Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GASabresIUFAN

How Much Will Our RFAs Cost to Re-sign

Recommended Posts

The Sabres have 47 million committed to 10 players.  Only 4 forwards are under contract.

That 33 approx 33 mill for 12 roster spots.  Most of this money is going to 9 key RFAs

Reinhart (24) 50 Pts (22g) in 69 games

Olofsson (24) 42 pts (20g) in 52 games

Kahun (24) 31 pts in 56 games with Pitt and Buffalo

Lazar (25) 10 pts in 38 games

Montour (25) 18 pts in 54 games

Pilut (24) 0 pts in 13 Sabres games, but 23 pts in 37 AHL games

Ullmark (26) 2.69 GAA and .915 Sv%

Also Thompson and MIttelstadt are RFAS

Lazar, Pilut, Thompson and Mitts will be cheap to re-sign.  Pilut's only leverage is going back to Sweden, but if Montour, Miller or Risto get traded his route to the NHL full time becomes much much clearer. $1 mill or less each.

I'm sticking with $100 per point as a reference for forwards given the current economic environment.

Reinhart 6 years at 6.5 per season.  

VO 4 years 18 mill

Kahun 3 years 10 mill

Montour and Ullmark I have no reference point.  Montour had a mediocre year playing on the wrong side and it cost big $.  Will he bet on himself and sign a short term deal, say 2 years 8 mill and try to put himself in a better position 2 years from now.  Ullmark is our No. 1 until further notice and he earned it. Does Jbot commit to him long-term with a 5 year deal or does he keep it shorter assuming UPL develops? I'm taking the middle road an saying 3 year 12 mill.

These deals would give us 19 players at 73.3 mill.

Edited by GASabresIUFAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread.

I'd like to lock up VO for 6 years.

I think Montour would be UFA after your proposed 2-year deal, so I don't think that would make sense for the Sabres.  I would think they will want to sign him for 4 or 5 years, and he'll probably get in the $4.5MM per year range (he's currently making $3.4MM per year).

I don't think Kahun will get close to $10MM.  I'd guess more like 2 years x $2MM per year.

One huge variable is next year's cap.  There is a very good likelihood that it drops quite a bit from this year -- so it could be, say, $68MM instead of $80MM.  That would obviously affect the numbers above and have many other consequences as well.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kahun is going to get more then $2 mill

He has arbitration rights and has played 2 NHL seasons with 37 pts in year 1 and 31 pts in only 56 games in year 2.  That's a 45 pt pace over an 82 game season.  I think we'll be lucky if we get him for 10 mill for 3 seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to wonder if we may see a lot more 1 year deals in general this year, particularly when it comes to the non-elite tier players.  This goes for both UFA and RFA.  The whole thing feels like a massive "let's see how things bounce back" offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

That 33 approx 33 mill for 12 roster spots.  Most of this money is going to 9 key RFAs

Reinhart 6 years at 6.5 per season.  

VO 4 years 18 mill

Kahun 3 years 10 mill

 

So many RFAs and UFAs. Poor planning and foresight to have everything expire at once. Too expensive. And the chief RFA worry is arbitration. Hey, Rodrigues was able to get $2M out of arbitration. Mitts could push for 2M based on points produced, and I don't want to pay him near that yet. But... 1.8M maybe, on the high end.

Ullmark was clearly our #1 and due sub-median starter goalie money. Ullmark's Sv% is like Grubauer. And Ullmark was great in shootouts this past season. Grubauer makes $3.3M, and if I'm Ullmark that's where I settle (3yr/$10), but ask more around the 3/3.8 range.

Thompson, Pilut, Lazar -- all minimal and should sign pretty neatly. Figure 3M to sign the trio.

