Jack Quinn Re-signed 2x3.375mil

[oddoublee]

My biggest gripe with this is the average salary should have been 3.365. we always over pay our home grown talent. Smh

[mjd1001]

14 hours ago, BigAl2526 said:

Quinn was the Sabres' first round pick in 2021, 8th overall.  The position he plays is different, but are we to expect a comparable level of play from Mrtka in 4 years?

If you go back and look at D-men picked from 6-12 overall and see how long they developed:

2015:  Provorov (played full season in 2016-2017) and Werenski (Played full season in 2016-17)

2016: Sergachev (played a full season in 2017-18)

2017: No D-men picked in that range (Makar was taken 4th overall)

2018: Quinn Hughes (played full season in 2019-20), Adam Boquist (has yet to play full season), Evan Bouchard (played full season 2021-22), Noah Dobson (played full season 2021-22)

2019: Seider (full season 2021-22), Broberg (full season, almost, last year), Soderstromm (no full season yet)

2020: Drysdale (full season 2021-22)

2021: Edvinsson (full season last year, 2024-25), Clarke (full season 2024-25)

2022: Jiricek (no full season yet), Korchiniski (full season 2023-24), Mintyukov (full season 2023-24), Mateychuk (no full season yet)

I didn't want to look back at the last 2 drafts, it might be early for them yet.

So, it looks like the farther back you go, the more likely a D-man was to play right away. In recent drafts, they seem to take longer.

But of all the D-men listed above:  7 of them played a full season the year after they were drafted. 1 took 2 seasons after their draft year. 4 of them took 3 seasons after their draft year. 5 of them took longer than 3 full seasons or have yet to play a full season for the team that drafted them.

Edited Saturday at 06:46 PM by mjd1001

[Thorny]

Our overall minimalist approach this offseason on the verge of 15 straight years of no playoffs can only be construed imo as a reflective of their utter confidence in Josh Norris 

Edited Saturday at 09:33 PM by Thorny

[oddoublee]

Just now, Thorny said:

Our overall minimalist approach this offseason on the verge of 15 straight years of no playoffs can only be construed imo as a reflective of their utter confidence in Josh Norris 

The ole 'Hope' strategy. Always pans out!

[DarthEbriate]

13 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

If you go back and look at D-men picked from 6-12 overall and see how long they developed:

2015:  Provorov (played full season in 2016-2017) and Werenski (Played full season in 2016-17)

2016: Sergachev (played a full season in 2017-18)

2017: No D-men picked in that range (Makar was taken 4th overall)

2018: Quinn Hughes (played full season in 2019-20), Adam Boquist (has yet to play full season), Evan Bouchard (played full season 2021-22), Noah Dobson (played full season 2021-22)

2019: Seider (full season 2021-22), Broberg (full season, almost, last year), Soderstromm (no full season yet)

2020: Drysdale (full season 2021-22)

2021: Edvinsson (full season last year, 2024-25), Clarke (full season 2024-25)

2022: Jiricek (no full season yet), Korchiniski (full season 2023-24), Mintyukov (full season 2023-24), Mateychuk (no full season yet)

I didn't want to look back at the last 2 drafts, it might be early for them yet.

So, it looks like the farther back you go, the more likely a D-man was to play right away. In recent drafts, they seem to take longer.

But of all the D-men listed above:  7 of them played a full season the year after they were drafted. 1 took 2 seasons after their draft year. 4 of them took 3 seasons after their draft year. 5 of them took longer than 3 full seasons or have yet to play a full season for the team that drafted them.

Some folks, like Edvinsson, stayed in Europe. And the 2020 COVID season disrupted Seider and Dobson at least a bit. I think Mrtka makes his debut in 2026-27 and is up full-time by the 3rd and final year of his ELC. It will likely be dictated by need, based on extensions (if any) to Kesselring, Timmins, and JBD. He'll be given every opportunity to leapfrog and Strbak and Kleber.

