Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bob_sauve28

Jeff Skinner's Contract

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Krueger has had Skinner with Eichel for a fair bit lately. Too lazy to look it up. Skinner still hasn't scored.

Do I take the defense of Skinner to literally mean that unless he's with Eichel (or a top center), it's OK if he doesn't produce ANYTHING? His critics aren't necessarily asking for his production from last season. Can he score a goal? Just one? Somehow? An assist would be nice as well. Just one. He has two points in 15 games!

Thank you for this.

The vast majority of this thread is full of posts blaming other people for Jeff's failures.

The fact of the matter is for the past two months or more his play has been bad. It's on him, not his coaches or his linemates. That 5-5 scoring thing is evidence of how stats can be twisted. He has ZERO goals and just two assists in 15 games. He has just three goals in his past 25. How is that possibly scoring at his normal rate?

And it's not like he's snakebit. He's not getting to the net. He's not forcing turnovers. He's not forcing goalies to make saves.

It must be so frustrating to be on his line. Dump it in and he won't go get it. Get him the puck and watch him leave it to get his stick up into a backchecker instead, stare at the ref in disgust, and fall eight strides behind on the backcheck. Watch him fail to pass you the puck, again, or throw it into your skates. Watch him skate on top of you when you are trying to create open ice, or peel off to yap at a defenceman when you need support on the cycle.

Reading all the excuses makes me wonder what people are watching. He is a bad hockey player right now.

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Curt said:

 

He had a career year playing with the best line mate that he ever had, not a big surprise.

He had a contract year, and got paid as if that was a normal year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, Jeff hasn't been enjoyable this year. He's like a Marchand/Kadri, but not as good. He's always yapping and looking for a call instead of playing the game. 

9 million bucks, wow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Isn't everyone having a melt down now? Why not save cap space and have a melt down in a better financial place. JBott blinked and it's handcuffed the franchise for years. 

 

Why not take an off season melt down instead of this cluster fart? 

Skinner will be fine for most of the contract. It'll always be too big, but it won't cripple the team.

That we're melting down because he didn't do anything else for this team doesn't mean that it would have been acceptable to let a 40 goal guy walk and leave us with an organization of
Sheary - Eichel - Reinhart
Olofsson - Johansson - Lazar
Vesey - Rodrigues - Asplund
Girgensons - Larsson - Okposo

Mitts, Tage, Cozens, and that's it

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Nobody thinks it's okay, they just don't expect his contract's suggested level of production if he's not with Eichel. He's obviously performing below where he should even without Eichel right now. He will do this many more times throughout his career, too, though hopefully not for this long, just because he's an NHL goal scorer and those guys regularly have down stretches of ~15 games, and he doesn't bring a lot to the table outside of his goal scoring. But anyone coulda told you that before we traded for him so it's not high on the list of things people are really mad about

 

You keep portraying Skinner's production as a blip or something that is expected or predictable (typical "goal scorer"). How much do you think Skinner would be making today if his entire career looked like his last 82 games? 22 goals and 18 assists. In this hypothetical season, he had a hot start. 7 goals and 8 assists in 20 games. He has 15 goals and 10 assists in his last 60 games. His dropoff clearly preceded his separation from Jack.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Isn't everyone having a melt down now? Why not save cap space and have a melt down in a better financial place. JBott blinked and it's handcuffed the franchise for years. 

 

Why not take an off season melt down instead of this cluster fart? 

People will melt down in a hockey czar comes in and trades Eichel and Dahlin for a haul. Then they will ooze excitement when we make a run the next spring. Then they will light pitchforks when we're down again a few years later and Eichel and Dahlin face each other in the final for two years in a row. It's sports.

The idea we are married to one way going forward, and that way will pay off in three to five years (always three to five years, even three to five years later), is the heart of my frustration. It's just not supposed to feel like this. Clean house and have a good team and make the playoffs next year. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Thank you for this.

The vast majority of this thread is full of posts blaming other people for Jeff's failures.

