Alex Tuch extension (poll)

[mjd1001]

39 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

It's not possible to keep everyone.  But, if you traded Quinn and Greenway in the off-season without taking back cap, I think everyone else would fit including Tuch at $10.65 million.  It really wouldn't be that hard to do, and the best teams find ways to do this all the time.  

Just because you CAN give Tuch $10.65m per year and fit it under your cap doesn't mean you should.  I just think even with a rising cap, thats not a contract that will look bad in years 6-8....I think that contract will look bad beyond year 3 when he is in his 33-34 year old season and still have half the deal left.

[gilbert11]

Tuch is one of my favorite players but you just can’t do an 8 year deal that goes out to his age 37 season.  There’s only a small percentage of players that are still going strong at age 35.

[JohnC]

35 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

It's not possible to keep everyone.  But, if you traded Quinn and Greenway in the off-season without taking back cap, I think everyone else would fit including Tuch at $10.65 million.  It really wouldn't be that hard to do, and the best teams find ways to do this all the time.  

Do not trade Quinn! Developing a young player only to see that player thriving wearing a different jersey makes no sense to me. The same shortsighted argument has been made for Samuelsson. Look at him now as an important contributor. Then the get rid of chorus has been sung for Power got loud.  Now it is evident that he is playing better with more talent to tap into. The arguments that were used to deal off those players that are now directed toward Quinn should not be seriously considered. My recommendation is to be patient and stay the course. 

[EM88]

As I think more about this topic, the variables are just too many to make a concrete decision without knowing all that might go into it.

If Tuch wants the Kempe deal it is a hard no for me. That is all I am really certain of.

Then do you trade him at the deadline? It depends on the offers you get and it also depends on your position in the standings. Maybe you get a great offer and you are out of a playoff spot so you trade him. Maybe you don't get a great offer so you keep him as your own rental if you are in a playoff position. Both are variables we do not know.

 In a playoff position, not in a playoff position? Good trade offer, not a good trade offer. We can now  add the variables of is the only way he stays in Buffalo with an 8 year deal, or will he be willing to take 6 or 7?  Then the variable of the AAV. Would he take $10m -11m if it were 6 years, but possibly less money if he gets 8 years?

What is he is willing to take 5 or 6 years at a higher AAV, but the Sabres do not want that. They would prefer to give him 8 years at a slightly lower AAV because they are also negotiating with Doan and Kesserling and Benson and others, and they need a lower AAV next season to make them all fit under the cap?  It is possible Tuch may go with a shorter term, but it does not fit in with the cap next year and possible deals the Sabres have already lined up for those young guys.

What the Sabres are willing to give Tuch in both Term and length may be more determined by ongoing conversations with the agents of Doan, Kesserling, Benson, and maybe even Krebs, rather than the player that Alex Tuch is himself.

Maybe you make room for Tuch and all of those guys by trading a Jack Quinn or a Ukko Pekka Luukonen. However with a new GM, any work that was done on those possible moves with other teams by Kevin Adams may have to start over with a new GM.  That takes time.

So many things we do not know that are probably going back and forth in the negotiations at the moment.

Unless he is traded or signed here before the end of the year, he can only get a 6 year deal. I am sure he would like an 8 year deal. As time goes on, possibly you can convince him to take a 6 or 7 year deal, or you can give him 8 years but at a lower cost than Kempe.  It is a negotiation. It is somewhat a game of chicken. Who blinks first, or can you meet in the middle as the clock runs out on his current contract?

No for me on 8 years at $11m per year, but that is the only absolute I can say. Beyond that I could be convinced a 6 years deal at a high AAV is good. An 8 year deal at a lower AAV is good. I could be convinced a trade is good, even for futures. I could be convinced letting this deal run out and taking chances in the offseason is good. 

I want to pick one point on this topic and put my foot down, stick a flag in the ground and stick with it. I just can't with so many other dominos that can fall based on this decision.

Edited December 29, 2025 by EM88

[Archie Lee]

28 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Just because you CAN give Tuch $10.65m per year and fit it under your cap doesn't mean you should.  I just think even with a rising cap, thats not a contract that will look bad in years 6-8....I think that contract will look bad beyond year 3 when he is in his 33-34 year old season and still have half the deal left.

Well, these are two different things. The post I was responding to was you indicating that signing Tuch would create trouble for the Sabres with keeping Doan, Benson, Kesselring. I was just pointing out, that I don’t think it does cause such trouble. It’s very doable.