[PerreaultForever]

9 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Some folks, like Edvinsson, stayed in Europe. And the 2020 COVID season disrupted Seider and Dobson at least a bit. I think Mrtka makes his debut in 2026-27 and is up full-time by the 3rd and final year of his ELC. It will likely be dictated by need, based on extensions (if any) to Kesselring, Timmins, and JBD. He'll be given every opportunity to leapfrog and Strbak and Kleber.

Oh good god he's nowhere near playing in 26/27. Sabres might do it, but they shouldn't. A normal team would hope for him in 4. Sabres probably 3, but any sooner would be another rushing the D mistake.

[Mango]

21 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

If you go back and look at D-men picked from 6-12 overall and see how long they developed:

2015:  Provorov (played full season in 2016-2017) and Werenski (Played full season in 2016-17)

2016: Sergachev (played a full season in 2017-18)

2017: No D-men picked in that range (Makar was taken 4th overall)

2018: Quinn Hughes (played full season in 2019-20), Adam Boquist (has yet to play full season), Evan Bouchard (played full season 2021-22), Noah Dobson (played full season 2021-22)

2019: Seider (full season 2021-22), Broberg (full season, almost, last year), Soderstromm (no full season yet)

2020: Drysdale (full season 2021-22)

2021: Edvinsson (full season last year, 2024-25), Clarke (full season 2024-25)

2022: Jiricek (no full season yet), Korchiniski (full season 2023-24), Mintyukov (full season 2023-24), Mateychuk (no full season yet)

I didn't want to look back at the last 2 drafts, it might be early for them yet.

So, it looks like the farther back you go, the more likely a D-man was to play right away. In recent drafts, they seem to take longer.

But of all the D-men listed above:  7 of them played a full season the year after they were drafted. 1 took 2 seasons after their draft year. 4 of them took 3 seasons after their draft year. 5 of them took longer than 3 full seasons or have yet to play a full season for the team that drafted them.

I don't really understand why the NHL doesn't move the draft age up considerably. 

It is hard for the average hockey fan to give a short about the full cycle of their team if they can't watch their first round pick for 3 years.

It would make the sport much more compelling with better/more immediate story lines.

It's a violent sport, take a page from the NFL and make it 3 years after HS. Bonus, if let's the NCAA manage a lot more of player development rather than tracking a million guys around a million leagues all over the world.

Somebody might turn on an NCAA game if they know it has all the best young players in the world. There's literally no way for the average person to watch the WHL, OHL, KHL, etc if you don't actively search it out.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Mango

[PromoTheRobot]

52 minutes ago, Mango said:

I don't really understand why the NHL doesn't move the draft age up considerably. 

It is hard for the average hockey fan to give a short about the full cycle of their team if they can't watch their first round pick for 3 years.

It would make the sport much more compelling with better/more immediate story lines.

It's a violent sport, take a page from the NFL and make it 3 years after HS. Bonus, if let's the NCAA manage a lot more of player development rather than tracking a million guys around a million leagues all over the world.

Somebody might turn on an NCAA game if they know it has all the best young players in the world. There's literally no way for the average person to watch the WHL, OHL, KHL, etc if you don't actively search it out.

 

Probably because teams want to control the development of top prospects.

22 hours ago, oddoublee said:

My biggest gripe with this is the average salary should have been 3.365. we always over pay our home grown talent. Smh

"Spend to the cap!"

"Not like that!"

[Mango]

2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Probably because teams want to control the development of top prospects.

It doesn't matter. Like after the top 5 picks the draft is a scratch off ticket.

Control, no control, it doesn't matter. The league has no reliable vision.

I'd argue that a big part of the reason the predictibility is that way is because the kids aren't ready to be drafted.

[That Aud Smell]

The league used to have an age ~20 threshold for its draft.

Perreault was in his Year 20 age when the Sabres selected him. (He has a late birthday.)

[Mango]

43 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The league used to have an age ~20 threshold for its draft.

Perreault was in his Year 20 age when the Sabres selected him. (He has a late birthday.)

From a marketing/fan perspective people like story lines. Hell nearly every sports video game has a "create your own player/career" mode.

Imagine downloading NHL25, creating a player, then only being able to play in the OHL where everybody in the game sucks. And then you have to do that for 3 or 4 years before you're even allowed to play with the NHL team.