Montour got a bit more playing time back in Anaheim, but isn't on the PP here so he really shouldn't get too much. Maybe he gets 4...  but he hasn't produced PP and he wouldn't be categorized as a shutdown guy either, nor a physical presence that a team would be willing to overpay for.  High end: the Cody Ceci deal at 1/yr4.3M signed with Ottawa, but his comparable is Pionk who makes less than Montour does now. Split the difference and Montour gets similar to Colin Miller's deal 3.8M.

So I've got 12.9 used up and Reino, Olofsson, and Kahun to go. Skilled offensive players to build around, knowing that I need a 2C, a cap that likely isn't going up at all, and the desire to keep 2-3 M in reserve under the cap so I can make a wilder move during the season, if needed. Here's where I plug in @GASabresIUFAN's numbers above:

12.4+6.5+4.5+3.3= 26.7 for all of the RFAs for a season. It's going to be close. Olofsson might not get the 4.5, but Reinhart certainly could get 7.

47 (signed) +26.7 (RFA) = 73.7. Reserve 2-3 for a rainy day and we're at 76M. If the cap stays the same (82M) that's only 6M to find that 2C and re-sign Larsson. That's... not going to get it done. Still need to trade a D and we still have gaps in our lineup from all the UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Good thread.

I'd like to lock up VO for 6 years.

I think Montour would be UFA after your proposed 2-year deal, so I don't think that would make sense for the Sabres.  I would think they will want to sign him for 4 or 5 years, and he'll probably get in the $4.5MM per year range (he's currently making $3.4MM per year).

I don't think Kahun will get close to $10MM.  I'd guess more like 2 years x $2MM per year.

One huge variable is next year's cap.  There is a very good likelihood that it drops quite a bit from this year -- so it could be, say, $68MM instead of $80MM.  That would obviously affect the numbers above and have many other consequences as well.

The cap is not going to drop by $13.5M.  That would basically put every team in the league over the cap.   Neither the owners nor the NHLPA will want that.  I could see a small decrease of $1-2M and/or no increase for the next 2-3 years though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Good thread.

I'd like to lock up VO for 6 years.

I think Montour would be UFA after your proposed 2-year deal, so I don't think that would make sense for the Sabres.  I would think they will want to sign him for 4 or 5 years, and he'll probably get in the $4.5MM per year range (he's currently making $3.4MM per year).

I don't think Kahun will get close to $10MM.  I'd guess more like 2 years x $2MM per year.

One huge variable is next year's cap.  There is a very good likelihood that it drops quite a bit from this year -- so it could be, say, $68MM instead of $80MM.  That would obviously affect the numbers above and have many other consequences as well.

The cap might remain flat but no way it goes down $12 million even if revenues reflect that.

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shrader said:

I'm starting to wonder if we may see a lot more 1 year deals in general this year, particularly when it comes to the non-elite tier players.  This goes for both UFA and RFA.  The whole thing feels like a massive "let's see how things bounce back" offseason.

Agree, been saying this for a bit. Any "big plans" the GM had for this offseason will be punted back to next. Lots of 1 year filler deals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curt said:

The cap is not going to drop by $13.5M.  That would basically put every team in the league over the cap.   Neither the owners nor the NHLPA will want that.  I could see a small decrease of $1-2M and/or no increase for the next 2-3 years though.

 

50 minutes ago, tom webster said:

The cap might remain flat but no way it goes down $12 million even if revenues reflect that.

You guys are probably right, but it's not certain.  What is certain is that the players are only getting 50% of revenues, and that one year's cap is directly tied to the previous year's revenues.  Maybe there are buyouts, or maybe there is an across-the-board salary cut as in 2005, or some combination of those and other adjustments, but revenues are probably going to take a major hit, and the players are going to eat half of it.

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

You guys are probably right, but it's not certain.  What is certain is that the players are only getting 50% of revenues, and that one year's cap is directly tied to the previous year's revenues.  Maybe there are buyouts, or maybe there is an across-the-board salary cut as in 2005, or some combination of those and other adjustments, but revenues are probably going to take a major hit, and the players are going to eat half of it.

