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. 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

9 hours ago, sabremike said:

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.

Do you have a story link or anything that says this or are you assuming?

4 hours 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. 

Eichel: uber-talented, but not a leader. Jack is succeeding in Vegas because they have locker room leaders. 

[JustOneParade]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

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. 

 

Totally agree here @JohnC. And my greater fear (as has been mentioned by others previously) is the collateral damage that will be done if Tuch isn't signed and he walks or is moved at the deadline. It will pale in comparison (beyond 25-26) to losing the skills and production of the player himself. What players would want to stay here, re-sign here, or want to accept a trade to come here? If KA thinks this is hard now ....

Is the start of the season next week an unofficial deadline?

Edited 1 hour ago by JustOneParade
Trimming

[JohnC]

32 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Eichel: uber-talented, but not a leader. Jack is succeeding in Vegas because they have locker room leaders. 

Most people would agree with you that he wasn't much of a leader. And that shouldn't be a surprise because he was too young and inexperienced to have the captaincy and leadership responsibilities thrust on him. That miscalculation was an organizational mistake. What Jack understood, as did Reinhart and Ullmark, is that this franchise as it was structured had little chance to succeed. He was proven to be right, as were Reinhart and Ullmark. It shouldn't be a surprise that their respective careers in three different locations thrived once they got away from this Pegula run franchise. 

[tom webster]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Most people would agree with you that he wasn't much of a leader. And that shouldn't be a surprise because he was too young and inexperienced to have the captaincy and leadership responsibilities thrust on him. That miscalculation was an organizational mistake. What Jack understood, as did Reinhart and Ullmark, is that this franchise as it was structured had little chance to succeed. He was proven to be right, as were Reinhart and Ullmark. It shouldn't be a surprise that their respective careers in three different locations thrived once they got away from this Pegula run franchise. 

Ullmark and Reinhart were both ready to sign here which would lead to the conclusion that, if you are right, they really didn’t care as long as they got paid.

[mjd1001]

I'm not sure why but in the past 2 to 3 days... With no new information... I've totally changed my thinking on how I would want theSabres to handle this. 

My thinking is lock him up to a long-term deal only if it's a very team-friendly deal. I don't mean lowball him in an embarrassing way, but don't overpay and make sure you're not at the top of the market. 

You have him this year. My thinking is if he's reluctant to sign the deal you put in front of them then play out the year. 

If you are having a bad year and it looks like you're going to miss the playoffs, and he's having a good year, then, if he's willing to move, move him to another team. The assets you might be able to get back could be just as good as a 30 plus-year-old aging Alex Tuch.

If his play starts visibly declining this year because he is starting to show signs of being a 30-year-old winger, then you dodged a bullet by not giving him $80 million. 

Finally, if the team plays well and makes the playoffs, and he's a big part of it, then in the off-season you negotiate with him just like everyone else would. By making the playoffs and being his hometown team, at least you're not at a disadvantage against other teams, and I don't think another team will offer him a long-term deal for much more than what you would have to do, again,to get a 30-year-old aging winger. 

Maybe he'd be resentful against the team for not giving him what he wanted. I doubt that, but if he was and he signed someplace else anyway, then use that $10 million a year to allocated someplace else, again... Not on a 30 to 38-year-old winger.

I don't know why but for the past year....up until 2 or 3 days ago....my thinking was sign him at any cost. Now I'm just as willing to let the season play out and see how things go.

[JohnC]

25 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Ullmark and Reinhart were both ready to sign here which would lead to the conclusion that, if you are right, they really didn’t care as long as they got paid.

There was no question that both players were ready and willing to sign here. So, what then what happened? The organization hesitated giving them the type of contract extension they would have signed at the earlier time. The organization made a decision not to do so. So both players waited it out and then ended up in better places for themselves. As I stated in a prior post, if this organization would have been more competently run, Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark would still be here. 

[JohnC]

30 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not sure why but in the past 2 to 3 days... With no new information... I've totally changed my thinking on how I would want theSabres to handle this. 

My thinking is lock him up to a long-term deal only if it's a very team-friendly deal. I don't mean lowball him in an embarrassing way, but don't overpay and make sure you're not at the top of the market. 

You have him this year. My thinking is if he's reluctant to sign the deal you put in front of them then play out the year. 

If you are having a bad year and it looks like you're going to miss the playoffs, and he's having a good year, then, if he's willing to move, move him to another team. The assets you might be able to get back could be just as good as a 30 plus-year-old aging Alex Tuch.

If his play starts visibly declining this year because he is starting to show signs of being a 30-year-old winger, then you dodged a bullet by not giving him $80 million. 

Finally, if the team plays well and makes the playoffs, and he's a big part of it, then in the off-season you negotiate with him just like everyone else would. By making the playoffs and being his hometown team, at least you're not at a disadvantage against other teams, and I don't think another team will offer him a long-term deal for much more than what you would have to do, again,to get a 30-year-old aging winger. 

Maybe he'd be resentful against the team for not giving him what he wanted. I doubt that, but if he was and he signed someplace else anyway, then use that $10 million a year to allocated someplace else, again... Not on a 30 to 38-year-old winger.

I don't know why but for the past year....up until 2 or 3 days ago....my thinking was sign him at any cost. Now I'm just as willing to let the season play out and see how things go.

Although your response is well reasoned I still to a great degree disagree with your general point. It should be noted that the return for him in a deal would be minimal due to his current contract status. And it should be noted that it's very probable that a Tuch departure would hurt the team. There is a context/history here that hangs over this middling franchise i.e. a generation of not qualifying for the playoffs when nearly half the teams in the league qualify for it. It's about the now and demonstrating a sense of urgency to a rapidly diminishing fanbase. I'm not overly concerned about the back end of Tuch's next contract. Tuch is in his prime now. If he can stay within that high performance level for the first half of his extended deal, I would call it a good deal for this forlorn franchise.