That's literally the NHL's model in real life. And hockey fans wonder why the league can't catch up to other leagues.

Reframing the rules around the draft is integral. They have to increase the amount of players who can provide an immediate impact.

To me I think that's one of the largest hurdles to make the sport compelling to people. 

[GoPuckYourself]

All I know is that in any sport that I’ve seen a player tear his Achilles tendon, very few are the same person afterwards. I wouldn’t of taken the chance but I hope Quinn comes back from this, he’s young enough but that’s a brutal injury for athletes.

[triumph_communes]

Really like the idea of 18yo can only be drafted with 1st round picks. 19yo with 2nds. 20+ for 3+
 

Itd really add layers to drafting strategy.  With your 2nd are you drafting that young 19yo who will grow into something big, or that 20yo who is a year away from the jump that blossomed in college?

 

Not really sure on the negatives here?  Would it be related to kids being incentivized to sign deals in Europe at a younger age that’d keep talent out of NA?  It’d undermine the value of a scouting staff?  Let’s be fair, it’s a lot of gambling. Give the 19yo late bloomers more of a chance 

Edited 10 hours ago by triumph_communes

[Taro T]

17 hours ago, oddoublee said:

The ole 'Hope' strategy. Always pans out!

True.  It has a nearly perfect track record since Golisano sold the team.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Mango said:

I don't really understand why the NHL doesn't move the draft age up considerably. 

It is hard for the average hockey fan to give a short about the full cycle of their team if they can't watch their first round pick for 3 years.

It would make the sport much more compelling with better/more immediate story lines.

It's a violent sport, take a page from the NFL and make it 3 years after HS. Bonus, if let's the NCAA manage a lot more of player development rather than tracking a million guys around a million leagues all over the world.

Somebody might turn on an NCAA game if they know it has all the best young players in the world. There's literally no way for the average person to watch the WHL, OHL, KHL, etc if you don't actively search it out.

 

Why is 18 the draft age?  Ken Linesman.

Why doesn't it get modified to something such as players can be drafted at age 18 but only in rounds 1 & 2?  Because it would have to be negotiated in the CBA (one can't keep adults from freely practicing a legal trade unless a union for workers of that particular skill agrees to it) and neither the players nor the owners want a change like that enough to push it through.  Will be at least 5 more years before you see something like that.  And wouldn't have any money on it happening then either.

[Mango]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Why is 18 the draft age?  Ken Linesman.

Why doesn't it get modified to something such as players can be drafted at age 18 but only in rounds 1 & 2?  Because it would have to be negotiated in the CBA (one can't keep adults from freely practicing a legal trade unless a union for workers of that particular skill agrees to it) and neither the players nor the owners want a change like that enough to push it through.  Will be at least 5 more years before you see something like that.  And wouldn't have any money on it happening then either.

Cool then the irrelavance will continue when compared to other leagues,and teams will let kids with potential waste away in the dumbest most underfunded leagues in the world.

There's like 1 18 year old per year that this matters for. Saying the NHLPA wouldnt be for it is silly. The amount of teenagers in the NHL is next to nothing comparatively. A total of 10 to start the 24-25 season.

It's not that anybody is for it or against it It's that nobody gives a short to change it because they NHL is antiquated.

 

 

[Mango]

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Really like the idea of 18yo can only be drafted with 1st round picks. 19yo with 2nds. 20+ for 3+
 

Itd really add layers to drafting strategy.  With your 2nd are you drafting that young 19yo who will grow into something big, or that 20yo who is a year away from the jump that blossomed in college?

 

Not really sure on the negatives here?  Would it be related to kids being incentivized to sign deals in Europe at a younger age that’d keep talent out of NA?  It’d undermine the value of a scouting staff?  Let’s be fair, it’s a lot of gambling. Give the 19yo late bloomers more of a chance 

My totally uneducated opinion is that more kids rely on the NCAA. Sure some end up in Europe, and some already stay in Europe when drafted.

I think figuring out a way to put a cap floor on the AHL affiliates would be helpful. Maybe bigger roster sizes for both teams as well.