Extra ordinary circumstances should lead to a negotiated solution then simply adhering to the letter of the CBA.  I’ve mentioned this in another thread, but I can see the teams and PA agreeing to an 78-80 mill cap for next year with one compliance buyout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

You guys are probably right, but it's not certain.  What is certain is that the players are only getting 50% of revenues, and that one year's cap is directly tied to the previous year's revenues.  Maybe there are buyouts, or maybe there is an across-the-board salary cut as in 2005, or some combination of those and other adjustments, but revenues are probably going to take a major hit, and the players are going to eat half of it.

The CBA has provisions already to allow for the following season's salary cap to not be directly tied towards the current season's revenues when there are extreme circumstances.  THIS would qualify as one.

My guess is that they come up with a reasonable expectation of next year's actual revenues and then either keep the cap constant or reduce it by ~1/4 of the expected reduction in revenue.  This will result in the players taking a SEVERE escrow hit next year, but will also allow for consistency in nominal contract values for contracts signed pre & post shutdown.

If they were to reduce the cap based off of this season's disruption, they'll propagate the disruption through a few more seasons, IMHO.  With expansion & a new CBA on the horizon, that major cap alteration wouldn't be good for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Extra ordinary circumstances should lead to a negotiated solution then simply adhering to the letter of the CBA.  I’ve mentioned this in another thread, but I can see the teams and PA agreeing to an 78-80 mill cap for next year with one compliance buyout. 

 

20 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The CBA has provisions already to allow for the following season's salary cap to not be directly tied towards the current season's revenues when there are extreme circumstances.  THIS would qualify as one.

My guess is that they come up with a reasonable expectation of next year's actual revenues and then either keep the cap constant or reduce it by ~1/4 of the expected reduction in revenue.  This will result in the players taking a SEVERE escrow hit next year, but will also allow for consistency in nominal contract values for contracts signed pre & post shutdown.

If they were to reduce the cap based off of this season's disruption, they'll propagate the disruption through a few more seasons, IMHO.  With expansion & a new CBA on the horizon, that major cap alteration wouldn't be good for anybody.

I think you guys are right that they will work something out, and that the impact will probably be spread through the next few seasons.  However, I do think the solution will be designed such that the players end up eating their half of the revenue hit.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


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

 

I think you guys are right that they will work something out, and that the impact will probably be spread through the next few seasons.  However, I do think the solution will be designed such that the players end up eating their half of the revenue hit.

The players WILL eat their half of the revenue hit.  Can't see the owners offering them even a temporary increase on their %age of revenue retention.  That view stems primarily from not believing that the owners will trust Fehr.  This event COULD be transformative for the owners and players to effect a true partnership - which they've never had because Eagleson was dirty and Goodenow fed off that distrust & disgust that the players developed when they found how how badly the Eagle was letting the owners hose them.  They nearly had a partnership when Saskin headed the union, but the hardliners like Chelios and his own paranoia got him removed.  But, considering both sides will take a wallop from this event, it gives them the opportunity to work together.  Hoping they do, but not expecting it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Reinhart signing for less than $7M, and I don't see Olofsson signing for less than $4.5M.

The rest I don't care about, except Mittelstadt and Thompson who will sign for under $1M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Reinhart signs for 5+ years at less than 7 mil/per. that would be great. I’m comfortable with his cap hit at 6.25 - 7.25mil.

I’d be comfortable with VO signing for 5+ years at 3 - 4mil/per.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Isn't there a website that predicts contracts?

Probably.  But when we don't even know (for certain, though we pretty much know) what will be the end of this season nor how the next will start, so we don't know what the cap will be; how can an any FA salary predictions be remotely accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Probably.  But when we don't even know (for certain, though we pretty much know) what will be the end of this season nor how the next will start, so we don't know what the cap will be; how can an any FA salary predictions be remotely accurate?

fair point, but I was also curious how accurate they were last year.

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...