[Archie Lee]

22 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Do not trade Quinn! Developing a young player only to see that player thriving wearing a different jersey makes no sense to me. The same shortsighted argument has been made for Samuelsson. Look at him now as an important contributor. Then the get rid of chorus has been sung for Power got loud.  Now it is evident that he is playing better with more talent to tap into. The arguments that were used to deal off those players that are now directed toward Quinn should not be seriously considered. My recommendation is to be patient and stay the course. 

Quinn and Greenway are just examples of two contracts that, if jettisoned, would provide space for Tuch. That said, at some point you bump up against reality. You can’t keep everyone. Not even everyone that @JohnC likes. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, EM88 said:

As I think more about this topic, the variables are just too many to make a concrete decision without knowing all that might go into it.

If Tuch wants the Kempe deal it is a hard no for me. That is all I am really certain of.

Then do you trade him at the deadline? It depends on the offers you get and it also depends on your position in the standings. Maybe you get a great offer and you are out of a playoff spot so you trade him. Maybe you don't get a great offer so you keep him as your own rental if you are in a playoff position. Both are variables we do not know.

 In a playoff position, not in a playoff position? Good trade offer, not a good trade offer. We can now  add the variables of is the only way he stays in Buffalo with an 8 year deal, or will he be willing to take 6 or 7?  Then the variable of the AAV. Would he take $10m -11m if it were 6 years, but possibly less money if he gets 8 years?

What is he is willing to take 5 or 6 years at a higher AAV, but the Sabres do not want that. They would prefer to give him 8 years at a slightly lower AAV because they are also negotiating with Doan and Kesserling and Benson and others, and they need a lower AAV next season to make them all fit under the cap?  It is possible Tuch may go with a shorter term, but it does not fit in with the cap next year and possible deals the Sabres have already lined up for those young guys.

What the Sabres are willing to give Tuch in both Term and length may be more determined by ongoing conversations with the agents of Doan, Kesserling, Benson, and maybe even Krebs, rather than the player that Alex Tuch is himself.

Maybe you make room for Tuch and all of those guys by trading a Jack Quinn or a Ukko Pekka Luukonen. However with a new GM, any work that was done on those possible moves with other teams by Kevin Adams may have to start over with a new GM.  That takes time.

So many things we do not know that are probably going back and forth in the negotiations at the moment.

Unless he is traded or signed here before the end of the year, he can only get a 6 year deal. I am sure he would like an 8 year deal. As time goes on, possibly you can convince him to take a 6 or 7 year deal, or you can give him 8 years but at a lower cost than Kempe.  It is a negotiation. It is somewhat a game of chicken. Who blinks first, or can you meet in the middle as the clock runs out on his current contract?

No for me on 8 years at $11m per year, but that is the only absolute I can say. Beyond that I could be convinced a 6 years deal at a high AAV is good. An 8 year deal at a lower AAV is good. I could be convinced a trade is good, even for futures. I could be convinced letting this deal run out and taking chances in the offseason is good. 

I want to pick one point on this topic and put my foot down, stick a flag in the ground and stick with it. I just can't with so many other dominos that can fall based on this decision.

Without knowing any of the varialbles, want them to try to sign him now but if they can't then keep him until July 1 (or close thereto if they think doing a solid for him someway gets them karma credits; which personally doubt would be the case) if they can't get a deal done now to his liking.  Let him know what the offer would be after July 1 and hope he finds that it's close enough to what he'd get elsewhere to continue "livin' the dream."  And be willing to overpay a smidge (versus what he'll truly be worth in years 5&6, not vs what other teams might give him) because he's been a good soldier and has been one of the best advocates for this team they've had in a very long time.  THAT SHOULD be worth something.  MHO.

Edited December 29, 2025 by Taro T
Stupid autocucumber

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Quinn and Greenway are just examples of two contracts that, if jettisoned, would provide space for Tuch. That said, at some point you bump up against reality. You can’t keep everyone. Not even everyone that @JohnC likes. 

The retention preference I have been emphasizing mostly relates to particular young players that I believe have more upside to give.

The Sabres will soon have a cap challenge to deal with just like every team in the league has or will have. It’s a challenging puzzle that all GMs deal with.I’m not minimizing the issue. No question that tough decisions will have to be made.

[SABRES 0311]

3 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Who would trade a top six forward for a top six forward that's about to get a hefty payday at year's end?

If the Sabres trade Tuch for another forward, it's gonna be someone like we already have plenty of:  Östlund, Kulich, Rosén, etc.  

