I have long argued that for offer sheets...to be effective, they need to be deployed on second- and third-tier players.
Can't see any of those happening. We will likely give him a better deal than any other team.Travis Yost writes:
I don't believe any teams is after Mittlestadt.
****
Armchair GM's:
If Casey signed an offersheet for one year $6.1M, would you match or take the 1st and 3rd?
If Casy signed an offersheet for 4 years a $4.1M AAV, would you match or take the 2nd round pick?
Travis Yost writes:
I don't believe any teams is after Mittlestadt.
****
Armchair GM's:
If Casey signed an offersheet for one year $6.1M, would you match or take the 1st and 3rd?
If Casy signed an offersheet for 4 years a $4.1M AAV, would you match or take the 2nd round pick?
I would take the 1st and a 3rd if he got the 1x$6.1M OS and I would match the 4x$4.1M OS.
$4.1M is likely to be a slight overpay over the next four years. And a 2nd isn't enough for me to give up Mitts.
But, $6.1M and the QO implications moving forward is a massive overpayment. So, I would take the picks.
6.1 is an easy walk away and take the picks.
4.1M is more than a slightly overpay. It's more than double his market rate. But, since he's young and we have the option for the 1/3 buyout later if it bombs.
But, nobody is wasting an offersheet on a project middle 6 center. There's zero chance we don't match it and it's not like it'll screw up our cap situation. All it would do is mess up the signings team cap and piss off the Sabres.
Travis Yost writes:
I don't believe any teams is after Mittlestadt.
****
Armchair GM's:
If Casey signed an offersheet for one year $6.1M, would you match or take the 1st and 3rd?
If Casy signed an offersheet for 4 years a $4.1M AAV, would you match or take the 2nd round pick?
I’d match both as well for the same reason. But no one is giving him an offersheet nor likely anyone else on our team. The cap space you mentioned being the reason why. We can match anything and can ride out an overpayment for several years. It would make the odds of success for the team making the OS pretty close of zero.No one's OS'ing Mitts, but I'd match either, even if they're overpays. We're not hurting for cap space. We are hurting for center talent.
On top of that, we have the cap space and assets to make a revenge offer sheet, which is the buzzword of the week.I’d match both as well for the same reason. But no one is giving him an offersheet nor likely anyone else on our team. The cap space you mentioned being the reason why. We can match anything and can ride out an overpayment for several years. It would make the odds of success for the team making the OS pretty close of zero.
I would take four years at 4.1 million. I would take the 1st and the 3rd over a one year $6.1M contract.Travis Yost writes:
I don't believe any team is after Mittlestadt.
****
Armchair GM's:
If Casey signed an offersheet for one year $6.1M, would you match or take the 1st and 3rd?
If Casy signed an offersheet for 4 years a $4.1M AAV, would you match or take the 2nd round pick?
No one's OS'ing Mitts, but I'd match either, even if they're overpays. We're not hurting for cap space. We are hurting for center talent.
In that scenario it isn't a 1st and 3rd; it's a 1st,3rd and getting out of a horrific QO.
“Horrific QO” is a bit melodramatic. There are also more things involved in this scenario than your post touches on.
-Mitts is 1 of only 2 top 6 center possibilities on the roster/in system at the moment. (Cozens is the other/I’m assuming an Eichel trade)
-We won’t be up against the cap for a few years.
Matching an offersheet like that for Mitts would be about how confident the organization was in his ability to be the top 6 center. As well as how much pressure they would want to put on Cozens if Mitts left and he was it.
Overpaying Mitts by a lot for a couple years due to his high QO is not the overwhelming negative you think it is. Its certainly not ideal but other factors come into play to determine if the organization would think its worth it.
EDIT: having said the above, I would be shocked if anyone sent an offersheet our way for Mitts or anyone else. We just have way too much cap space.
How else would you describe a 7.3M QO requirement (120% of 6.1)? A player overpaid by that amount causes resentment in the dressing room.
The 120% wouldn't apply in that case. The QO is 100% of the base salary if the base salary is equal to or greater than $1,000,000.
Oh I was going by this which must no longer be in force:
- For players who are on expiring contracts that were signed after July 10, 2020:
- The Qualifying Offer is limited to 120% of their previous contracts annual average (AAV)
- Reference: 2020 NHL CBA extension Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
“Horrific QO” is a bit melodramatic. There are also more things involved in this scenario than your post touches on.
-Mitts is 1 of only 2 top 6 center possibilities on the roster/in system at the moment. (Cozens is the other/I’m assuming an Eichel trade)
-We won’t be up against the cap for a few years.
Matching an offersheet like that for Mitts would be about how confident the organization was in his ability to be the top 6 center. As well as how much pressure they would want to put on Cozens if Mitts left and he was it.
Overpaying Mitts by a lot for a couple years due to his high QO is not the overwhelming negative you think it is. Its certainly not ideal but other factors come into play to determine if the organization would think its worth it.
EDIT: having said the above, I would be shocked if anyone sent an offersheet our way for Mitts or anyone else. We just have way too much cap space.