Just my shoot from the hip ideas. I don't know though. 

 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

Cool then the irrelavance will continue when compared to other leagues,and teams will let kids with potential waste away in the dumbest most underfunded leagues in the world.

There's like 1 18 year old per year that this matters for. Saying the NHLPA wouldnt be for it is silly. The amount of teenagers in the NHL is next to nothing comparatively. A total of 10 to start the 24-25 season.

It's not that anybody is for it or against it It's that nobody gives a short to change it because they NHL is antiquated.

 

 

It also needs to clear labor laws in 2 countries.  

Personally would prefer to see the draft go back to 20 years old being the norm.  But there are more moving parts than you are considering.  Hockey, unlike football or basketball, has legitimate well established pro leagues in several other countries.  How does raising the drafting age affect the interactions between the NHL and these other leagues?  Do Swedes or Russians decide to sign longer contracts than they already do to stay in country at 17 or 18 keeping significantly more players from those countries out of the NHL until they are much older?  Does a lack of access to as many young Euros materially affect league plans for expansion?  (Personally would see that unforeseen consequence as a win as the league shouldn't expand IMHO; but am quite certain the league and the NHLPA would see that as a loss.)

Does the CHL want to see a change like this, especially if "exceptional 18 & 19 yo's" can still be drafted?  Don't their teams get a marketing benefit (in gate driven leagues) by having x # of "future NHLers" on their rosters?

Does it affect ELCs and 2nd contracts, if not in principle but in practice?  If it does result in ELCs shortening and 2nd contracts getting larger, with a hard salary cap, could see the union opposing it.  If it would result in no effects on ELCs (other than essentially no more contract "slides" as there are no more signed teenagers) but 2nd contracts shrinking, the union might publicly oppose it but privately approve it (as the currently dues paying members end up taking home more pay).

Not sure what you mean by this only matters for "like 1 18 year old per year?"  Several kids that are 18 in the fall are ready for and get opportunities to play in the NHL at the end of their Junior/NCAA/Euro seasons and do end up playing at that point.  They won't have that opportunity any longer.

[Turbo44]

6 hours ago, GoPuckYourself said:

All I know is that in any sport that I’ve seen a player tear his Achilles tendon, very few are the same person afterwards. I wouldn’t have taken the chance but I hope Quinn comes back from this, he’s young enough but that’s a brutal injury for athletes.

A. Hockey is different than other sports as the foot is in a boot and you don’t really use the achilles

B. Rehab from Achilles injuries seems a lot more advanced even in the last couple of years

C. It’s only a 2 year extension = minimum risk

[jad1]

8 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Probably because teams want to control the development of top prospects.

"Spend to the cap!"

"Not like that!"

Well, yeah, "not like that." Who's happy that Samuelsson's contract gets the Sabres close to the cap? It's a waste of resources.

Spending unwisely is just as bad as an internal cap because both prevent a team from acquring talent that can help a team win.

 

[Mango]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

It also needs to clear labor laws in 2 countries.  

Personally would prefer to see the draft go back to 20 years old being the norm.  But there are more moving parts than you are considering.  Hockey, unlike football or basketball, has legitimate well established pro leagues in several other countries.  How does raising the drafting age affect the interactions between the NHL and these other leagues?  Do Swedes or Russians decide to sign longer contracts than they already do to stay in country at 17 or 18 keeping significantly more players from those countries out of the NHL until they are much older?  Does a lack of access to as many young Euros materially affect league plans for expansion?  (Personally would see that unforeseen consequence as a win as the league shouldn't expand IMHO; but am quite certain the league and the NHLPA would see that as a loss.)

Does the CHL want to see a change like this, especially if "exceptional 18 & 19 yo's" can still be drafted?  Don't their teams get a marketing benefit (in gate driven leagues) by having x # of "future NHLers" on their rosters?

Does it affect ELCs and 2nd contracts, if not in principle but in practice?  If it does result in ELCs shortening and 2nd contracts getting larger, with a hard salary cap, could see the union opposing it.  If it would result in no effects on ELCs (other than essentially no more contract "slides" as there are no more signed teenagers) but 2nd contracts shrinking, the union might publicly oppose it but privately approve it (as the currently dues paying members end up taking home more pay).

