Cozens Contract Extension Announced, 7 years 7.1 Million AAV

[Taro T]

Just now, Thorny said:

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 guys who make their teams WIN are the guys who get paid.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for Peca's intangibles.  The Aisles would & did.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for McKee's intangibles.  The Blues would & did.

Am very happy that the Sabres were finally willing to pay for the intangibles that Samuelsson brings.  Pretty sure the rest of the guys, including Cozens & Dahlin, are pleased about it too.

[triumph_communes]

Paying him early, but even if he underwhelms offensively he’s a solid player a team is going to be happy to have.   Adam’s needs the assurance going forward navigating all the new contracts. 
 

Way to go getting all the kids to buy in cheap. Toronto probably thought they’d get that treatment for being Toronto and look how all their contract negotiations went. 

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The guys who make their teams WIN are the guys who get paid.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for Peca's intangibles.  The Aisles would & did.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for McKee's intangibles.  The Blues would & did.

Am very happy that the Sabres were finally willing to pay for the intangibles that Samuelsson brings.  Pretty sure the rest of the guys, including Cozens & Dahlin, are pleased about it too.

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 
 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[HumanSlinky39]

His production this season is about at that level. He's only getting better. This, along with TNT's deal, is a bargain. 

[Taro T]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

My point laid bare. We do not know that he is leading to wins - certainly not the extent of thde 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 
 

You've disliked that deal from the day it was signed.  We aren't going to see eye to eye on it.

But did want to add, that just like Thompson's deal was as team friendly as it is because it was signed before he'd established last season wasn't a fluke & Cozens ceiling is still very much in question (it'll be high, but how high is still very much in question), Samuelsson's deal was signed before he was established as a 1st pairing D and would've been more expensive waiting to find out for certain he is.

Pretty sure you can have the last word on this.

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

not trolling at all, but ok. I figured a Cozens extension would be something like $3m per for 3-4 years. Until this season he's been an up and down bottom six guy. If I were to chart out all the #2 centers in the league I'm not sure he's in the top 2/3, let alone the $7M club.

Up an down?  Bottom 6?   He is 21.  This is his 3rd season, his first season was the Covid shortened season.  He plays on the second line with two rookies.  When the coach shelters the rookies ice time he plays with the other lines to get him ice time.   He has improved every season, in every aspect you can measure.  He plays both PP and PK. 

You want him to get a bridge deal for $3-4M for a few more years?  By the time that expires we will have re-signed Dahlin and Power and who knows who.  Cozens will ask for $10M+ and then we watch him walk away.  

If you believe he is going to be a stud 1/2C and potential Selke type player then you sign him now, for less dollars overall and for longer term.  

There is risk.  There is a huge reward.  

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Some on this board are not covering themselves in glory today. It's the usual crowd. The personal attacks are dismaying.

Given the Sabres current payroll, and the current state of the team, what would you have signed Cozens for? 

 

You can be Adams for a minute.  What is your offer?  

[GASabresIUFAN]

The Athletic has an article today about RFAs getting a raise. 

https://theathletic.com/4162161/2023/02/07/nhl-restricted-free-agents/

Here is what they say about DC.

“Speaking of players who will be coming off their entry-level contracts, there’s Cozens in Buffalo. He’s had an encouraging start to his NHL career, and is really starting to put his skill on display this season. The center is excellent at getting the puck into the zone, and now is building on that to turn those entries into scoring chances more consistently.  

Buffalo’s been willing to bet on their players sooner than later — Mattias Samuelsson and Tage Thompson were each signed ahead of their contracts’ expiration in an effort to save money. So do the Sabres take a similar approach here? Or, do they add to the league trend of signing future stars to lengthy contracts early into the NHL careers to ensure they pay skaters in their primes? 

If Cozens signs with term now, it probably won’t reach his $6 million market value. But maybe it comes in a bit below that in the $4-5 million range. If not, there’s always the option of going short-term first.”

https://theathletic.com/4164724/2023/02/07/nhl-contract-grades-sabres-dylan-cozens/

That said the author of the article also gave the signing a grade of A-.  Another Athletic writer gave the signing an A.

[Thorny]

27 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You've disliked that deal from the day it was signed.  We aren't going to see eye to eye on it.

But did want to add, that just like Thompson's deal was as team friendly as it is because it was signed before he'd established last season wasn't a fluke & Cozens ceiling is still very much in question (it'll be high, but how high is still very much in question), Samuelsson's deal was signed before he was established as a 1st pairing D and would've been more expensive waiting to find out for certain he is.

Pretty sure you can have the last word on this.

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.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[Doohickie]

1 hour ago, Buffalonill said:

    He needs to get some new material because i called cozens the  Girgensons 2.0 first ..

The problem with being a hardass is keeping it up.  I'm seeing chinks in your armor, you ol' softee, you.

[GASabresIUFAN]

100k per point is 7 mill + if he reaches 70 pts this season which I think he will easily.

[Doohickie]

47 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Paying him early, but even if he underwhelms offensively he’s a solid player a team is going to be happy to have.