The fact of the matter is for the past two months or more his play has been bad. It's on him, not his coaches or his linemates. That 5-5 scoring thing is evidence of how stats can be twisted. He has ZERO goals and just two assists in 15 games. He has just three goals in his past 25. How is that possibly scoring at his normal rate?

And it's not like he's snakebit. He's not getting to the net. He's not forcing turnovers. He's not forcing goalies to make saves.

It must be so frustrating to be on his line. Dump it in and he won't go get it. Get him the puck and watch him leave it to get his stick up into a backchecker instead, stare at the ref in disgust, and fall eight strides behind on the backcheck. Watch him fail to pass you the puck, again, or throw it into your skates. Watch him skate on top of you when you are trying to create open ice, or peel off to yap at a defenceman when you need support on the cycle.

Reading all the excuses makes me wonder what people are watching.

There's a much simpler explanation and it's just that this is who Skinner is. If you look at Skinner historically, he has had other seasons like this. And it has tended to be on teams that were not good. Which thing begets which, I don't know for sure. But Skinner has always been inconsistent season to season.

Now, changing directions towards the conspiratorial, part of me wonders if Krueger somehow believes that Skinner, at 27, still has more growing to do as a player; that he can develop more consistency in his game, and that this demotion of sorts is his way of basically forcing the issue on Jeff. Perhaps Krueger looked at his roster and wrote this season off in October just like the rest of us and decided that the best thing for this team was to get Olofsson as much development as possible on the top line and see if Skinner can become a more dependable player. Whether or not Botterill wanted it this way is anyone's guess, but Krueger must have a reason for this, right?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darksabre said:

There's a much simpler explanation and it's just that this is who Skinner is. If you look at Skinner historically, he has had other seasons like this. And it has tended to be on teams that were not good. Which thing begets which, I don't know for sure. But Skinner has always been inconsistent season to season.

Now, changing directions towards the conspiratorial, part of me wonders if Krueger somehow believes that Skinner, at 27, still has more growing to do as a player; that he can develop more consistency in his game, and that this demotion of sorts is his way of basically forcing the issue on Jeff. Perhaps Krueger looked at his roster and wrote this season off in October just like the rest of us and decided that the best thing for this team was to get Olofsson as much development as possible on the top line and see if Skinner can become a more dependable player. Whether or not Botterill wanted it this way is anyone's guess, but Krueger must have a reason for this, right?

Krueger's reasoning for keep Jeff away from Jack is simpler than that, I think.

His strategy is to use Jack's line against the other team's top players (they actually did OK against the best line in the league last night despite the score).

He doesn't trust Jeff defensively in that role.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Krueger's reasoning for keep Jeff away from Jack is simpler than that, I think.

His strategy is to use Jack's line against the other team's top players (they actually did OK against the best line in the league last night despite the score).

He doesn't trust Jeff defensively in that role.

I think that's probably part of it too. But like I said, Skinner has always been like this. He's had seasons exactly like this in Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, darksabre said:

There's a much simpler explanation and it's just that this is who Skinner is. If you look at Skinner historically, he has had other seasons like this. And it has tended to be on teams that were not good. Which thing begets which, I don't know for sure. But Skinner has always been inconsistent season to season.

Now, changing directions towards the conspiratorial, part of me wonders if Krueger somehow believes that Skinner, at 27, still has more growing to do as a player; that he can develop more consistency in his game, and that this demotion of sorts is his way of basically forcing the issue on Jeff. Perhaps Krueger looked at his roster and wrote this season off in October just like the rest of us and decided that the best thing for this team was to get Olofsson as much development as possible on the top line and see if Skinner can become a more dependable player. Whether or not Botterill wanted it this way is anyone's guess, but Krueger must have a reason for this, right?

I like this one. It kind of matches my idea that Krueger didn't exactly like what he saw in Skinner. But where I see the demotion as punishment you see it as something more positive. The question it all begs is what in the heck do they do now that Skinner has failed the test? Can they have any success going forward with that $8 million albatross around their necks?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PASabreFan said:

You keep portraying Skinner's production as a blip or something that is expected or predictable (typical "goal scorer"). How much do you think Skinner would be making today if his entire career looked like his last 82 games? 22 goals and 18 assists. In this hypothetical season, he had a hot start. 7 goals and 8 assists in 20 games. He has 15 goals and 10 assists in his last 60 games. His dropoff clearly preceded his separation from Jack.

