Jump to content

Around the NHL 2023 Summer Edition

Brawndo

By Brawndo
in The Aud Club

 Share

Recommended Posts

Broken Ankles Third Liner

Broken Ankles

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rasmus_ said:

 

Glad the Sabres won't be on the hook for this type of player in years 4-7.  Because he's going to fall off a cliff. 

Agree.  I would have kicked the tires next summer but could not see committing an AAV of $6.5m over 7 years.  The Caps as a team will fall off a cliff in 24/25.   They will have 10 players over 30, with $60M allocated in AAV.  With an average age of just under 35 for those 10 players in that season.   The Sabres will have one, Skinner.   And it’s not like they have a group of prospects like the Sabres to push for the other roster spots to offset that age/salary.

 

Edited by Broken Ankles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JohnC said:

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/sabres-live

In the Shayna Goldman segment she talks about the Wilson signing and contract. She was scathing in her criticism for the amount and especially for the extended term. The one thing that KA has done well is how he has handled contracts. 

Isn’t that mostly based on the Tage deal?

Cozens and Samuelsson seem fair, but are only “good” based on projection, not performance.

And the decision to bridge Dahlin remains an open question.

Johnson, Comrie, Lyubushkin, Girgensons, Okposo and Jost aren’t anchors by any means, but they are all on the generous side for what they bring. Olofsson is not looking good.

Adams seems to have primarily used his glut of entry-level deal savings to overspend short-term on the bottom half of the roster.

Like a lot of what his done with development, he’s primarily used being bad to his advantage, contract-wise.

We should reserve judgement until the decision-making gets harder.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnC First Liner

JohnC

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Isn’t that mostly based on the Tage deal?

Cozens and Samuelsson seem fair, but are only “good” based on projection, not performance.

And the decision to bridge Dahlin remains an open question.

Johnson, Comrie, Lyubushkin, Girgensons, Okposo and Jost aren’t anchors by any means, but they are all on the generous side for what they bring. Olofsson is not looking good.

Adams seems to have primarily used his glut of entry-level deal savings to overspend short-term on the bottom half of the roster.

Like a lot of what his done with development, he’s primarily used being bad to his advantage, contract-wise.

We should reserve judgement until the decision-making gets harder.

I'm basing my positive contracts comments that include and go beyond the Tage deal. Cozens rich contract was certainly based on a projection. But making it wasn't a challenge based on his steady improvement and last year's breakout performance that included 31 goals and 68 points. The Samuelsson contract is certainly based on a projection but it is not too difficult to see what his value is to this team. 

Johnson, Lyubushkin, Girgs and Okposo are not anchor players by any means. But I would say that all of these players who are on now on one-year deals are well worth their contracts. None of the players you listed are on what I would consider excessive contracts. And even if one felt that they were, they are mostly on expiring contracts that won't have much drag when negotiating with the prime players whose contracts are coming up. 

I agree with you that in the not too-distant future the contract judgments will become more challenging. But that's the point. The GM has put himself in a good position to sign his top tier players, such as Dahlin, because he has been prudent in how he has handled negotiating contracts up to now. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm basing my positive contracts comments that include and go beyond the Tage deal. Cozens rich contract was certainly based on a projection. But making it wasn't a challenge based on his steady improvement and last year's breakout performance that included 31 goals and 68 points. The Samuelsson contract is certainly based on a projection but it is not too difficult to see what his value is to this team. 

Johnson, Lyubushkin, Girgs and Okposo are not anchor players by any means. But I would say that all of these players who are on now on one-year deals are well worth their contracts. None of the players you listed are on what I would consider excessive contracts. And even if one felt that they were, they are mostly on expiring contracts that won't have much drag when negotiating with the prime players whose contracts are coming up. 

I agree with you that in the not too-distant future the contract judgments will become more challenging. But that's the point. The GM has put himself in a good position to sign his top tier players, such as Dahlin, because he has been prudent in how he has handled negotiating contracts up to now. 

Yes, he’s prudently put him himself in a good position with contracts and with young talent.

Now that he’s in that position, can he execute the right steps to transform potential to contender?

He appears to have had a pedestrian summer so far, in terms of addressing what most of us considered needs. Maybe there’s more to come.

If not, we’ll see if he’s done enough.

We’ve moved from preparing and into doing, don’t you think?

Edited by dudacek
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnC First Liner

JohnC

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Yes, he’s prudently put him himself in a good position with contracts and with young talent.

