sabills Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 He's a young star RW who is a top-10 NHL forward on offense. The Sabres are dying for a good RW. So, in answer to your question: I would give up that package for Tarasenko in a heartbeat. Throw him on a line with Eichel and Kane, who are both supposedly good defensively, and just tell him to go score. I'd be fine with losing a shot at Matthews for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Throw him on a line with Eichel and Kane, who are both supposedly good defensively, and just tell him to go score. I'd be fine with losing a shot at Matthews for that. It's not the shot at Matthews that worries me. It's that combined with the other picks, and first and foremost, the $9 million on a winger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 It's not the shot at Matthews that worries me. It's that combined with the other picks, and first and foremost, the $9 million on a winger. Oh sure, I get that. But he'd be a hell of a piece if he's what everyone else says of him. We have a TON of picks over the next few years, I'm ok with losing some to pick up a player that we already know is great. With the money, we have to spend a bunch just to get to the floor. Just don't make it a 15 year contract and I'm cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Oh sure, I get that. But he'd be a hell of a piece if he's what everyone else says of him. We have a TON of picks over the next few years, I'm ok with losing some to pick up a player that we already know is great. With the money, we have to spend a bunch just to get to the floor. Just don't make it a 15 year contract and I'm cool. I think you're downplaying the money too much. It's not an issue now because Eichel, Reinhart, Risto and Girgensons are all on their ELCs. But unless something goes horribly wrong, they're all going to get paid within three years from now. Unless the salary cap absolutely explodes, I think if you pay Tarasenko $9 million, you're losing Reinhart or Risto long term (I'm assuming Eichel is kept no matter what). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 Oh sure, I get that. But he'd be a hell of a piece if he's what everyone else says of him. We have a TON of picks over the next few years, I'm ok with losing some to pick up a player that we already know is great. With the money, we have to spend a bunch just to get to the floor. Just don't make it a 15 year contract and I'm cool. But we don't know that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think you're downplaying the money too much. It's not an issue now because Eichel, Reinhart, Risto and Girgensons are all on their ELCs. But unless something goes horribly wrong, they're all going to get paid within three years from now. Unless the salary cap absolutely explodes, I think if you pay Tarasenko $9 million, you're losing Reinhart or Risto long term (I'm assuming Eichel is kept no matter what). Well, Chicago has been able to keep a core of highly-paid stars (3-4 forwards and 2-3 D) for a pretty great run. I'd expect the Sabres to be able to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrassValleyGreg Posted June 12, 2015 Report Share Posted June 12, 2015 After losing Drury and Briere, Darcy probably felt he had to match Lowe's offer. Buffalo could've had 4 1st rounders.... And if Chicago can't work things out to keep Saad, I hope Murray lands him. But as already said, the Sabres will probably be in the lottery next year, so Murray may not even think about going for Saad. From the lowly Oilers! 2008 at 12, 2009 at 10, and the first overall of 2010 and 2011. :o Never fun to rehash but at least it appears we've rediscovered the importance of early draft picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Well, Chicago has been able to keep a core of highly-paid stars (3-4 forwards and 2-3 D) for a pretty great run. I'd expect the Sabres to be able to do the same. But that's not really true. The only players on Chicago with contracts in the ballpark of what you want to pay Tarasenko are Toews and Kane, who are currently at only $6.3 million but are about to jump to $10.5 million next year (hence Chicago's cap crunch and everyone wanting to offer sheet Saad). All of their other stars are making less than $6 million and will be for the foreseeable future, and a couple of them (Keith and Hossa) are only affordable and that low because of backdiving contracts which are no longer possible--they're not going to be able to fit a 3rd massive contract in. If Eichel and Reinhart become what we all hope they do, they're going to command Toews-like contracts three years from now. If Risto and Girgensons get a commonplace 2-year bridge deal following the expiration of their ELCs after this year, they will also be due for big raises at the exact same time we have to re-sign Eichel and Reinhart. To pile on top of that, Kane's contract will be expiring at that same 3 year mark. Maybe the cap explodes beyond expectations and makes it possible, but I don't think you can have 3x $9 million+ contracts and keep Risto, Girgensons, and Kane (hell, and Zadorov if he puts it all together). Give Tarasenko $9 million and I think you're essentially saying goodbye to one of Eichel/Reinhart or two of Risto/Girgensons/Kane. On top of the draft pick compensation (the