Alex Tuch contract talks

[PerreaultForever]

34 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Don't think it truly matters; this franchise cannot afford to have a re-re-rebuild. At this point they just need to make the playoffs and keep their core happy enough to get there.

If you have to give him 8 years 10mil per then do it; its a bad contract for sure but keeps the food on the table, so to speak.

I understand the sentiment, and I also understand why nobody would want another rebuild, but you can't get anywhere building something unsustainable either can you? If you end up with a bunch of big contracts and you are still not winning what do you do? The only logical thing is get rid of those contracts and try again. 

They've done it so many times and for so long that the idea does not inspire the type of hope it does in other rebuild franchises but what else can you do? If your "core" can't get you into the playoffs your "core" isn't what you need. 

[sabremike]

Do people understand that with the cap going through the ***** roof a $10 million per deal will be like a $6 million (or less) deal is today within a few seasons?

[mjd1001]

6 hours ago, sabremike said:

Do people understand that with the cap going through the ***** roof a $10 million per deal will be like a $6 million (or less) deal is today within a few seasons?

I understand the basic argument you make, but its not quite that big of a difference.

The cap this year is about $95.5 million.  In 2027-28 the projection is 113.5.

Now, keep in mind that a reason for the big jump is going to be Television/streaming contract based in the next 2-3 years.  Its likely the cap will still go up after that, but the rate of increase will slow.

So a $10m deal in a cap world of $113.5 is 8.81% of the cap.  In todays cap, that is about $8.4m per year.

So, Again, I agree with your basic premise that some people might not be looking at an accelerated cap that closely, but the difference is a $10m deal is about $8.4m in todays cap, not $6m or less.

Now, he is worth it to the Sabres now, but its might be interesting to look at the 'midway' point of a potential new contract.  lets say he signs an 8 year extention.  After year 4, going into year 5,  he will be 34 years old (turning 35).  With 4 years left on that potential 8 year extension at that point, what kind of player will Tuch be with still half the contract left at that age?

And you have to think of next season with Skinner's buyount number going up by $2m to $6.4m for next year.   If no other changes are made to the roster (trades), the team already has about $80m of cap space accounted for in 2026-27, and that is without contracts for Tuch, Krebs, Benson, Doan, and Kesserling.

If next years cap DOES go up to $104m as projected, you have $24m to fit in new deals for Tuch, Kesserling, Doan, Benson and Krebs (or a Krebs replacement) before you make ANY other changes or additions.

Edited 12 hours ago by mjd1001

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I understand the basic argument you make, but its not quite that big of a difference.

The cap this year is about $95.5 million.  In 2027-28 the projection is 113.5.

Now, keep in mind that a reason for the big jump is going to be Television/streaming contract based in the next 2-3 years.  Its likely the cap will still go up after that, but the rate of increase will slow.

So a $10m deal in a cap world of $113.5 is 8.81% of the cap.  In todays cap, that is about $8.4m per year.

So, Again, I agree with your basic premise that some people might not be looking at an accelerated cap that closely, but the difference is a $10m deal is about $8.4m in todays cap, not $6m or less.

You make an excellent presentation on the relativity of the cap now and in the near future as it relates to Tuch's contract. However, in my view, the bigger issue is the implications of not getting a deal done for this particular faltering franchise compared to other more normal franchises that are in a better position to absorb a loss of such a player. The Sabres are a franchise that has less credibility than most other franchises with the fans, its own players and around the league. Not getting a deal done, even when the player has a lot of leverage, would be devastating. The organization needs to get a deal done sooner rather than later because having this issue linger throughout the season will cause more distractions when it needs more focus on the season on hand.    

[tom webster]

14 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I understand the basic argument you make, but its not quite that big of a difference.

The cap this year is about $95.5 million.  In 2027-28 the projection is 113.5.

Now, keep in mind that a reason for the big jump is going to be Television/streaming contract based in the next 2-3 years.  Its likely the cap will still go up after that, but the rate of increase will slow.

So a $10m deal in a cap world of $113.5 is 8.81% of the cap.  In todays cap, that is about $8.4m per year.

So, Again, I agree with your basic premise that some people might not be looking at an accelerated cap that closely, but the difference is a $10m deal is about $8.4m in todays cap, not $6m or less.