Our biggest needs are experienced Dmen and 1G.  Right now the team is functioning pretty good.  Other teams would want Tuch and one of our goalies (likely Lyon) to fork over a true 1G.  But what team wants to take a downgrade at goalie?

On defense, the Sabres could use a playoff experienced defensive blue liner.  I think if Tuch is moved, it will be expiring contract for expiring contract

2026 Free Agent Dmen

• John Carlson (Washington Capitals)
• Rasmus Andersson (Calgary Flames)
• Ryan McDonagh (Nashville Predators)
• Jamie Oleksiak (Seattle Kraken)
• Connor Murphy (Chicago Blackhawks)
• Mike Matheson (Pittsburgh Penguins)
• Mario Ferraro (San Jose Sharks)
• Jacob Trouba (New York Rangers)
• Brett Kulak (Edmonton Oilers)
• Radko Gudas (Anaheim Ducks)
• Mathew Dumba (Pittsburgh Penguins)
• Erik Gudbranson (Columbus Blue Jackets)
• John Klingberg (Toronto Maple Leafs)

Maybe they could turn it into a player that expires in 2027

• Erik Karlsson (Pittsburgh Penguins)
• Drew Doughty (Los Angeles Kings)
• Justin Faulk (St. Louis Blues)
• Dmitry Orlov (St. Louis Blues)
• Torey Krug (St. Louis Blues)
• Brent Burns (Colorado Avalanche)
• Matt Grzelcyk (Boston Bruins)
• Vladislav Gavrikov (New York Rangers) 

So who wants Tuch until the end of the season?  Or are the Sabres better off keeping him as a rental?

Fine, trade him for a Dman or anything else we need. Just don’t wait until the deadline. It’s so early in the season that many teams have playoff hopes and would view Tuch as a huge piece, I think.

Waiting until the deadline shallows that pool of teams. If said trade partner views Tuch as a rental because he doesn’t have a contract and they are already playoff bound, I don’t see a max return.

[Doohickie]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No offense by I think it's certifiable to list some of these expiring contracts in some sort of Tuch deal. For example I'm fairly certain Dumba was either scratched or waived before Christmas. 

No offense taken.  I just put lists of expiring contracts going to UFA, just to give an idea what's out there.  If I was ambitious I would have assessed each one but I'm lazy.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do not trade Quinn! Developing a young player only to see that player thriving wearing a different jersey makes no sense to me. The same shortsighted argument has been made for Samuelsson. Look at him now as an important contributor. Then the get rid of chorus has been sung for Power got loud.  Now it is evident that he is playing better with more talent to tap into. The arguments that were used to deal off those players that are now directed toward Quinn should not be seriously considered. My recommendation is to be patient and stay the course. 

I think Quinn is taking a developmental step (and that's been feeding into the streak), but in my mind the jury's still out on him.  I saw him and JJP untouchable last season yet I think we're better for the trade that moved JJP.  I think Quinn is likely to mature into a good player, but still not sure.  I don't want to trade him, but I'm not going to be crushed if he goes.

[Porous Five Hole]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

Do not trade Quinn! Developing a young player only to see that player thriving wearing a different jersey makes no sense to me. The same shortsighted argument has been made for Samuelsson. Look at him now as an important contributor. Then the get rid of chorus has been sung for Power got loud.  Now it is evident that he is playing better with more talent to tap into. The arguments that were used to deal off those players that are now directed toward Quinn should not be seriously considered. My recommendation is to be patient and stay the course. 

If the Sabres moved Quinn and slotted Östlund there instead, would anyone even notice?

[TageMVP]

Just sign Tuch already. Get it done 

[Porous Five Hole]

Just now, TageMVP said:

Just sign Tuch already. Get it done 

Given that two GMs haven’t made it happen, I’m suspecting Tuch’s ask is 10.5MM or more. I really like the player, but not in years 5-8 at that number. 

[TageMVP]

1 minute ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Given that two GMs haven’t made it happen, I’m suspecting Tuch’s ask is 10.5MM or more. I really like the player, but not in years 5-8 at that number. 

Why are you worried about in 5 years? 

[Porous Five Hole]

Just now, TageMVP said:

Why are you worried about in 5 years? 

Because that’s how this goes. Decisions aren’t made in a one year vacuum. I would rather not commit a significant percentage of the cap to a player who will likely decline each year. 

[TageMVP]

1 minute ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Because that’s how this goes. Decisions aren’t made in a one year vacuum. I would rather not commit a significant percentage of the cap to a player who will likely decline each year. 

