Casey Mittelstadt's next contract

[Broken Ankles]

56 minutes ago, Taro T said:

4 years does do that for him.  But, can't see him, who one has to assume presumes that he's part of this team's core, settling for a 4 year deal at below market when everybody else on the team that's part of the core that showed up after he did gets 7 or so year deals at / SLIGHTLY below market.

What are you using to define “market”?  The comparable I see is Kempe in LA.  He had his entry level slide one year followed by a three year bridge like Mitts.  Kempe was $2m, Mitts was $2.5m.  Kempe then signed a 4x $5.5m deal in July ‘22.  Kempe had ~ 100 more games played in the same previous 6 years (year to year equivalents) with about the same PPG.  He also potted 35 the final year before the extension.  Mitts has peaked at 15 goals.  Could he net 35, sure.
  So more durability (over the course of six years) and greater goal scoring results by Kempe.  And yet Mitts is somehow undervalued at $7M?  Don’t see it the same.  What is your comparable for a .52 PPG guy entering his final year of RFA with arbitration eligibility?  

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, LPJets16 said:

They're not going to trade 37 unless he holds them up for more $$ than they can justify.  That seems unlikely given his personality and attachment to his teammates and coach. 

I want to agree with this but the wildcard is his agent.   Will his agent try to milk every last dollar out of the Sabres and will Casey empower all negotiations to the agent?  It could be a different result if so.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

Regarding pull ups specifically.

HE HAD A PARTIALLY DISLOCATED SHOULDER WHEN HE COULDN'T DO A SINGLE PULLUP.  Does no one remember that?

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, Norcal said:

Coming of age game or mad at Minnesota? 

Casey has looked great this season. I think he can smell the money.

He is how the whole team needs to play come playoff time (assuming that can get there).  I feel that he will be one of our top playoff performers; his game is suited to that style of play when there's no room to maneuver.

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

What are you using to define “market”?  The comparable I see is Kempe in LA.  He had his entry level slide one year followed by a three year bridge like Mitts.  Kempe was $2m, Mitts was $2.5m.  Kempe then signed a 4x $5.5m deal in July ‘22.  Kempe had ~ 100 more games played in the same previous 6 years (year to year equivalents) with about the same PPG.  He also potted 35 the final year before the extension.  Mitts has peaked at 15 goals.  Could he net 35, sure.
  So more durability (over the course of six years) and greater goal scoring results by Kempe.  And yet Mitts is somehow undervalued at $7M?  Don’t see it the same.  What is your comparable for a .52 PPG guy entering his final year of RFA with arbitration eligibility?  

Is he in a significantly different position than Tage was when he signed his deal?

Tage was 24 and coming off 68 points in his previous 78 games and trending up after not having shown much before.

Casey is 24 and has scored 60 points in his past 78 games and trending up after not having shown much before.

Edited November 11, 2023 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Here’s some food for thought: arbitration-eligible RFAs between 23 and 26 who signed extensions that bought UFA years.

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active/2024/caphit/all/forwards/ufa?signing-status=rfa&extension=yes&stats-season=2024&limits=signingage-23-26

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Broken Ankles said:

What are you using to define “market”?  The comparable I see is Kempe in LA.  He had his entry level slide one year followed by a three year bridge like Mitts.  Kempe was $2m, Mitts was $2.5m.  Kempe then signed a 4x $5.5m deal in July ‘22.  Kempe had ~ 100 more games played in the same previous 6 years (year to year equivalents) with about the same PPG.  He also potted 35 the final year before the extension.  Mitts has peaked at 15 goals.  Could he net 35, sure.
  So more durability (over the course of six years) and greater goal scoring results by Kempe.  And yet Mitts is somehow undervalued at $7M?  Don’t see it the same.  What is your comparable for a .52 PPG guy entering his final year of RFA with arbitration eligibility?  

Am primarily using the Sabres own players as comparables and also looking at where the cap is going now that they're in the last year of the players repaying the lockout money they were fronted.

Mittelstadt isn't going to be a 0.52PPG player this year.  If the contract hawks are lucky he'll only be a 0.75PPG player.  It's below where he's been for going on close to a season now.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Taro T

[Broken Ankles]

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Am primarily using the Sabres own players as comparables and also looking at where the cap is going now that they're in the last year of the players repaying the lockout money they were fronted.

Mittelstadt isn't going to be a 0.52PPG player this year.  If the contract hawks are lucky he'll only be a 0.75PPG player.  It's below where he's been for going on close to a season now.