A few weeks ago I gave you examples of several elite goal scorers and chunks of games that are ~6 weeks in length where their numbers are severely depressed. Like Jeff, who spent 20 games this year at a 40 goal pace and 60 games last year at a 50 goal pace, they also have good stretches of goal scoring. He does this, and it's more severe in his time with the Sabres than it is for most players, in both directions. I don't know what else to say other than the fact that it's not surprising for a goal scorer to ride the waves like this, especially a player who's pretty obviously not in the tier of Ovechkin and Matthews, and not playing with the level and type of players that Pastrnak does, even accounting for his time with Eichel. Again, that doesn't mean I think this CURRENT stretch is acceptable, because it's materially worse than his cold goal scoring stretch of last season, when he was still effectively generating a lot of chances and therefore keeping the puck away from the other team, versus  now, when he's really just hurting the team, but still.

Before he ever got to Buffalo, he has had the following sample of separate cold stretches in Carolina:
6 goals in 39 games (which includes 3 in 23)
4 goals in 22 games
2 goals in 20 games
2 goals in 18 games
0 goals in 18 games
3 goals in 19 games
3 goals in 19 games

I guess I'm just not as surprised by the two bad stretches of production he's gone through as a Sabre? 1 goal in 22 games (with that injury that had him hobbling around, before which he was pacing for 51), 0 goals in 15 games. It sucks that they're so close together temporally but other than that they fit in with the information I had already processed about the player that Skinner is
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Krueger's reasoning for keep Jeff away from Jack is simpler than that, I think.

His strategy is to use Jack's line against the other team's top players (they actually did OK against the best line in the league last night despite the score).

He doesn't trust Jeff defensively in that role.

I also remember something about his feelings of Reinhart complementing Eichel- I interpret that as Reinhart's presence on the line allowing Eichel to freewheel a little more. It's worked in the sense that Jack's stats are amazing this year. Doesn't help Jeff,  though 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darksabre said:

I think that's probably part of it too. But like I said, Skinner has always been like this. He's had seasons exactly like this in Carolina.

He's like this in terms of his selfishness, defence and streakiness.

In terms of his overall production, he's had just one season like this: 18/13/31 in 2014/15.

His next worst was 24 goals and 49 points.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

He had a contract year, and got paid as if that was a normal year. 

Yes, sure, the contract is a little to much.  That’s not what I was addressing.  I was addressing the stuff you said about being a one man show who never worked well with anyone.  I didn’t, and still don’t, understand what you meant by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

A few weeks ago I gave you examples of several elite goal scorers and chunks of games that are ~6 weeks in length where their numbers are severely depressed. Like Jeff, who spent 20 games this year at a 40 goal pace and 60 games last year at a 50 goal pace, they also have good stretches of goal scoring. He does this, and it's more severe in his time with the Sabres than it is for most players, in both directions. I don't know what else to say other than the fact that it's not surprising for a goal scorer to ride the waves like this, especially a player who's pretty obviously not in the tier of Ovechkin and Matthews, and not playing with the level and type of players that Pastrnak does, even accounting for his time with Eichel. Again, that doesn't mean I think this CURRENT stretch is acceptable, because it's materially worse than his cold goal scoring stretch of last season, when he was still effectively generating a lot of chances and therefore keeping the puck away from the other team, versus  now, when he's really just hurting the team, but still.

