Alex Tuch contract talks

[SABRES 0311]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

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

Reino yes. Ullmark, meh. Still better than UPL though.

[Broken Ankles]

11 hours 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.

Thanks for the additional insight using future cap numbers.  Here’s my question.  If he walks away from Buffalo’s offer of $9m * 8 years (big assumption) what is his value in the open market where there is a restriction to six years max term?  Is it $9m *6 ?  Is it $10m * 6?  Is it $11m *6?  Ultimately he has to find a path to $72m right?  Sure you can argue money isn’t everything in the equation.  Just know that an offer like that is coming from a team with cap space and it’s not the Stanley Cup Champion's.  If he manages a new deal of $60m at 6 years, he needs to sign a new deal after that one expires  for ~$12m in a new contract at age 36. This year Jamie Benn signed a one year deal for $1m (plus incentives).  Is Benn at  age 36 a comp?  If yes, what does that contract look like in 6 years?  What is Ben’s value on the open market, if it’s just about the money?  I get it that Alex and his camp have confidence in his abilities and are trying to maximize his value, but some of the CBA changes are countering the benefits that the Salary Cap expansion brings.  

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

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?

I'm not paying Rosen a bag of nickels. 

[sabremike]

6 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

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.

FTR Botterill wanted to give him a long term deal, Terry is the one who balked at doing so. That's a major reason Botts got another chance in Seattle: People in hockey know he was sandbagged by the imbecile of an owner and don't hold it against him.

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

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

If the Sabres could now get Ullmark quality netminding for a season, the Sabres would most likely be a playoff team this year. We are now in a precarious situation with our goalie situation because of the lack of foresight by this myopic organization.

 

Just think where this franchise would be if we retained Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark compared to where we have been and are now? What’s obvious to all is that an unstable franchise is not an appealing place to play for or attract other players. 

[mjd1001]

42 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the Sabres could now get Ullmark quality netminding for a season, the Sabres would most likely be a playoff team this year. We are now in a precarious situation with our goalie situation because of the lack of foresight by this myopic organization.

 

Just think where this franchise would be if we retained Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark compared to where we have been and are now? What’s obvious to all is that an unstable franchise is not an appealing place to play for or attract other players. 

I agree with your point... It's hard not to. 

The reason why Tuch is different... Is you are potentially signing him to a long-term deal that starts after he's 30 years old. All those other guys were in there early or mid-twenties.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I agree with your point... It's hard not to. 

The reason why Tuch is different... Is you are potentially signing him to a long-term deal that starts after he's 30 years old. All those other guys were in there early or mid-twenties.

The Tuch contract situation is not an unusual situation. All teams confront the issue of giving a long-term contract to a high yield player in his prime recognizing that the player will be less productive on the backside of the contract. There's nothing novel about that situation that happens in all pro sports. What a well-run franchise does in advance is having a plan to replace the player if it comes down to that. That's not where this stolid organization is currently at. A season-long contract issue for a core player is not going to help this struggling franchise move forward. It will be a distraction for a team that needs its full attention to compete for a playoff spot. 

In contract negotiations, sometimes the organization has more leverage than the player; and sometimes the player has more leverage. In my view, the player has more leverage in this case. If that's the case, then the organization has to accept that reality and be more willing to accommodate in the negotiation. 

The Sabres have been out of the playoffs for a generation. That's a disgrace and a tribute to its systemic ineptitude. This deal needs to get done sooner rather than later. My position is not to get too fixated about the value of the backside of the contract and be more focused on the present. A Sabre team minus Tuch is a demonstrably lesser team. When you have earned your way to be recognized as a clown organization your focus of attention should be on the now.