Jump to content

Sabres Sign Victor Olofsson 2 Years 4.75 million AAV


Brawndo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Brawndo changed the title to Sabres Sign Victor Olofsson 2 Years 4.75 million AAV

Also, I like him as a player, I am not looking to unload him in any way, but this is a lower cost deal. If Peterka AND Quinn make the team and emerge as good scorers, that Olofsson deal might be easy to trade at the deadline (this year or next) for something else of good value.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  I think he was 1 year away from UFA, right?

He turns 27 next week, so this keeps him here for his age-27 and 28 seasons.  If he continues to improve, he'll get a fat contract from the Sabres or someone else.  And if the Sabres don't keep him, he won't be locked in a position where he'd be blocking, say, JJP or Kulich.

I too would've preferred a longer term, but I can see the appeal from KA's perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Provided it'd only have at most a limited NMC would've preferred a longer deal.  5-6 years.

Didn't want 5-6 years. Guess I'm still having ? with VO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that longer would have been better.  This reminds me a bit of Reinhart's bridge deal.  The difference is that the team was a train wreck at the end of Reinhart's deal and he was ready to move on.  If things continue to trend positive, the team will be in much better shape when this deal ends, which leaves a situation where either 1) Olofsson wants to stay, but there's not spot for him (a very good problem to have); or 2) he is re-signed at the time.  

Form a practical standpoint, with so much foward talent in the pipeline, it may make sense to get 2 more prime years out of him at a relatively low rate, when we have cap space, and then move on if and when he's due big bucks.  Again, a good problem to have.  After 2 years, he's either 1) earned a big payday (with the Sabres or another team), meaning he played very well for the Sabres, or 2) didn't play well and the Sabres would want to move on anyway.

So, overall, a good move by Adams.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We are at 14 forwards right now including Quinn, JJP and Bjork.  

Aka 13 skaters. 😉

Still would be mildly surprised if they don't add 1 more F to the mix that can actually earn a top 12 role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

I agree that longer would have been better.  This reminds me a bit of Reinhart's bridge deal.  The difference is that the team was a train wreck at the end of Reinhart's deal and he was ready to move on.  If things continue to trend positive, the team will be in much better shape when this deal ends, which leaves a situation where either 1) Olofsson wants to stay, but there's not spot for him (a very good problem to have); or 2) he is re-signed at the time.  

Form a practical standpoint, with so much foward talent in the pipeline, it may make sense to get 2 more prime years out of him at a relatively low rate, when we have cap space, and then move on if and when he's due big bucks.  Again, a good problem to have.  After 2 years, he's either 1) earned a big payday (with the Sabres or another team), meaning he played very well for the Sabres, or 2) didn't play well and the Sabres would want to move on anyway.

So, overall, a good move by Adams.

Agree with everything you said. I just want to emphasize the bigger difference is Olofsson is not close to Reinhart. But yeah, fine with this and the term sets him up to be moved at a deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Provided it'd only have at most a limited NMC would've preferred a longer deal.  5-6 years.

Me too. Really like him, was hoping for a value contract in a couple years on a team that was winning.

This likely locks him up for a couple years of value on a team in a holding pattern, before he’s due for a bigger deal and we have to move him. I see this as putting yet more faith in the prospects 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GrassValleyGreg said:

Agree with everything you said. I just want to emphasize the bigger difference is Olofsson is not close to Reinhart. But yeah, fine with this and the term sets him up to be moved at a deadline.

Only problem w/ that is, THIS had better be the LAST year in a long while we are even considering the possibility of dumping guys at the deadline.  They are in all likelihood going to need him at next year's playoff push so he won't be deadline expendable then.  And IMHO he won't be expendable this deadline either.  So, they didn't really buy much, again IMHO, w/ the 1 year of his UFA years.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Only problem w/ that is, THIS had better be the LAST year in a long while we are even considering the possibility of dumping guys at the deadline.  They are in all likelihood going to need him at next year's playoff push so he won't be deadline expendable then.  And IMHO he won't be expendable this deadline either.  So, they didn't really buy much, again IMHO, w/ the 1 year of his UFA years.

Yup, shouldn’t be selling off at the deadline should be pushing for the playoffs 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Only problem w/ that is, THIS had better be the LAST year in a long while we are even considering the possibility of dumping guys at the deadline.  They are in all likelihood going to need him at next year's playoff push so he won't be deadline expendable then.  And IMHO he won't be expendable this deadline either.  So, they didn't really buy much, again IMHO, w/ the 1 year of his UFA years.

 

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yup, shouldn’t be selling off at the deadline should be pushing for the playoffs 

I understand no longer wanting to be sellers at the deadline, but there is a strong likelihood we will be again this year. If not, great, we have a somewhat affordable contract for just another year. If we are, then Vic is probably are biggest realistic trade asset and this contract helps. 

I'm also just not very high on Vic and think we have multiple players very close who will more than fill his role. But for vibes, continuity, and potential trade value, I'm good on the two years. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SDS unpinned this topic

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.   Restore formatting

  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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...