-holding-hands thing

I’d imagine they right the Dahlin wrong and lock up Power LT coming off his ELC

Cozens makes more

“If Dahlin signed a bridge contract, it was because he was betting on him and especially because Buffalo did not want to pay him. Dahlin won. He's going to ask for 100 million for 8 years. If Buffalo does not want to pay him yet, he will still sign a bridge contract for 3 years and 9.5 million. Then he won't play in Buffalo anymore! Because he will ask for 20 million when he has full autonomy.“

Déjà vu

@nfreemanThe easiest way to simplify I guess is to say: what do you think Samuelsson fetches on the open market, today? Use any metric you like. The only point I was making was I think we could have signed Samuelson to roughly the same deal this summer, as last. Certainly not the case with Tage and his deal. Distinguishing between the deals he’s handed out so far was my entire point. Does that seem substantively inaccurate? I’ve already said multiple times the idea of doing it for “culture” has merit - but more provably so imo by way of the Samuelsson deal being a necessary symptom. I do not *know* that we needed to preemptively commit to Samuelsson for 7 years and doubt our culture would have been affected removing just that singular contractual aspect but to your point anyways you CANNOT theoretically remove just that as that deal is a symptom of how KA does deals and he’s done them very well overall I do disagree that he’s proven to be worth the commitment of 4 million right now over 7 years (again, it’s largely the term: locking ourselves in already, last year, seemed unnecessary). You imo keep trying to lock me into a position I’m not taking, this time you are trying to pin me on saying “only points matter” and that I must not understand the value of a defensive defenseman. I cannot stress enough that I keep saying to pick YOUR own metric** because it’s not that I’m saying “those guys” don’t have value, just that we, arguably, committed to Samuelsson, specifically, being THAT guy before was necessary. Before he had proven to be worth being paid that. I’d argue he still hasn’t. It’s a distinction you are ignoring I think: I’m not devaluing the type of player (blood, guts, whatever intangible trait you want to apply), I’m saying *by any* metric the Samuelsson deal was, imo, kinda needlessly (but not *substantially*, honestly) risky / given out too early. We are not haggling on anything other than timing, and it’s implications - not whatever you are trying to make it. Not a referendum on the viability of the role league wide, team building wise. **im not really elaborating on my metric because honestly I DO see the same value as you in the McKee and McKee like players, it’s just that pointing at guys like that is sorta the basis of most of your metric so far: I get they are good I’m just not convinced he’s that yet and certainly wasn’t after *54* NHL games. I don’t feel that’s out to lunch. Points aren’t everything but when you don’t score..well really any, it does matter. I’m not ready to discount the fact hes often hurt when that argument is appropriately applied in discussions about Sabres players, both past and present. And on sort of a tangent, that your arguments align in spirit right now with the guy who was arguing, against me, that we could *sooner be without Rasmus Dahlin for a game in the Stanley cup finals than Samuelsson* really seeks to highlight the sort of player Concept I’m arguing against, here in thread, again imho I do think he ultimately proves it a good contract. The idea that a non-locked up for 7 years Samuelsson would result in a lesser culture around here doesn’t necessarily jive for me with any kind of certainty. At least not to the extent that it makes the fact KA imo paid needlessly soon a non-interesting discussion point, that’s all. All this for a throw away comment about how I personally don’t lump Samuelsson’s contract in with Adams other *GREAT CONTRACTS* - those great contracts the operative portion. - - - Ps Dahlin looked damn good to *this* young Winnipeger, live, in person, running all over the Jets in their own building, just fine, even sans Samuelsson.

Honestly not really sure what you mean re: Cozens This is the thread we were discussing it, at the end of that page I said I thought the post that said he’d get the Tage deal seemed about right, quoting a tweet. I said I had the lowest floor at 7 mil and he got 7.1. That’s “barely correct” more than “pretty far off”. My point was that Tage being on a “discounted contract” wouldn’t inspire other players to be on a discount - Tage didn’t sign his deal thinking “Well the team is willing to make me a 10 mil guy but I’ll take 7.” It looks like it’s fair to say Cozens certainly didn’t squeeze the team but that’s not the same as offering a team discount. I’ve said in thread I think this deal looks just about right value wise under the prism of the “sign them early” strategy, non-Sabres sources seem to be suggesting the same thing - and I said the same for Tage, actually. But both players took deals *they felt were fair*. This was the point I was trying and I guess failing to make - Tage didn’t “take a discount” and he didn’t inspire Cozens to. They are logical deals. I think brawndo even said they were player/agent motivated. Tage’s deal didn’t represent a ceiling I don’t think, It’s certainly not going to represent a ceiling for Dahlin’s. - - - I already addressed this complaint in that thread actually and the rest of your post above sort of falls under the same banner: like we are speaking a different language. I don’t think you are arguing the points I am arguing / and me vice versa. Yes, I remember a guy who played during the best Sabres years of my lifetime so far lol. I think the “what the hell were the last 20 posts for” thing kinda exemplifies that for one reason or another you are either entirely missing the point of my thoughts or I’m not explaining close to properly. We 2 almost always have this issue

Imo the context is football games

Love this cause speaking of Morrissey, he’s a fun case to think about because he’s 5 years older than Dahlin and basically having the explosion of a year Dahlin is, perhaps not to quite the same extent. But Morrissey is Norris level. So worst case scenario is we are just seeing evidence of how special Dahlin is cause he’s amounting to that level at such a younger age. But the best case scenario is that Morrissey is evidence for the case that Dahlin is primed for another jump along the way. Which is kinda scary.