I dont know man he's 29 not 39. Im not worried about 5 years down the road and im not even sure that he'd get progressively worse every year. Just buy him out in year 5 if he regresses hard 

[Weave]

7 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

If the Sabres moved Quinn and slotted Östlund there instead, would anyone even notice?

Yes. In a good way.

[mjd1001]

7 hours ago, TageMVP said:

I dont know man he's 29 not 39. Im not worried about 5 years down the road and im not even sure that he'd get progressively worse every year. Just buy him out in year 5 if he regresses hard 

I'm not saying to never sign a veteran for a little bit more money. You do need to do that. 

And it's not about him being 29. It's about him being 30 when the new contract starts. They already have him this year at age 29. And it's not about buying him out 5 years from now, it's about how the contract may not be worth it in 2 to 3 years from now.

But some of us watch his game and are pretty sure he's already starting to regress, especially his skating. The second point is, not worrying about an aging player on a bad contract at all.. gets you into a situation like you have with Jeff Skinner's contract. 

I keep on hearing people who want to sign him to that big deal say that other teams do it all the time. Yeah, and some of them are successful, and some of them aren't. I just don't want this team blindly throwing money at a player who's getting older... And is.. for sure... Starting to show signs that he is slowing a little and his metrics are supporting that.

You give him the money and it's not in a vacuum. It's also about opportunity cost. What else could you do with that money? And what are you prevented from doing because you give him $11 million per year long-term?

Edited December 30, 2025 by mjd1001

[Jorcus]

43 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not saying to never sign a veteran for a little bit more money. You do need to do that. 

And it's not about him being 29. It's about him being 30 when the new contract starts. They already have him this year at age 29. And it's not about buying him out 5 years from now, it's about how the contract may not be worth it in 2 to 3 years from now.

But some of us watch his game and are pretty sure he's already starting to regress, especially his skating. The second point is, not worrying about an aging player on a bad contract at all.. gets you into a situation like you have with Jeff Skinner's contract. 

I keep on hearing people who want to sign him to that big deal say that other teams do it all the time. Yeah, and some of them are successful, and some of them aren't. I just don't want this team blindly throwing money at a player who's getting older... And is.. for sure... Starting to show signs that he is slowing a little and his metrics are supporting that.

You give him the money and it's not in a vacuum. It's also about opportunity cost. What else could you do with that money? And what are you prevented from doing because you give him $11 million per year long-term?

Current Alex Tuch value to the Sabres

2nd in goals

2nd in assists

2nd in forward ice time

3rd in plus minus. Just overtaken by Zach Metsa.

Gets those numbers despite not getting 1st unit power play time.

On pace to match last years numbers. 

You just can't replace a 6'4'' power forward with anyone else on this roster. Finding a trade of equal value because we don't want to pay the market rate is not a likely outcome. Trading Tuch is losing the opportunity to win now vs sometime maybe in the future. Tuch is better all around than Kempe. Expecting to get him for less is a dream. It's easier to replace almost anyone else on the roster not named Dahlin or Thompson than it is to replace Tuch. The Wild could have moved on Kaprizov but they paid him a max contract because he can not be replaced by anyone available to them. No one is available to us that can replace Tuch. 

[Archie Lee]

31 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

Current Alex Tuch value to the Sabres

2nd in goals

2nd in assists

2nd in forward ice time

3rd in plus minus. Just overtaken by Zach Metsa.

Gets those numbers despite not getting 1st unit power play time.

On pace to match last years numbers. 

You just can't replace a 6'4'' power forward with anyone else on this roster. Finding a trade of equal value because we don't want to pay the market rate is not a likely outcome. Trading Tuch is losing the opportunity to win now vs sometime maybe in the future. Tuch is better all around than Kempe. Expecting to get him for less is a dream. It's easier to replace almost anyone else on the roster not named Dahlin or Thompson than it is to replace Tuch. The Wild could have moved on Kaprizov but they paid him a max contract because he can not be replaced by anyone available to them. No one is available to us that can replace Tuch. 

I basically agree with this.  Which doesn't mean that the contract won't be bad in the back half.  It almost certainly will be bad.  But I think the rising cap will mean they can transition Tuch to being an overpaid bottom six leader. For years I thought the Okposo deal was a barrier to the team winning, when it never really was. At the end of his $6 million per year deal Okposo was an overpaid bottom six leader, but the team wasn't losing because of his contract. 