Not sure what you mean by this only matters for "like 1 18 year old per year?"  Several kids that are 18 in the fall are ready for and get opportunities to play in the NHL at the end of their Junior/NCAA/Euro seasons and do end up playing at that point.  They won't have that opportunity any longer.

The labor laws in two countries applies to the MLB and NHL. The more people pretend the NHL is somehow special and incapable of growth or innovation the further it will fall behind.

The NHL need not concern themselves with the KHL or any other euro league. They're part of major US sports. Let these kids develop there. That's fine. Who cares. The league needs to be concerned with each team putting the best 20 or so players in the world on the ice and making those 20 people as compelling as possible.

If somebody else absorbs that cost for them and makes a couple of bucks for their home nation 80000000 miles away, even better. 

But some kid playing for nothing in the OHL where nobody is showing up or watching isn't helping or protecting the league. 

It's antiquated.

There were 10 teenagers (18 or 19) at wearing an NHL sweater at league start last year. Zach Benson was one of those and he was an NHL sophomore. The 1 x18 year old is hyperbole, but it's not much at all.

We all know the rarity of a first round pick playing at any point in the NHL. It is weird to get stuck on some mild hyperbole.

The NHL can organize a draft that has more impact players that more fans can follow and relate with. Or they can be stupid. 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, Mango said:

The labor laws in two countries applies to the MLB and NHL. The more people pretend the NHL is somehow special and incapable of growth or innovation the further it will fall behind.

The NHL need not concern themselves with the KHL or any other euro league. They're part of major US sports. Let these kids develop there. That's fine. Who cares. The league needs to be concerned with each team putting the best 20 or so players in the world on the ice and making those 20 people as compelling as possible.

If somebody else absorbs that cost for them and makes a couple of bucks for their home nation 80000000 miles away, even better. 

But some kid playing for nothing in the OHL where nobody is showing up or watching isn't helping or protecting the league. 

It's antiquated.

There were 10 teenagers (18 or 19) at wearing an NHL sweater at league start last year. Zach Benson was one of those and he was an NHL sophomore. The 1 x18 year old is hyperbole, but it's not much at all.

We all know the rarity of a first round pick playing at any point in the NHL. It is weird to get stuck on some mild hyperbole.

The NHL can organize a draft that has more impact players that more fans can follow and relate with. Or they can be stupid. 

And the MLB allows players that aren't going to college to be drafted after completing HS.  AKA, as soon as you're 18 or going to be 18 you are eligible to be drafted.  That seems extremely similar to one of these other 3 leagues.

The point about the Euro leagues wasn't simply where the kids will develop.  It was also about where they'll play.  The NHL gets players that are signed to the 2nd level of the Swedish league to get out of their contracts to come to the US.  Don't believe that is the case for players in the top league, the SHL.  So, if players can't be drafted until 20, they will end up signing and playing in the SHL with no immediate recourse to join the NHL.

Same issue with the KHL.  The Sabres can't get the Russian F they drafted ~3 years ago for at least 2 more years.

You can say it isn't and won't be an issue; but it is and has been an issue and if players don't get drafted at 18 but have to wait until 20 it will become more of an issue; not less.  And Non-NA players are now about 1/4 of the total NHL players; that has continued to increase through the years.  You sure that you're cool with that going back the other way if those players are good enough to be playing in the NHL?

You seem to be more concerned about making the NHL Draft destination TV like it is for the NFL.  It isn't destination TV for the MLB and nobody seems to mind.  Is there something else that this kid is missing here?  If so, please let me know.

[sabremike]

When you are in a contract year and show up completely unprepared and out of shape and stink the joint out on a nightly basis that's a HUGE red flag. Why in the hell are they giving him anything other than a qualifying offer?

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, sabremike said:

When you are in a contract year and show up completely unprepared and out of shape and stink the joint out on a nightly basis that's a HUGE red flag. Why in the hell are they giving him anything other than a qualifying offer?

Is the answer because they're blaming his season on the S&C coach rather than on the player?