Now, he is worth it to the Sabres now, but its might be interesting to look at the 'midway' point of a potential new contract.  lets say he signs an 8 year extention.  After year 4, going into year 5,  he will be 34 years old (turning 35).  With 4 years left on that potential 8 year extension at that point, what kind of player will Tuch be with still half the contract left at that age?

And you have to think of next season with Skinner's buyount number going up by $2m to $6.4m for next year.   If no other changes are made to the roster (trades), the team already has about $80m of cap space accounted for in 2026-27, and that is without contracts for Tuch, Krebs, Benson, Doan, and Kesserling.

If next years cap DOES go up to $104m as projected, you have $24m to fit in new deals for Tuch, Kesserling, Doan, Benson and Krebs (or a Krebs replacement) before you make ANY other changes or additions.

This is good analysis except there have been whispers of the cap rate of increase not slowing till it hits $150M which obviously changes the numbers dramatically 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, tom webster said:

This is good analysis except there have been whispers of the cap rate of increase not slowing till it hits $150M which obviously changes the numbers dramatically 

I have some doubts about economic growth in general over the next few years. 

[tom webster]

50 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I have some doubts about economic growth in general over the next few years. 

History has shown that sports revenue isn’t always tied to real economic growth, but your point is taken.

[PerreaultForever]

12 hours ago, sabremike said:

Do people understand that with the cap going through the ***** roof a $10 million per deal will be like a $6 million (or less) deal is today within a few seasons?

I think that's pretty extreme. The cap is going up but so will ALL the salaries. 10 million is still a lot for him. 

Peterka signed with Utah for 7.7 . He's younger, he had 68 pts. Tuch had 67. Now you can argue that Tuch brings leadership and other factors but to get from 8 to 10 is a lot. If it's 8 years that makes him 37 at the end of it. 

Since they are still negotiating I'm assuming there is no hometown discount in play.

The right number for Tuch is 8x8. That overpays him in the last 3-4 years but it's fair since he's valuable now. 

The because it's the Sabres overpay number is 9x8. So this is the number where you say win for the Sabres win for Tuch. 

10x8 or anything higher will help close the Sabres window before it's barely open a crack. Bad idea.

 

[sabremike]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think that's pretty extreme. The cap is going up but so will ALL the salaries. 10 million is still a lot for him. 

Peterka signed with Utah for 7.7 . He's younger, he had 68 pts. Tuch had 67. Now you can argue that Tuch brings leadership and other factors but to get from 8 to 10 is a lot. If it's 8 years that makes him 37 at the end of it. 

Since they are still negotiating I'm assuming there is no hometown discount in play.

The right number for Tuch is 8x8. That overpays him in the last 3-4 years but it's fair since he's valuable now. 

The because it's the Sabres overpay number is 9x8. So this is the number where you say win for the Sabres win for Tuch. 

10x8 or anything higher will help close the Sabres window before it's barely open a crack. Bad idea.

 

We are in this situation as the biggest disaster of an organization in league history largely because of "Five Years Down The Road" thinking. Ignoring the present directly leads to not having a future.

[PromoTheRobot]

11 minutes ago, sabremike said:

We are in this situation as the biggest disaster of an organization in league history largely because of "Five Years Down The Road" thinking. Ignoring the present directly leads to not having a future.

What situation are we in, exactly?

[sabremike]

6 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

What situation are we in, exactly?

The biggest laughingstock failure in all of sports?

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

What situation are we in, exactly?

A generation of not making the playoffs when nearly half the teams qualify. 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, sabremike said:

The biggest laughingstock failure in all of sports?

Because we are negotiating with Tuch???

I'm not following you at all. Is this a thread about Tuch's extension or rehashing the drought?

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

A generation of not making the playoffs when nearly half the teams qualify. 

I thought this was a Tuch thread. My bad.

Edited 4 hours ago by PromoTheRobot

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Because we are negotiating with Tuch???

I'm not following you at all. Is this a thread about Tuch's extension or rehashing the drought?

I thought this was a Tuch thread. My bad.

You were responding to the question of what  situation was the franchise in, also relating to the Tuch issue. You may be in a fantasy land but most of us are reacting to the harsh reality of the state of affairs of this franchise. 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You were responding to the question of what  situation was the franchise in, also relating to the Tuch issue. You may be in a fantasy land but most of us are reacting to the harsh reality of the state of affairs of this franchise. 