It's quite reasonable to consider all options, but I think on balance the best thing is to retain Tuch. Who knows, maybe if the Sabres solidify themselves in a playoff position then Tuch will look at the bigger picture and accept $9 - $9.5.  I don't know what Tuch's priorities are and I won't judge them. But, I do think that the $10.5 to $11 million ask is likely, at least in part, related to the Sabres not being the greatest environment. Maybe winning changes that.   

Edited December 30, 2025 by Archie Lee

[mjd1001]

31 minutes ago, Jorcus said:

Current Alex Tuch value to the Sabres

2nd in goals

2nd in assists

2nd in forward ice time

3rd in plus minus. Just overtaken by Zach Metsa.

Gets those numbers despite not getting 1st unit power play time.

On pace to match last years numbers. 

You just can't replace a 6'4'' power forward with anyone else on this roster. Finding a trade of equal value because we don't want to pay the market rate is not a likely outcome. Trading Tuch is losing the opportunity to win now vs sometime maybe in the future. Tuch is better all around than Kempe. Expecting to get him for less is a dream. It's easier to replace almost anyone else on the roster not named Dahlin or Thompson than it is to replace Tuch. The Wild could have moved on Kaprizov but they paid him a max contract because he can not be replaced by anyone available to them. No one is available to us that can replace Tuch. 

I think I'm about ready to take a break from arguing about Alex tuck after this post. So I'm going to go on a little bit of a rant here.

It is not about what he is now.  You have him NOW. This is about the next 8 years.

He might give you 30 goals right now and you don't want to lose that but guess what? You can bring back Alex tuck the person but through the length of his contract you're not getting Alex Tuch the player the way he is. He's extremely valuable to the team now, but... Whether you let him go or whether you sign him to an 8-year deal, you're not going to have that player for long. You keep him and in the next year or two you're going to have a different player.

It's not about what he's been for the past 2 years. 

It may not even be what he's about next year. 

It's about what he's going to be for the duration of the contract. 

Kempe was an overpay. Plain and simple. How about we compare him to somebody else who took a little bit of a different type of hometown discount, McDavid? 

I do not, nor have I ever had a problem with how good Alex Tuck is now. 

For me it is about the fact his metrics are starting to have a slow, but clear decline. The underlying metrics and his skating metrics. As discussed in other threads that is undeniable. 

If Alex took is someone's favorite player and they want him at any cost, fine. If someone is only worried about the optics being good for how the team treats a player fine. 

Of course any of us including myself could be wrong. But if they sign him for the big dollar deal, it's going to be a mistake, it's going to be a mistake that hurts this team for the majority of the deal, possibly as early as next year. 

Again, I don't care what his numbers were last year. I don't care what they are this year. You have him signed for this year. We're talking about next year for the next 8 years.

He could still be a usable player later in the next contract. He could still be valuable in the community and likely will. He can still be a leader on the team. But not for $88 million over the next 8 years. 

If those are his demands, then he's making the decision about his time with this franchise... It's up to him.

You know why McDavid is a great player and a great leader? He took a ton of money but not as much as he could, because he wanted to make sure the team could make other moves. 

I'm not saying Tuch should sign a 3-year deal for $20 million... But I'm saying him pushing for what the rumors are... That's not much of a leader when you're trying to get every single cent for yourself when your team is going to be up against the cap with its new young core coming up for contracts. 

A lot of guys do that I realize, but stop with this... He's such a leader! He's so important to the room! He's all about the team!. Not if he's denanding for 8 years and close to 88 million he isn't..

He can ask for it... But if that's his line in the Sand? Nope.

Now if he ends up coming in and signing a 6-year deal for $55 million, then great. It was a negotiating tactic and they met in the middle. But if he wants that Adrian Kempe deal... Then that's an overpay. It was for Kempe and it will be for him. That's the kind of deal that hurts your team through half to 3/4 of the contract.

Edited December 30, 2025 by mjd1001

[Pimlach]

7 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I think I'm about ready to take a break from arguing about Alex tuck after this post. 

It is not about what he is now.  You have him NOW. This is about the next 8 years.

It's not about what he's been for the past 2 years. 

It may not even be what he's about next year. 

It's about what he's going to be for the duration of the contract. 

Kempe was an overpay. Plain and simple. How about we compare him to somebody else who took a little bit of a different type of hometown discount, McDavid? 

I do not, nor have I ever had a problem with how good Alex Tuck is now. 