picks are also part of how Chicago has held things together), I just don't want to make that kind of investment for a winger who is currently a defensive black hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 But that's not really true. The only players on Chicago with contracts in the ballpark of what you want to pay Tarasenko are Toews and Kane, who are currently at only $6.3 million but are about to jump to $10.5 million next year (hence Chicago's cap crunch and everyone wanting to offer sheet Saad). All of their other stars are making less than $6 million and will be for the foreseeable future, and a couple of them (Keith and Hossa) are only affordable and that low because of backdiving contracts which are no longer possible--they're not going to be able to fit a 3rd massive contract in. If Eichel and Reinhart become what we all hope they do, they're going to command Toews-like contracts three years from now. If Risto and Girgensons get a commonplace 2-year bridge deal following the expiration of their ELCs after this year, they will also be due for big raises at the exact same time we have to re-sign Eichel and Reinhart. To pile on top of that, Kane's contract will be expiring at that same 3 year mark. Maybe the cap explodes beyond expectations and makes it possible, but I don't think you can have 3x $9 million+ contracts and keep Risto, Girgensons, and Kane (hell, and Zadorov if he puts it all together). Give Tarasenko $9 million and I think you're essentially saying goodbye to one of Eichel/Reinhart or two of Risto/Girgensons/Kane. On top of the draft pick compensation (the picks are also part of how Chicago has held things together), I just don't want to make that kind of investment for a winger who is currently a defensive black hole. Oof; it sounds as though Murray's truest test as a GM will be in staggering these contracts as much as possible to avoid everyone hitting payday at the same time. I think it can be done, but he'll have to have a serious long-term game plan in mind pretty soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 But that's not really true. The only players on Chicago with contracts in the ballpark of what you want to pay Tarasenko are Toews and Kane, who are currently at only $6.3 million but are about to jump to $10.5 million next year (hence Chicago's cap crunch and everyone wanting to offer sheet Saad). All of their other stars are making less than $6 million and will be for the foreseeable future, and a couple of them (Keith and Hossa) are only affordable and that low because of backdiving contracts which are no longer possible--they're not going to be able to fit a 3rd massive contract in. If Eichel and Reinhart become what we all hope they do, they're going to command Toews-like contracts three years from now. If Risto and Girgensons get a commonplace 2-year bridge deal following the expiration of their ELCs after this year, they will also be due for big raises at the exact same time we have to re-sign Eichel and Reinhart. To pile on top of that, Kane's contract will be expiring at that same 3 year mark. Maybe the cap explodes beyond expectations and makes it possible, but I don't think you can have 3x $9 million+ contracts and keep Risto, Girgensons, and Kane (hell, and Zadorov if he puts it all together). Give Tarasenko $9 million and I think you're essentially saying goodbye to one of Eichel/Reinhart or two of Risto/Girgensons/Kane. On top of the draft pick compensation (the picks are also part of how Chicago has held things together), I just don't want to make that kind of investment for a winger who is currently a defensive black hole. No offense TrueBlue but a few of us have voiced the same concern about O'Reilly as well. Edit: In the sense that we can't afford them as their contracts will be in full-swing when it comes time to shell out the big bucks for our homegrown talent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Oof; it sounds as though Murray's truest test as a GM will be in staggering these contracts as much as possible to avoid everyone hitting payday at the same time. I think it can be done, but he'll have to have a serious long-term game plan in mind pretty soon. It could get ugly if he plays his cards wrong, that's for sure. I think essentially what he'll have to do is avoid bridge contracts for Risto and Girgensons. Sign them both to 5-6 year deals straight off their ELCs and hope they're more Hedman and McDonagh than Myers and Hodgson. No offense TrueBlue but a few of us have voiced the same concern about O'Reilly as well. Edit: In the sense that we can't afford them as their contracts will be in full-swing when it comes time to shell out the big bucks for our homegrown talent Nobody likes you. Seriously, he's the only one. I envision a piece or two we'd have to pay being jettisoned in an O'Reilly trade, which would free up some future money. And I still think he signs for closer to $7 million than $9 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It could get ugly if he plays his cards wrong, that's for sure. I think essentially what he'll have to do is avoid bridge contracts for Risto and Girgensons. Sign them both to 5-6 year deals straight off their ELCs and hope they're more Hedman and McDonagh than Myers and Hodgson. Nobody likes you. Seriously, he's the only