His absolute floor is Okposo- great defensive forward, chips in offensively.  His ceiling is much higher than that of course, but we've seen what kind of value has brought through his contract, even if he didn't score as much as was expected.

[RochesterExpat]

How do people value players who can carry a line vs players who can't (i.e. Skinner)? Cozens has seemingly proven he can drive a line on his own. Surely that should be reflected in his valuation?

Not that anyone cares, but my two cents on this one is that if Cozens simply plays the next seven years at the level he has played so far this year, I'm more than happy with the initial cap hit of 8.5%. If he continues to grow and improve as is expected for a (just about) 22 year old hockey player, I think this is a great contract.

I have a difficult time seeing him regress because his play style is multifaceted and he is the one driving plays and carrying pucks in transition. He's not sitting on a circle ripping one timers on the power play for points.

[Flashsabre]

I think Cozens is a player who we see his best game when he is in the playoffs. He plays the game the way you want and his attitude is top notch. A cornerstone player you build your core with.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Flashsabre

[Curt]

I’ll basically say the same thing here that I said when Thompson was signed.  It’s something of a risk (though I think this is less of a risk) but this is how you end up with bargain contracts in the NHL.  If Cozens can consistently be around a 55 point guy, and continue to round out his 200 ft game, then this is a solid value contract.  If he can give more offensively, it becomes a great deal.  I believe.

[GASabresIUFAN]

19 minutes ago, Curt said:

I’ll basically say the same thing here that I said when Thompson was signed.  It’s something of a risk (though I think this is less of a risk) but this is how you end up with bargain contracts in the NHL.  If Cozens can consistently be around a 55 point guy, and continue to round out his 200 ft game, then this is a solid value contract.  If he can give more offensively, it becomes a great deal.  I believe.

and it's 400K a year less than we paid that jerk ROR back in 2016 for a guy who will likely end up being a better player.

In the Original rebuild we were gave ROR an extension for 7.5 mill and he gave us a max of 61 points in 2017-18.  We gave Jack 10 mill per season in 2018-19 and he maxed out at 82 pts in 2018-19.  That was a possible investment of 17.5 mill if we had kept them together (yes I know they never played together under those deals, but that was the initial plan). When they played together they maxed out at 125 pts in 2017-18

This year we have locked up our top 2 centers for 14.242 million (starting next season) and they are already at 111 pts in just 50 games.

Edited February 8, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

and it's 400K a year less than we paid that jerk ROR back in 2016 for a guy who will likely end up being a better player.

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 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[Porous Five Hole]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

and it's 400K a year less than we paid that jerk ROR back in 2016 for a guy who will likely end up being a better player.

ROR had his warts, but he was a legitimate first or second line center in his prime. i don’t know how to adjust ROR’s stats in his dead puck era to compare, but I bet they would be close (ROR went 17-38 = 55 pts in year three). In his first year in Buffalo (year four of his career), he went 21-39 for 60 pts.  That probably translates to at least 80 today, but I’m totally throwing darts. 
 

It is certainly possible that Cozens has a higher ceiling. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

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 

it's up but not at much as you might think.  In 2017-18 the average team scored 2.97 goals per game.  This season it's at 3.16. Basically 1 extra goal every 5 games or about 16 goals per team for the season.  

Edited February 8, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[GASabresIUFAN]

5 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

hat probably translates to at least 80 today, but I’m totally throwing darts. 

Not even close.  Goal scoring is up just .19 goals per game per team since ROR's last season in Buffalo.   Add about 6 points to his numbers max.

Outside ROR's peak season of 77 pts at 27 years old, his production ranged from 55 pts to 64 from ages 21 to 30.  He did have another peak of 54 pts in 56 games @ 29 years old.  His peak in goals was 28 (twice).

 Cozens at 22 is on pace to reach 72 pts this season and he already has 17 goals in just 49 games. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

ROR had his warts, but he was a legitimate first or second line center in his prime. i don’t know how to adjust ROR’s stats in his dead puck era to compare, but I bet they would be close (ROR went 17-38 = 55 pts in year three). In his first year in Buffalo (year four of his career), he went 21-39 for 60 pts.  That probably translates to at least 80 today, but I’m totally throwing darts. 
 

It is certainly possible that Cozens has a higher ceiling. 

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 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorny]

17 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

it's up but not at much as you might think.  In 2017-18 the average team scored 2.97 goals per game.  This season it's at 3.16. Basically 1 extra goal every 5 games or about 16 goals per team for the season.  

 

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Not even close.  Goal scoring is up just .19 goals per game per team since ROR's last season in Buffalo.   Add about 6 points to his numbers max.

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

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Yes, I know. I understand the argument

”Perhaps we can question the specifics of the Samuelsson deal, but a world where Kevyn Adams doesn’t reward his players early isn’t a world with the real Kevyn Adams at all.” That without him operating by those principles with Samuelsson we wouldn’t have got that same operation that led to Thompson being at a bargain.  I get it and it makes sense -

it’s just very boring. 