Acknowledging where he is trending.  If he finishes with 28-30 goals and 40-45 assists then maybe it’s a difference conversation. My point is he hasn’t proven the PPG of a Fiala or Hintz or the consistency in games played or the goals scoring of these two, yet.  Those two have 7 year agreements, and Kempe has 4.  Kempe, if he continues to perform, to your point will exceed both of those deals in his next contract based on where the cap will be.  And his deal might worth more over the course of time. If I’m looking at Mitts and the term is 4 years then it’s a COLA over Kempe, $5.75-$6m.  Could there be a recency bias with some of the spacers? Not hating on Casey.  I hope he is signed.  

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

HE HAD A PARTIALLY DISLOCATED SHOULDER WHEN HE COULDN'T DO A SINGLE PULLUP.  Does no one remember that?

I do remember that story.  I don’t remember it specifically being a partially dislocated shoulder though.

I recall a story after the fact that the staff at Minnesota recognized a misalignment of some sort affecting his shoulder that they were able to correct, then he was able to do several pull-up immediately afterwards.

To be honest, the story always reeked of damage control to me, but who knows.

The real reason that I didn’t mention it though was because I don’t care at all whether a hockey player is good at pullups.  It’s irrelevant.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

I recall a story after the fact that the staff at Minnesota recognized a misalignment of some sort affecting his shoulder that they were able to correct, then he was able to do several pull-up immediately afterwards.

Misalignment = dislocated.  Immediately afterwards = they popped it back in.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

I’ve been thinking about this contract a lot lately.  Sabres have their core, but Casey is a nice Core+1.  So what does a Core+1 get paid?  I’m thinking less term, less money than the core, but enough money to keep him feeling good about his situation, but also low enough to make him easy to trade, while giving him a chance to sing another 6-7 year deal when that one expires.  Im coming in around 4x6.5 with no special clauses.  

Edited November 12, 2023 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

I’ve been thinking about this contract a lot lately.  Sabres have their core, but Casey is a nice Core+1.  So what does a Core+1 get paid?  I’m thinking less term, less money than the core, but enough money to keep him feeling good about his situation, but also low enough to make him easy to trade, while giving him a chance to sing another 6-7 year deal when that one expires.  Im coming in around 4x6.5 with no special clauses.  

1) Why isn’t Mittelstadt part of the core?  He could be.

2) There really is no such thing as a core.  You keep the good players that you can.  Sometimes you have to make hard decisions.

[Curt]

56 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Misalignment = dislocated.  Immediately afterwards = they popped it back in.

Yeah, maybe.  But like I said, the reason that I didn’t go out of my way to bring it up is because my whole point was that it pull ups do not matter at all.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

1) Why isn’t Mittelstadt part of the core?  He could be.

2) There really is no such thing as a core.  You keep the good players that you can.  Sometimes you have to make hard decisions.

I think a good GM builds some level of flexibility into his lineup.  You can’t do that if you have 8 guys in the core where they are all making 7-10MM+. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[Curt]

6 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

I think a good GM builds some level of flexibility into his lineup.  You can’t do that if you have 8 guys in the core where they are all making 7-10MM+. 

Well, Sabres wouldn’t have 8, they would have 6.  I don’t think we need to exaggerate.  If they are all worth (or more than worth) the money, then why not?  You can afford what you can afford.  If they are good contracts, then you can move them if/when you need to.  You don’t need to preemptively jettison good players because maybe some day you will have cap trouble.

I guess my real question is, what is core even?  What is the definition of the core of a hockey team?

Edited November 12, 2023 by Curt

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Well, Sabres wouldn’t have 8, they would have 6.  I don’t think we need to exaggerate.  If they are all worth (or more than worth) the money, then why not?  You can afford what you can afford.  If they are good contracts, then you can move them if/when you need to.  You don’t need to preemptively jettison good players because maybe some day you will have cap trouble.

I guess my real question is, what is core even?  What is the definition of the core of a hockey team?

Not only that, but they'd still have money available should Levi earn a similar contract.  Especially considering Skinner's contract will be just about done by the time Levi (or another G) get paid.  And, people say you build out from the middle: G, D, & C.  With the 7 big contracts (and that 7th doesn't come into play yet) that would be 1 G, 2 D, 3 C's (that all can play W if necessary), and 1 W.

Isn't THAT the way people say you're supposed to build a team?