Before he ever got to Buffalo, he has had the following sample of separate cold stretches in Carolina:
6 goals in 39 games (which includes 3 in 23)
4 goals in 22 games
2 goals in 20 games
2 goals in 18 games
0 goals in 18 games
3 goals in 19 games
3 goals in 19 games

I guess I'm just not as surprised by the two bad stretches of production he's gone through as a Sabre? 1 goal in 22 games (with that injury that had him hobbling around, before which he was pacing for 51), 0 goals in 15 games. It sucks that they're so close together temporally but other than that they fit in with the information I had already processed about the player that Skinner is
 

Fair enough. I'm tired of arguing. You would expect things to turn around for Skinner in the next 29 games or so, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I like this one. It kind of matches my idea that Krueger didn't exactly like what he saw in Skinner. But where I see the demotion as punishment you see it as something more positive. The question it all begs is what in the heck do they do now that Skinner has failed the test? Can they have any success going forward with that $8 million albatross around their necks?

I think the trick with Skinner is that he's probably going to bounce back from this season. It just seems to be the way things go with him. The team is garbage this year anyway so it really doesn't matter. But next year perhaps we get normal Skinner. The year after maybe we get exceptional Skinner. There could be another slump year like this in the next 6 years or so, but if this team gets better perhaps we can live with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Fair enough. I'm tired of arguing. You would expect things to turn around for Skinner in the next 29 games or so, right?

Given the effect that the team-wide collapse had on EVERYONE'S stats for a long period of time last season, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets worse before it gets better TBH. Like, ending the season with 15 goals and his contract being the butt end of jokes and snide comments all offseason.

But in general, I think that when we have a properly built team that is playing relatively strong hockey throughout the entire season down the line, and making the playoffs, he will be a lot of fun more often than not, and will always have the potential to go on a Conn Smythe-type run because of his capability of absolutely piling up goals, even clutch ones (how many of those comeback and OT wins early last year did he play a role in? All of them?)

Like, the only way I can see us hitting a point with Skinner like "Jesus Christ, this thing is an abomination and severely hampering our ability to do anything" is if this organization torpedoes even further in a way that also has nothing to do with Jeff

I'm also tired of arguing so I will stop being picky and annoying when you criticize Jeff, who certainly deserves it at some level at this point.

Edited by Randall Flagg
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

He's like this in terms of his selfishness, defence and streakiness.

In terms of his overall production, he's had just one season like this: 18/13/31 in 2014/15.

His next worst was 24 goals and 49 points.

Sure. Which is kind of my larger point, which is that we should expect him to bounce back next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yes, sure, the contract is a little to much.  That’s not what I was addressing.  I was addressing the stuff you said about being a one man show who never worked well with anyone.  I didn’t, and still don’t, understand what you meant by that.

That he makes most things happen--or use to--through his own efforts. He isn't the type of player that does a lot of fancy passing or anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

Skinner will be fine for most of the contract. It'll always be too big, but it won't cripple the team.

 

 

I sure hope you are right. I see this as a guy that is good, but not great. He had a great contract year and now he is basically Drew Stafford 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

the good old Buffalo tradition of blaming the good players

He's not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

I sure hope you are right. I see this as a guy that is good, but not great. He had a great contract year and now he is basically Drew Stafford 

He had a good contract year and then was separated from everything that made the contract year successful.  So yeah, maybe he did just thrive because of that $$$ motivation, but we can't really be sure.  He had nearly identical numbers in 2016-17 and that was not a contract year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike almost all of the dead beats on this team, I have faith in Skinner.  He is a "feisty" kind of player who is actually very difficult to play against, despite not being a fighter, hitter, or a particularly big guy.

He is a great example of "toughness" that I and others talk about, and which is completely lacking on this team.

Skinner brings a high level of self motivation to the game and is a super talented guy.  He will be all right long term.

He needs to be with Eichel or a similar guy who can drive play.  He's being horribly misused this season (mostly) and you see the results. 

I keep saying it, but the guy that screws the whole thing up is Reinhart.  He should be the 2C but he is too slow to be a center and he is utterly incapable of driving a line on his own.

If he could be a "close enough" replacement for Eichel on a 2nd line, so much on this squad would be freed up.  A lot of misplaced players would become properly placed.

I am happy turning over 95% of this roster, but I would keep Skinner and don't mind his K.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kruppstahl
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...