Secretary to the Labour Secretary

And there you have it - the bold is about my quick calculation, too just now based on percentage of team scoring. ROR was scoring points on 31% of team goals that year. If scoring per game is up .19 and he scores on .31% of that .19, that’s ~5 more points over 82

Cozens has the longest to go where it comes to catching up to what ROR provides two way - I believe he was a perennial selke candidate by voting during his prime years and led the league in takeaways at least once. I agree the scoring now favours Cozens but I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest “dead puck era” as apt Scoring is up but it wasn’t dead puck type stuff that recently

I dunno about “likely”. I’d certainly settle for “reasonably possible” when the player in question is a Smythe winner, perennial Selke type player through his prime I may even say he likely outscores him but besides that being only one factor, scoring has gone up so much over recent few seasons it’s tough to compare year over year fairly. I think I read that McDavid, a little over half way through the year has already surpassed what Benn won the Art Ross with a while back lol. Of course that’s CM but scoring is up overall

He’s definitely drawing a relative comparison: that we should be equally patient with these players because they, too, in time could live up to or even exceed their individual projections.

Ya I mean Dahlin is as good as Fox. He’s signing off multiple bridges and Fox was off his ELC, *and* Dahlin is signing later. If he comes in at about the same 9.5 I can’t see how we deem that anything but a bargain.

You are astute. I’ll probably always dislike the “deal”, but that’s part and parcel with the way my brain works - for better or worse there are distinctions I/anyone may draw that can lead to two things being compatible that would ordinarily appear to be mutually exclusive: I’ve said in this very conversation, while seemingly taking opposition to the “deal”, that Adams would “get away” with what I personally deemed to be unnecessary risk due to his potential “GM genius“. I think the evaluation was right. I just, forgive me the lack of seemly modesty, think I was absolutely correct a year ago when I said that we could have waited and paid Samuelsson about the same. If you concede that, I’ll concede that, even though we can’t prove it, locking him up early *much more* likely actively aided rather than hindered culture. I said at the very first it made sense - even if I question the extent it made a difference. In truth I think if anything, though we can’t prove it’s literal effects, individually, it serves as compelling symptom: the overall body of work re: Adams contract dealings has been excellent (we’ll see on Dahlin). Even if I think the decision to pay Samuelsson WHEN we did was flawed, the methods that led to the overall contract output have proven very effective. In that, I take this overall process all day long and twice on Star Wars day regardless of a singular disagreement I have that amounts to what I find to be at least, if not an engaging waste of time for those reading, undoubtedly at least the latter. - - - If you think Samuelssson WOULD have gotten more than the 4+ he got, should we have waited until this summer (or next), based on the production and appearances (and sometimes notably: lack thereof) we’ve seen this season, and my concession agreement doesn’t work for you, I’ll take you up on the other thing, considering it’s not even the Samuelson thread: Word.

My point laid bare. We do not know that he is leading to wins - certainly not the extent of the potential winning. You can choose any metric you want - my point, that we “didn’t know” yet at the time how he’d pan out relative to your chosen evaluation metric and lost nothing by waiting, doesn’t change. It’s not Peca. We are a mid pack team, currently. Average. We paid him early for the wins we think he’ll add in the future - the price at which he’d still have been available, this summer. Again, I actually think his evaluation bears out - it was just locked in stone way earlier than it needed to be inclusive of unnecessary risk. I HATE dealing from both hands. I am able to personally deal Adams so much credit for his Tage evaluation because of how swimmingly it’s going - I’m not gonna sit here and say, “well, Samuelsson’s didn’t statistically pan out to that level, yet, but I’ll lump his deal in with the others because I don’t need to evaluate it by the same, consistent principles.” Just not for me. If Cozens regresses to a 40 point guy, Savoie takes his place, and we’re a great team with DC on line 3, I’m not calling the deal good because the macro worked out. Because the culture looks good. I prefer to try to apply consistent principles to each individual, unique situation on a case by case basis

Defensive D operate by their own rules re: avenues of earning, yes: but the fact they have their own, lower-salary niche where they are evaluated by a different set of rules in the first place is my point. The guys who score points go to the “guys who get paid” tier The ones that don’t go to the “well, we have to measure their pay based on *something*“ tier. My mention of points has always been to illustrate the tier he’s in, he was never a threat to break bank. The fact is we went ahead and paid him what the top, 5 point purely defensive d make before he established (and has yet to) as a top, 5 point defensive D. He is overpaid relative to his peers, the guys who score points aren’t even in this conversation.