[Mango]

1 hour ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

I’ve been thinking about this contract a lot lately.  Sabres have their core, but Casey is a nice Core+1.  So what does a Core+1 get paid?  I’m thinking less term, less money than the core, but enough money to keep him feeling good about his situation, but also low enough to make him easy to trade, while giving him a chance to sing another 6-7 year deal when that one expires.  Im coming in around 4x6.5 with no special clauses.  

If we’re talking about “only paying the core” we should reevaluate the core. Mitts is firmly out 1a/1b C and Cozens is firmly our 3rd  even when healthy this year. So to your point of only paying the core, and not the core +1, in that totally hypothetical scenario I’m trading Cozens and extending Mitts. I wouldn’t hesitate or lose a minutes sleep over it. 

I like Cozens. I really liked him last year and loved his extension.  But Mitts has been the better player for about a year now.

(Again, I’m not advocating trading Cozens. Just building on this core +1 scenario you through out)

[oddoublee]

On 11/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, dudacek said:

Here’s some food for thought: arbitration-eligible RFAs between 23 and 26 who signed extensions that bought UFA years.

https://www.capfriendly.com/browse/active/2024/caphit/all/forwards/ufa?signing-status=rfa&extension=yes&stats-season=2024&limits=signingage-23-26

what a zig zag. clearly 30+ goal scorers got a premium payout (hintz and meier)...but then kempe throws a monkey wrench in that. then there is the players in that .77 range (where i am putting casey based on last 78 games played)... I have no clue where to peg mitts. 

his agent could come from a million different directions on this one, and so can the sabres. 

In a nutshell - if he averages .8 or higher this season alone - he could fetch 9 million on the open market. If he were to sign now, my guess is it costs the sabres 7 - 7.5 million a year. 

That just goes to show you what a ridiculous deal we got with tage. he is worth 11+ a year. 

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:43 PM, Curt said:

Well, Sabres wouldn’t have 8, they would have 6.  I don’t think we need to exaggerate.  If they are all worth (or more than worth) the money, then why not?  You can afford what you can afford.  If they are good contracts, then you can move them if/when you need to.  You don’t need to preemptively jettison good players because maybe some day you will have cap trouble.

I guess my real question is, what is core even?  What is the definition of the core of a hockey team?

Sorry for the delay, I’m traveling a bit for work this week.
 

Core should be 6, no more than 7?  Why you say? Because 7 is 3 defensemen, 3 forwards, and a goalie (current Sabres “core”).  It is also 2 defensemen, 4-5 forwards, and a goalie (sometimes).

Let’s do the math next.  Specifically for the Sabres because duh:

Position, Name, Salary (or projected salary during core years)

Goalie, Levi, $4.5Mx3 after ELD

Defense 1, Dahlin, 11M

Defense 2, Powers, 8.4M

Defense 3, Mule, 4.3M

Offense 1, Tage, 7.1M

Offense 2, Cozens, 7M

Offense 3, Skinner, 9M

Offense Core +1, Tuch/Casey, 4.8M/6.5M

First off, yeah, Skinner is your core. You don’t sign guys for 8 years that aren’t your core.  Once skinners contract is over you can either go down to 6 core, or add someone like JJ here, who I think is a 5M+ player and fills a critical need (strength on the boards, vision) once he is at his peak.  
 

Second, you will see the salary demands assumed here take up 2/3 of the available cap space assuming a $84.5M cap.  So basically you have to sign 16 players with 1/3 of the projected available cap space.

This is why there is a core, and why I think you have to build flexibility into your roster.  Because if 1 or 2 of these guys get injured or flames out the Sabres go from a position of strength to one of uncertainty. 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[Curt]

44 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

Sorry for the delay, I’m traveling a bit for work this week.
 

Core should be 6, no more than 7?  Why you say? Because 7 is 3 defensemen, 3 forwards, and a goalie (current Sabres “core”).  It is also 2 defensemen, 4-5 forwards, and a goalie (sometimes).

Let’s do the math next.  Specifically for the Sabres because duh:

Position, Name, Salary (or projected salary during core years)

Goalie, Levi, $4.5Mx3 after ELD

Defense 1, Dahlin, 11M

Defense 2, Powers, 8.4M

Defense 3, Mule, 4.3M

Offense 1, Tage, 7.1M

Offense 2, Cozens, 7M

Offense 3, Skinner, 9M

Offense Core +1, Tuch/Casey, 4.8M/6.5M

First off, yeah, Skinner is your core. You don’t sign guys for 8 years that aren’t your core.  Once skinners contract is over you can either go down to 6 core, or add someone like JJ here, who I think is a 5M+ player and fills a critical need (strength on the boards, vision) once he is at his peak.  
 

