Jim Bob
RIP RJ
Given that Malenstyn hasn't played a single game as a Sabre, I can understand why the player and the team didn't want a 4+ year deal.
Confirmed with Link: [7/23/24] Sabres sign Beck Malenstyn 2 years, $1.35m AAV
- Thread starter BUCKSHOT
- Start date
HOOats
born Ruffian
Feels like the right balance of risk for us.
I imagine that if he and the team have success in the next two years, both parties will have an appetite to keep the relationship going despite UFA status.
And if he has a Joshua sort of impact, he could be looking at an even nicer payday at the end of it, especially with how teams are pushing for more of that style of player in depth roles.
If he's what they think he is would have been happy to sign him much longer. The penalty for burying a contract like this is minimal.
MOGlLNY
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2008
- 11,976
- 12,008
works for me. If he ends up pricing himself out of here at the end of 2 years that means it was a damn good trade on our end and we likely succeeded with him in the lineup.
Zman5778
Moderator
New Sabres Embedded coming on the Beck Malenstyn trade.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
I am guessing that it might be way more than just that trade and it's about the draft and perhaps the draft and the first week of FA.
SundherDome
Y'all have to much power
Plus the second year is the 6 million dollar Skinner year, so it mitigates that a bit
joshjull
Registered User
SundherDome
Y'all have to much power
NotABadPeriod
ForFriendshipDikembe
- Oct 28, 2006
- 52,528
- 9,568
Does this deal buy a year of UFA? Or does it walk him there?
Not a big deal for a 4th liner, but always nice when you have team control to get UFA years bought.
Not a big deal for a 4th liner, but always nice when you have team control to get UFA years bought.
SundherDome
Y'all have to much power
- Mar 10, 2012
- 4,978
- 2,722
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
I don't really think one year difference is that big of a deal. Plus, Malenstyn's deal lining up with Lindy's deal might not be a coincidence.
joshjull
Registered User
I'm just going through the old posts on this thread. Boy are they hilarious. Beck and AK were 2/3rds of the best 4th line in the league that, along with Charlie Lindgren, dragged that corpse of a Caps team to the playoffs. With Defense and Goaltending. Think about that. This is a cup caliber 4th line. Let's see if the rest of this line up can figure it the f*** out.
Zman5778
Moderator
The ONLY concern.......did Beck and NAK benefit from Dowd? Because there is a decent drop in quality from Dowd to Lafferty.
I think our 4th line will be just fine, but there is that nagging concern in the back of the brain.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
WhereAreTheCookies
Registered User
I think we'll see Mcleod centering them at some point also. Mcleod seems like a decent fit there given what Oilers fan said about him. Solid defensively but not physical, which between those two he wouldn't necessarily need to be. You can always rotate NAK and Lafferty on the wing, though that would mean Krebs ends up centering the 3rd line which isn't ideal, but Krebs did have good xGF% numbers when he was with Benson.
Just no. Krebs is the insurance for 3/4C. Mcleod dropping down means he is shitty. We don't want this at all.
WhereAreTheCookies
Registered User
Dropping down probably won't mean much with that line. If they are being relied upon defensively they're going to get their minutes. Hecht is a great example. He was mostly considered the 3C but he played 18 - 19 minutes a game during the Drury/Briere years. Malenstyn and Mcleod had the exact same minutes per game last season, though split a little differently as Malenstyn played more on the PK.
If you're rolling out a line in the defensive zone to try and turn possession, you're going to want the guy with the best chance at winning the face-off. If Mcleod ends up being the better or more consistent face-off guy then that's probably who you go with.
You are contradicting yourself. If he is that reliable, you aren't going to drop him down to the 4th line. Can you give him extra shifts for specific situations, sure. EDM had Mcdavid and Draisaitl, of course Mcleod had low minutes. You don't put Mcleod on the 4th line for being good at faceoffs. You forgot Lafferty is the 4C anyways.
WhereAreTheCookies
Registered User
How is it a contradiction? The problem is assuming that line number indicates minutes played and simply put it does not. Labeling them the 4th line doesn't automatically mean they'll play less minutes than what the 3rd line plays. Usage will play a factor along with how the game develops. If they are finding themselves hemmed into their own zone more often that line will see more ice time.
I didn't forget Lafferty is the 4C because they haven't played a single game yet. We don't know Lafferty is the 4C, it's all speculation at this point until Ruff and the team take the ice.
joshjull
Registered User
I’m not worried about it because I don’t expect them to have the same absurd deployment here as they did with the Caps.