I was asking what that had to do with the topic at hand: the Tuch extension. Was the poster saying negotiating an extension with Tuch was somehow emblematic of the Sabres the past 14 years? That's why I'm confused. Are we supposed to extend him? Not extend him? Extended him 5 seasons ago?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, sabremike said:

We are in this situation as the biggest disaster of an organization in league history largely because of "Five Years Down The Road" thinking. Ignoring the present directly leads to not having a future.

You'll have to explain how this statement affects things. Adams brought in this 5 years down the road thinking more than anyone and he should have been fired but he wasn't so we are where we are. We can't not  behave like a proper organization because of it though. Tuch is valuable, but he's not THAT valuable. 

[sabremike]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You'll have to explain how this statement affects things. Adams brought in this 5 years down the road thinking more than anyone and he should have been fired but he wasn't so we are where we are. We can't not  behave like a proper organization because of it though. Tuch is valuable, but he's not THAT valuable. 

If he gets to UFA that statement is going to age like a tuna fish sandwich left out in the sun for two weeks. Multiple team will give him offers in that ballpark, he and his agent know this. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If he gets to UFA that statement is going to age like a tuna fish sandwich left out in the sun for two weeks. Multiple team will give him offers in that ballpark, he and his agent know this. 

Not convinced they "know" teams will give him that.  But it does seem the PA is telling them somebody will and wants him to hold off from signing for anything less.

[mjd1001]

The thing is, people who want to criticize the Sabres can use either argument to support that point of view:

-The Sabres walk away from Tuch or trade him?  Joke of an organization!

-The Sabres pay tuch $9-$10m per year over 8 years? Overpay! its going to kill them in just a couple of years!

[PromoTheRobot]

19 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If he gets to UFA that statement is going to age like a tuna fish sandwich left out in the sun for two weeks. Multiple team will give him offers in that ballpark, he and his agent know this. 

Name the last Sabres player that walked over a failed extension when wanting to be here? I'll wait.

[mjd1001]

I go back and forth on the value of signing him long term.

Over most of last season, despite how well he was playing, I was not hoping for a long term deal.  But then, most of the Summer, I was all for giving him one, with the thought you are going to overpay in later years to get the next 1-3 years.

I'm not back on the not really wanting to give him a long term deal. You have him THIS year.  By the time NEXT year starts and you might not have him, I just have the feeling his age is going to be catching up to him.

So here is how I am looking at it now:  If Tuch is looking for close to $10m per year, even with an increasing cap, what kind of player are you going to have 2-3 years from now, and how much better will that likley 'declining' player be compred to one of the young guys who will be getting older?  Do you want to be paying Tuch high end top 6 money on a team that is tight to the cap, when he is 32, 33, 34 years old? Or would you rather be paying Rosen, Helenius, Benson, Kulich, Quinn, and/or Doan less money....and in 2-3 years from not might 2 or 3 of those guys be better than an aging Tuch?

Or, if you let Tuch walk after this year becaue he is looking for $10m per year, what kind of other player can you sign or trade for using that same $$ and can they be just as good for the next 2-4 years after this year?

[JohnC]

55 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Name the last Sabres player that walked over a failed extension when wanting to be here? I'll wait.

Reinhardt would have stayed if given an extension when his contract situation allowed for it. 

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

The thing is, people who want to criticize the Sabres can use either argument to support that point of view:

-The Sabres walk away from Tuch or trade him?  Joke of an organization!

-The Sabres pay tuch $9-$10m per year over 8 years? Overpay! its going to kill them in just a couple of years!

I don’t see how it kills the in a couple years. That cap is going up by a lot over the next few years. Trading him in five years isn’t going to be that hard.

[PromoTheRobot]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Reinhardt would have stayed if given an extension when his contract situation allowed for it. 

Totally different situation from Tuch. Reinhardt got a short extension from Botterill. By the time Adams took over, nothing was keeping Sam here. 

Since Zach Bogosian, you'd have to go back to Golisano getting cheap on Drury and Briere. My point is there really isn't a history of the Sabres lowballing players and letting them get away. So acting like that is the likely outcome with Tuch is like you're rooting for that to happen.

All negotiations start apart. That's why you negotiate. You have a half dozen other players in the league right now slow walking their deals because they want to cash in on the expected higher future caps.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Name the last Sabres player that walked over a failed extension when wanting to be here? I'll wait.

Reinhart.  Ullmark.  Give them both LT deals instead of 1 year deals and the whole trajectory of this team changes significantly.