Second, you will see the salary demands assumed here take up 2/3 of the available cap space assuming a $84.5M cap.  So basically you have to sign 16 players with 1/3 of the projected available cap space.

This is why there is a core, and why I think you have to build flexibility into your roster.  Because if 1 or 2 of these guys get injured or flames out the Sabres go from a position of strength to one of uncertainty. 

 

No apologies necessary.  I appreciate the conversation.

It’s fine to just list out the 6-7 guys that you have the most money or term commitments to and call that your core I guess.  And the idea that you should budget so you are able to adequately fill out both a forward and defenseman group makes total sense.

I guess my sticking point is what I said in my previous post.  In your mind, what is a core?  What makes a player a core player?  Is it just him being signed to a long contract?

For example, Samuelsson is signed for a while, but he isn’t making a ton of money (it’s a very average salary) and he doesn’t have trade protection or anything like that.  What makes him part of the “core”?

 

[Thorny]

On 11/11/2023 at 8:09 AM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Billions and Billions of dollars. 

Casey is becoming indispensable too this team.  He is the team’s best playmaker and the puck seems glued to his stick. He is also a force along the boards and possibly our best two way forward.  

If the Sabres are lucky they’ll get him signed for 6 years at 42 million.

 

You had it, you were the one touting him as the heir apparent 2C

[Thorny]

On 11/11/2023 at 8:14 AM, Zamboni said:

For funsies …. Check out this thread on the kid just 3 years ago ….

 

 

You know how it is…take comfort in the fact that even the best among us still make mistakes from time to time, in their infinite wisdom 

On 5/8/2023 at 9:08 PM, Zamboni said:

Take comfort in KNOWING he’ll (Eichel'll) never win a cup. The hockey gods have spoken. 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorny]

And for the record

On 9/8/2020 at 8:34 PM, dudacek said:

Well that may be your argument...😜

My argument has been that Casey is a disappointment relative to his hype, but that his performance to date doesn't rule out him becoming a useful, or even good, NHL player.

It is in response to the many on here have already declared him a bust. I don't think those numbers are meaningless Nearly a point a game is a very respectable total for a first-year college player, but not one who is supposed to be "special."

 

On 9/8/2020 at 8:38 PM, Thorny said:

I agree with all this.

[GASabresIUFAN]

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You had it, you were the one touting him as the heir apparent 2C

I have watched alot of Big 10 hockey and Casey basically was a one man team his year at Minn.  He only averaged a 1pt a game, but you could see him controlling play.  If you remember a few nights ago when he didn't register a point, but controlled the puck for minutes on end and Greenway and others failed to convert the opportunities he created.  That is what things were like for Casey at Minn.  When he played with good players at the World Jrs he exploded.  

The other guys I have felt that strongly about recently were JJP and Kulich.  Like Casey they stood out at the World Jrs.  Stutzle was great for Germany, but JJP wasn't just a side kick.  He was almost an even partner.  Kulich was much the same, but with a non-stop motor.  @freester and I were watching the draft and I was PO'd when we took Östlund over Kulich and then got lucky when Kulich fell to us anyway.  I thought he was out best pick of the 3 1st rounders.

PS I always liked the Ryan Johnson pick.  I know one vocal poster here hated the pick because of the excellent forwards still available (a just criticism), but I had a 1st grade on Johnson and really enjoyed watching his calming and intelligent play at Minn.  

Edited November 13, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorny]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

I have watched alot of Big 10 hockey and Casey basically was a one man team his year at Minn.  He only averaged a 1pt a game, but you could see him controlling play.  If you remember a few nights ago when he didn't register a point, but controlled the puck for minutes on end and Greenway and others failed to convert the opportunities he created.  That is what things were like for Casey at Minn.  When he played with good players at the World Jrs he exploded.  

The other guy I have felt that strongly about recently were JJP and Kulich.  Like Casey they stood out at the World Jrs.  Stutzle was great for Germany, but JJP wasn't just a side kick.  He was almost an even partner.  Kulich was much the same, but with a non-stop motor.  @freester and I were watching the draft and I was PO'd when we took Östlund over Kulich and then got lucky when Kulich fell to us anyway.  I thought he was out best pick of the 3 1st rounders.

PS I always liked the Ryan Johnson pick.  I know one vocal poster here hated the pick because of the excellent forwards still available (a just criticism), but I had a 1st grade on Johnson and really enjoyed watching his calming and intelligent play at Minn.  

tl;dr

I said you had it, man. No need to lay it on thick