For me it is about the fact his metrics are starting to have a slow, but clear decline. The underlying metrics and his skating metrics. As discussed in other threads that is undeniable. 

If Alex took is someone's favorite player and they want him at any cost, fine. If someone is only worried about the optics being good for how the team treats a player fine. 

Of course any of us including myself could be wrong. But if they sign him for the big dollar deal, it's going to be a mistake, it's going to be a mistake that hurts this team for the majority of the deal, possibly as early as next year. 

Again, I don't care what his numbers were last year. I don't care what they are this year. You have him signed for this year. We're talking about next year for the next 8 years.

No team would ever sign a player older than 27 for any longer than 6 years using this kind of rigid thought process.  

 

[mjd1001]

15 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

No team would ever sign a player older than 27 for any longer than 6 years using this kind of rigid thought process.

He's going to be 30, not 27 when the new contract starts. 

We're discussing that he might be looking for 8 years, not 6 years. 

And how many of those players are below Superstar level but are asking for over 10% of the salary cap in year one? Not many.

Those  facts TOTALLY change the conversation.

If he were 27 years old when the new contract starts and he wanted 6 years? I'd be all for doing that at $11 million per year for him. But that's simply not the case.

Edited December 30, 2025 by mjd1001

[Jorcus]

27 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I think I'm about ready to take a break from arguing about Alex tuck after this post. So I'm going to go on a little bit of a rant here.

It is not about what he is now.  You have him NOW. This is about the next 8 years.

He might give you 30 goals right now and you don't want to lose that but guess what? You can bring back Alex tuck the person but through the length of his contract you're not getting Alex Tuch the player the way he is. He's extremely valuable to the team now, but... Whether you let him go or whether you sign him to an 8-year deal, you're not going to have that player for long. You keep him and in the next year or two you're going to have a different player.

It's not about what he's been for the past 2 years. 

It may not even be what he's about next year. 

It's about what he's going to be for the duration of the contract. 

Kempe was an overpay. Plain and simple. How about we compare him to somebody else who took a little bit of a different type of hometown discount, McDavid? 

I do not, nor have I ever had a problem with how good Alex Tuck is now. 

For me it is about the fact his metrics are starting to have a slow, but clear decline. The underlying metrics and his skating metrics. As discussed in other threads that is undeniable. 

If Alex took is someone's favorite player and they want him at any cost, fine. If someone is only worried about the optics being good for how the team treats a player fine. 

Of course any of us including myself could be wrong. But if they sign him for the big dollar deal, it's going to be a mistake, it's going to be a mistake that hurts this team for the majority of the deal, possibly as early as next year. 

Again, I don't care what his numbers were last year. I don't care what they are this year. You have him signed for this year. We're talking about next year for the next 8 years.

He could still be a usable player later in the next contract. He could still be valuable in the community and likely will. He can still be a leader on the team. But not for $88 million over the next 8 years. 

If those are his demands, then he's making the decision about his time with this franchise... It's up to him.

You know why McDavid is a great player and a great leader? He took a ton of money but not as much as he could, because he wanted to make sure the team could make other moves. 

I'm not saying Tuch should sign a 3-year deal for $20 million... But I'm saying him pushing for what the rumors are... That's not much of a leader when you're trying to get every single cent for yourself when your team is going to be up against the cap with its new young core coming up for contracts. 

A lot of guys do that I realize, but stop with this... He's such a leader! He's so important to the room! He's all about the team!. Not if he's denanding for 8 years and close to 88 million he isn't..

He can ask for it... But if that's his line in the Sand? Nope.

Now if he ends up coming in and signing a 6-year deal for $55 million, then great. It was a negotiating tactic and they met in the middle. But if he wants that Adrian Kempe deal... Then that's an overpay. It was for Kempe and it will be for him. That's the kind of deal that hurts your team through half to 3/4 of the contract.

I know if he gets that contract it's probably an overpay at some point. Don't know why McDavid did what he did other than he did not want to be treated like LeBron  James when he first left Cleveland. I don't expect Tuch is going to do something like that. If you want to try and win in the next 1 to 4 year window you sign him. If you want to stay on the Adams type plan and wait a few more years for some other Tuch type player to grow into his roll OK good luck. I reiterate no one is available to us that can replace Tuch right now that I know of. He has been on an a very kind contract for his production, I would not blame him for getting what he can for being in the right place at the right time. I could lay that take one for the team contract stuff on just about everyone not named McDavid in the NHL. That is not a fair way of evaluating Tuch's leadership.