one. I envision a piece or two we'd have to pay being jettisoned in an O'Reilly trade, which would free up some future money. And I still think he signs for closer to $7 million than $9 million. The only what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 The only what? It was a failed wordplay on Nobody's forum name :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It was a failed wordplay on Nobody's forum name :( Ah gotcha. He rarely posts here anymore so I completely blanked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 It could get ugly if he plays his cards wrong, that's for sure. I think essentially what he'll have to do is avoid bridge contracts for Risto and Girgensons. Sign them both to 5-6 year deals straight off their ELCs and hope they're more Hedman and McDonagh than Myers and Hodgson. Nobody likes you. Seriously, he's the only one. Yeah, that was my thinking based on your post as well. Bit of a gamble, but if he does it right and things go well the next few years it could really pay off. It was a failed wordplay on Nobody's forum name :( I got it if that makes you feel any better. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I got it if that makes you feel any better. ;) Seems like you need to go visit the Whiskey thread then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Seems like you need to go visit the Whiskey thread then :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 But that's not really true. The only players on Chicago with contracts in the ballpark of what you want to pay Tarasenko are Toews and Kane, who are currently at only $6.3 million but are about to jump to $10.5 million next year (hence Chicago's cap crunch and everyone wanting to offer sheet Saad). All of their other stars are making less than $6 million and will be for the foreseeable future, and a couple of them (Keith and Hossa) are only affordable and that low because of backdiving contracts which are no longer possible--they're not going to be able to fit a 3rd massive contract in. If Eichel and Reinhart become what we all hope they do, they're going to command Toews-like contracts three years from now. If Risto and Girgensons get a commonplace 2-year bridge deal following the expiration of their ELCs after this year, they will also be due for big raises at the exact same time we have to re-sign Eichel and Reinhart. To pile on top of that, Kane's contract will be expiring at that same 3 year mark. Maybe the cap explodes beyond expectations and makes it possible, but I don't think you can have 3x $9 million+ contracts and keep Risto, Girgensons, and Kane (hell, and Zadorov if he puts it all together). Give Tarasenko $9 million and I think you're essentially saying goodbye to one of Eichel/Reinhart or two of Risto/Girgensons/Kane. On top of the draft pick compensation (the picks are also part of how Chicago has held things together), I just don't want to make that kind of investment for a winger who is currently a defensive black hole. But when Chicago signed their lesser-paid stars, the cap was much lower. And although you are certainly right that Hossa's and Keith's cap hits were deflated, their cap hits are still $5.3MM and $5.5MM -- which were substantial cap hits when those deals were signed). And the cap will be growing between now and the hypothetical cap crunch. And, I hate to say it, but probabilities dictate that at least one of the guys that you have targeted for big contracts will get hurt, wash out, want to leave or some other sub-optimal outcome. Tarasenko is a legit star forward, right now, who is young, fast, highly skilled, confident and pretty likely IMHO to play at a high level and/or get better for a considerable period -- which will extend well into the period that Eichel reaches star status. Those two guys are the two surest bets among all of the players we're discussing in this exchange and will probably command big contracts -- but Eichel's will 3-4 years after Tarasenko's if we were to get him this summer. Reinhart and Girgensons have lower ceilings and will cost less. Kane could explode into stardom but that situation could go a lot of different ways, including losing him in free agency. Risto has potential but so did Myers. If he becomes a franchise guy there will be room to pay him. So, yes, I want Tarasenko at $9MM x 6 years. NB that I would expect STL to match that offer, but I'd still like to make it because there is a reasonable chance they wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Here's my problem with Tarasenko, 4 1st round draft picks if we sign him to that contract. I absolutely do not want to become the Penguins and just go into a 'win now' mode every single season and try to find band aid solutions to every problem we have. First off, we're not even close to that point yet. Secondly, I've watched it in every single sport: some team thinks they can just go out and buy players and assimilate them into their system and it will work. The Yankees, Eagles, Red Sox, maybe the 2015 Bils.... Point is the RFA stipulation of 4 1st rounders is absurdly high to prevent teams from doing this. You know the two RFA's who have left their team for that price? - Scott Stevens went to the St.Louis Blues from Washington for 5 1st rounders in 1990 -Chris Gratton went to Philly from TB in 1997. I think