It’s a boring argument. Rather than an interesting discussion of how Adams’ particular set of skills results in oodles of positives with the trade off being a wonky evaluation here or there, it’s “no move is beyond question because of the sum total”.

low brow message board fodder

he paid a 5 point stay at home defender 4.5 per over a million years before he showed squat. If Samuelsson signed on the *open market* today he wouldn’t get that. It’s a wonky evaluation to pay that early regardless of the fact it looks like he probably will be right one day in a few years. Saying “well I can only assume it aided the culture”, supposing that, what, if Samuelsson was just playing here still but not YET signed we’d somehow be worse, other players would have lost out on something necessary is a massive “can’t prove a negative” stretch 

its “I have a rock that keeps away tigers, do you see any tigers around me right now?” Level stretch 

At least the “what do 5 point stay at home defenders get on the open market” discussion has a basis in provable data. The other discussion is just wading through the weeds. 

1st bolded -- what's boring is "points times x dollars equals correct contract."

2nd bolded -- again, you are simply fabricating statements and attributing them to others, in this case me.

The point, of course, is that there is much more that goes into a player's value than points, and there are reasons to sign a guy at a given time that aren't just about making that guy wait for it.  That is NOT the same as "KA did it, so it must be right, and if you disagree with me, you need to prove a negative."  And the syllogism that suggests that it is the same is, indeed, low brow message board fodder.

 

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

And defensive defensemen don't get paid on their PPG.  Jay McKee left town because he got an offer for $4 MM/yr.  Losing him was a huge blow.  Yes, Samuelsson hadn't established himself as an absolute fixture on the top pairing, but he certainly had shown signs he could fit in there.  Thought it was a smart deal at the time it was announced & haven't seen anything since to change that opinion.

Suggested a while back that defensive D contracts should be viewed on a $/minue basis rather than a $/point basis.  On that, the contract is a steal.  The intangibles of how it affects other players on this team's deals is simply icing on the cake.

Damned freaking straight.  Our young Winnipegger probably doesn't remember McKee, or what he brought to the table, but letting him and Grier walk out the door was the beginning of the end of the best Sabres team since Bert's peak.  He was worth every dime of that $4MM, and that was when the cap was something like $35MM.

 

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

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.

Yes.  It's a lower salary tier.  No one is saying he should be paid like Dahlin.  But the good ones still get paid, because they are still valuable players.  Jake McCabe makes $4MM.  Brandon Carlo makes $4.1MM.  Connor Murphy makes $4.4MM.

For all the caterwauling about points, and the claim that you aren't really basing this on points, I haven't seen you propose a metric to evaluate defensive defenseman on.

 

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

The guys who make their teams WIN are the guys who get paid.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for Peca's intangibles.  The Aisles would & did.  The Sabres wouldn't pay for McKee's intangibles.  The Blues would & did.

Am very happy that the Sabres were finally willing to pay for the intangibles that Samuelsson brings.  Pretty sure the rest of the guys, including Cozens & Dahlin, are pleased about it too.

This.

It's not fantasy hockey.  It's a game of blood and guts and passion and believing in your teammates and sacrificing for them. 

And it's also really freaking important to recognize that Dahlin is playing extremely well with his mate and to secure that arrangement.

 

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

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 
 

So choose one already that fits this position on the ice and apply some analysis.  And using points as "the same consistent principles" continues to miss the point.

 

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

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.

So then WTH were the last 20 posts for? 

And I'll respond to the lack of modesty by noting that you were pretty far off in your prediction on Cozens' contract.

[Thorny]

7 hours ago, nfreeman said:

1st bolded -- what's boring is "points times x dollars equals correct contract."

2nd bolded -- again, you are simply fabricating statements and attributing them to others, in this case me.

The point, of course, is that there is much more that goes into a player's value than points, and there are reasons to sign a guy at a given time that aren't just about making that guy wait for it.  That is NOT the same as "KA did it, so it must be right, and if you disagree with me, you need to prove a negative."  And the syllogism that suggests that it is the same is, indeed, low brow message board fodder.

 

Damned freaking straight.  Our young Winnipegger probably doesn't remember McKee, or what he brought to the table, but letting him and Grier walk out the door was the beginning of the end of the best Sabres team since Bert's peak.  He was worth every dime of that $4MM, and that was when the cap was something like $35MM.

 

Yes.  It's a lower salary tier.  No one is saying he should be paid like Dahlin.  But the good ones still get paid, because they are still valuable players.  Jake McCabe makes $4MM.  Brandon Carlo makes $4.1MM.  Connor Murphy makes $4.4MM.

For all the caterwauling about points, and the claim that you aren't really basing this on points, I haven't seen you propose a metric to evaluate defensive defenseman on.

 

This.

It's not fantasy hockey.  It's a game of blood and guts and passion and believing in your teammates and sacrificing for them. 

And it's also really freaking important to recognize that Dahlin is playing extremely well with his mate and to secure that arrangement.

 

So choose one already that fits this position on the ice and apply some analysis.  And using points as "the same consistent principles" continues to miss the point.

 

So then WTH were the last 20 posts for? 

And I'll respond to the lack of modesty by noting that you were pretty far off in your prediction on Cozens' contract.

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 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorny]

@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.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Thorny