Now that he’s in that position, can he execute the right steps to transform potential to contender?

He appears to have had a pedestrian summer so far, in terms of addressing what most of us considered needs. Maybe there’s more to come.

If not, we’ll see if he’s done enough.

We’ve moved from preparing and into doing, don’t you think?

I disagree with your characterization that he has had a pedestrian summer. There shouldn't be a surprise that he was mostly going to rely on the players already on the roster and in the system because that is, and has been, his strategy in rebuilding the roster since he took over. He has repeatedly stated since he took over that was how he was going to rebuild the roster. And there is no question that the return he has gotten from dealing off the old core has accelerated the rebuild. 

Is the addition of Johnson and Clifton enough to buttress our blueline, a unit that was thin last season? Maybe. Is the GM taking a risk by not adding another goalie? Yes. For me, the bigger issue is whether the team in general can play a more responsible game. I will even go as far as to say that our defensive play in general is a bigger issue than how our goalies play. I recognize that this is a minority view here.

I don't expect that there will be more transactions prior to the season. 

With respect to your questioning last sentence: Absolutely yes! Don Granato's priority this season is on winning and less so on development. And as you have pointed out in prior posts: He has so stated that. 

 

Edited by JohnC
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porous Five Hole Third Liner

Porous Five Hole

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, dudacek said:

What single word would you use to describe his summer.

Measured. 
GMKA has been honest about his approach to draft and develop. And build from within.  
 

But that doesn’t account for goaltending in 2023. Specific to the crease, the verb for me is “gulp.” I’m not jealous of any goaltending transaction made across the league this off-season, and it is too early to predict the word irresponsible, so I guess I’ll say worried.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerreaultForever All Star

PerreaultForever

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, dudacek said:

Isn’t that mostly based on the Tage deal?

Cozens and Samuelsson seem fair, but are only “good” based on projection, not performance.

And the decision to bridge Dahlin remains an open question.

Johnson, Comrie, Lyubushkin, Girgensons, Okposo and Jost aren’t anchors by any means, but they are all on the generous side for what they bring. Olofsson is not looking good.

Adams seems to have primarily used his glut of entry-level deal savings to overspend short-term on the bottom half of the roster.

Like a lot of what his done with development, he’s primarily used being bad to his advantage, contract-wise.

We should reserve judgement until the decision-making gets harder.

I think this is a fair and accurate assessment. I look around at bottom role signings and by and large we pay more for less. There are exceptions and over pays on various teams but I was disappointed with the way they have just stayed the course with these guys and to some extent paid them generously. 

I have to assume that part of that might be related to players not wanting to come to Buffalo. Maybe they will one day but for now I think it's still hard to attract players without over paying them like we did with Johnson. 

Olofsson is massively overpaid and that's probably why we didn't find a trade partner. Retention doesn't seem to be part of our game plan. Sprong at 2 million is basically the same guy as an example. Players like Geekie imo are much better value for less than what we have. Garnet Hathaway would have given us better role value than Zemgus if you want to spend 2.5 on a 4th liner.

Last year you could argue paying the bottom players was necessary as a cap floor team, but imo the money could have been better spent now. We aren't like Chicago right now with their massive bottom overpays (Foligno, Perry) since they are likely still a full rebuild for a few more years. Building from within is great, but it's a slow process and eventually they all mature around the same time and then Adams will have a problem. We will see how he handles that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dudacek Hall of Famer

dudacek

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, shrader said:

I feel like these would work for a majority of the GMs out there. 

 I think when people talk about teams making moves they tend to focus mostly on who they added and not who they lost, or what they need.

Case in point was Andrew Peters gushing over the Leafs:

Bertuzzi, Domi, Reaves and Kilngberg, all veterans I’ve heard of!

Im not saying these guys can’t be good additions, but I will say that you are collectively adding some talent and some edge, but you are also adding a group of mercenaries who tend to take bad penalties, make defensive miscues, don’t do well with structure and haven’t produced up to their reputations in recent years.

And, at the same time, you have subtracted O’Reilly, Kerfoot, Bunting, Holl, Acciari, Schenn, Simmonds, Engvall Sandin and Aston-Reese, some of whom played significant roles in last year’s team.

Isn’t the more pertinent question how well have they addressed the perceived weaknesses of last year’s team: the goaltending, play without the puck and the playoff worth of the core 4?

It’s a significantly different team than the one they were icing prior to the trade deadline, but is it actually better?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...