Saad and Toffoli command the tier of => "Over $5,046,585 to $6,728,781 - 1st round pick, 2nd, 3rd" That I wouldn't mind, considering all of the 2nd and 3rd rounders we have. Even O'Reilly would be better IMO because we could trade for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Here's my problem with Tarasenko, 4 1st round draft picks if we sign him to that contract. I absolutely do not want to become the Penguins and just go into a 'win now' mode every single season and try to find band aid solutions to every problem we have. First off, we're not even close to that point yet. Secondly, I've watched it in every single sport: some team thinks they can just go out and buy players and assimilate them into their system and it will work. The Yankees, Eagles, Red Sox, maybe the 2015 Bils.... Point is the RFA stipulation of 4 1st rounders is absurdly high to prevent teams from doing this. You know the two RFA's who have left their team for that price? - Scott Stevens went to the St.Louis Blues from Washington for 5 1st rounders in 1990 -Chris Gratton went to Philly from TB in 1997. I think Saad and Toffoli command the tier of => "Over $5,046,585 to $6,728,781 - 1st round pick, 2nd, 3rd" That I wouldn't mind, considering all of the 2nd and 3rd rounders we have. Even O'Reilly would be better IMO because we could trade for him. I agree that 4 #1s is too much -- my proposal is to give Tarasenko the max in the 2nd-highest bracket -- ie $9MM or so per year, which would cost 2 first rounders, a 2nd and a 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoPre Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Here's my problem with Tarasenko, 4 1st round draft picks if we sign him to that contract. I absolutely do not want to become the Penguins and just go into a 'win now' mode every single season and try to find band aid solutions to every problem we have. First off, we're not even close to that point yet. Secondly, I've watched it in every single sport: some team thinks they can just go out and buy players and assimilate them into their system and it will work. The Yankees, Eagles, Red Sox, maybe the 2015 Bils.... Point is the RFA stipulation of 4 1st rounders is absurdly high to prevent teams from doing this. You know the two RFA's who have left their team for that price? - Scott Stevens went to the St.Louis Blues from Washington for 5 1st rounders in 1990 -Chris Gratton went to Philly from TB in 1997. I think Saad and Toffoli command the tier of => "Over $5,046,585 to $6,728,781 - 1st round pick, 2nd, 3rd" That I wouldn't mind, considering all of the 2nd and 3rd rounders we have. Even O'Reilly would be better IMO because we could trade for him. This is something I hope Murray is considering. A 5 to 6 mill contract will leave a little cap space for the extensions of Girgensons, Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, etc.... As nfreeman pointed out, 4 1st and 9 mill per year is too much. Pass on Tarasenko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I agree that 4 #1s is too much -- my proposal is to give Tarasenko the max in the 2nd-highest bracket -- ie $9MM or so per year, which would cost 2 first rounders, a 2nd and a 3rd. The flipside is that your best chance to get him is with the four 1sts offer. I don't think St. Louis lets him walk for the lower compensation. But four #1s? They'd have to at least think hard about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 From the lowly Oilers! 2008 at 12, 2009 at 10, and the first overall of 2010 and 2011. :o Never fun to rehash but at least it appears we've rediscovered the importance of early draft picks. If only DR had believed in suffering back in the summer of 2007. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 The flipside is that your best chance to get him is with the four 1sts offer. I don't think St. Louis lets him walk for the lower compensation. But four #1s? They'd have to at least think hard about it. I agree that a highest-bracket offer creates the best chance for St. Louis to let him walk. However, that price in #1 picks is too rich for me, and I think there is a chance that they let him walk at an offer in the second-highest bracket. Their highest contract is Pietrangelo at $45 million. After that they have a couple of contracts in the high 20s. They might have a hard time agreeing to a $54 million contract for a young player still in his RFA period. Probably just wishful thinking though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 I agree that a highest-bracket offer creates the best chance for St. Louis to let him walk. However, that price in #1 picks is too rich for me, and I think there is a chance that they let him walk at an offer in the second-highest bracket. Their highest contract is Pietrangelo at $45 million. After that they have a couple of contracts in the high 20s. They might have a hard time agreeing to a $54 million contract for a young player still in his RFA period. Probably just wishful thinking though. I certainly don't think they would voluntarily give Tarasenko that kind of contract. Sort of like there was no way Nashville wanted to give Weber a $114 million contract, but they also weren't going to let him walk for draft picks. I suspect the sentiment would be similar here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.