Roster Speculation part XXII

[joshjull]

Continued from here. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2098607&page=41

Click to read more...

 

[TehDoak]

To continue the Girgenson's talk. I don't think its unreasonable to think that Girgenson's may have requested a trade. He's had his role reduced greatly and the sudden surge of center depth on the team likely is going to hurt his ability to produce offensively and thus earn a paycheck. That would explain the radio silence on any negotiations.

Then again, this is just pure speculation.

 

[Heraldic]

Yes, I think BM would love to have a cost controllable winger in place. But, there are other teams.

Of course he would. But he is already dealing with variables. I doubt he wants more uncertainty and variables when he is more than in a difficult situation already.

If TM wants to give BM a really cost controlled (with 100% certainty) piece to fill a need, there probably isn't a better piece than Larsson. But I doubt he is even close valuable enough to be the center piece.

Working on an extension isn't indicative of anything other than him being a RFA

There always could be rumours or chatter the parties being really far apart etc.

i don't think Girgs is going to get a long term deal. Murray should only be pursuing one if he brings cap value, and Girgs hasn't put up the numbers to get the kind of long term deal that is going bring him monetary value.

You're yourself telling exactly why Murray should pursue a long-term deal with Girgs right now... But, like I said, I doubt Girgs wants to settle on that kind of deal.

I would expect, if he's not traded, that he take the 1 year, prove it deal (Larsson)... or a 2-3 year deal (McCabe) deal.

It's a possibility, but I doubt it would take this long if both parties are looking such a contract. It might be the result, but not the purpose of both parties (perhaps one of the parties).

 

[1972]

To continue the Girgenson's talk. I don't think its unreasonable to think that Girgenson's may have requested a trade. He's had his role reduced greatly and the sudden surge of center depth on the team likely is going to hurt his ability to produce offensively and thus earn a paycheck. That would explain the radio silence on any negotiations.

Then again, this is just pure speculation.

He has a chance to be a top 6 winger or No.3 C here. That's as good of an opportunity as you can ask for.

 

[Heraldic]

To continue the Girgenson's talk. I don't think its unreasonable to think that Girgenson's may have requested a trade. He's had his role reduced greatly and the sudden surge of center depth on the team likely is going to hurt his ability to produce offensively and thus earn a paycheck. That would explain the radio silence on any negotiations.

Then again, this is just pure speculation.

That makes sense if he actually thought he is going to be a permanent top-6 center down the road. But I don't think there has been any rumors or anything him not being fine at the wing as well.

And with our center group, there is more than enough opportunities to have offense as well.

More likely option is that Larsson has requested it, because he hasn't been happy with the bottom-6 role in the history - he was vocal about it back then.

But personally I doubt neither of them are requesting a trade.

 

[Sabreality]

I personally dont think there's a snag in any negotiations for Zemgus or that theres a trade brewing which he's involved in, take a look around the league, dozens upon dozens of RFA's still need to be signed, its only 7/6. I think it'll get done in the next couple of weeks.

 

[TehDoak]

He has a chance to be a top 6 winger or No.3 C here. That's as good of an opportunity as you can ask for.

Long term? O'Reilly just signed a 7 year deal, Eichel and Reinhart, both natural C's, were taken 2nd overall. The earning power of a C in the NHL is higher than a winger. He could nail down the 3C spot next year then lose it the minute the team struggles a bit and they move Reinhart back to C.

 

[Jame]

Of course he would. But he is already dealing with variables. I doubt he wants more uncertainty and variables when he is more than in a difficult situation already.

Fowler for Girgs + 1st creates salary space for him.

If TM wants to give BM a really cost controlled (with 100% certainty) piece to fill a need, there probably isn't a better piece than Larsson. But I doubt he is even close valuable enough to be the center piece.

Neither Girgs nor Larsson are the centerpiece in a top 4 LD deal (Fowler) something along the lines of 2017 1st is.

You're yourself telling exactly why Murray should pursue a long-term deal with Girgs right now... But, like I said, I doubt Girgs wants to settle on that kind of deal.

I illustrated that gap between Murray creating value and Girgs getting money is too great to find a long term contract deal. Doesn't mean they both don't have interest in such a thing.

It's a possibility, but I doubt it would take this long if both parties are looking such a contract. It might be the result, but not the purpose of both parties (perhaps one of the parties).

Why? Mark Pysyk signed his 2 year RFA deal on July 15th last year.

 

[Heraldic]

Fowler for Girgs + 1st creates salary space for him.

Or it creates space to re-sign Lindholm. Ducks are extremely tight spot salary wise. Have you checked their situation?

Neither Girgs nor Larsson are the centerpiece in a top 4 LD deal (Fowler) something along the lines of 2017 1st is.

Probably not. But between both of them Larsson probably has less value (and I know you disagree, so let's not start another havoc. )

I illustrated that gap between Murray creating value and Girgs getting money is too great to find a long term contract deal. Doesn't mean they both don't have interest in such a thing.

If Murray has a clear vision of Girgs, and he wants him to be a long-term piece (as he has informed Girgs' camp before) with as low cap hit as possible, there isn't any better situation to get him under than the season when he had underwhelming numbers. One year with Vesey and Eichel (for example) to shoot his numbers high makes it tons of times harder.

Why? Mark Pysyk signed his 2 year RFA deal on July 15th last year.

And both parties were seeking for that kind of deal from the beginning? And were there other deals made then (with young regular guys) before it?

 

[Djp]

some comments from the last page of prior thread....


neither Foligno nor Girgensons are getting long term contracts.


They gave McCabe a 3 yr deal in part because 2018 they could have a bunch of RFAS/UFAs to decide on. After the deal McCabe is still an RFA (6 yrs in).

On paper Buffalo has 5 prospect wingers in Fasching, Baptiste, Bailey, Carrier, and Nylander. they also have a few other wingers in their depth that could develop. You figure Reinhart or ROR could be a wingerand they signed Okposo.

There is no reason to commit long term to Foligno nor Girgensons.

both area players who could be prone to an offer sheet when you consider roughly $3.3-$3.5M per is just a 2nd round comp. Buffalo wouldn't want to pay him that much. They need to cap space in 18/19 when Eichel and Reinhart are due raises but Ennis and Moulson could still be on the books.

I could see Girgensons+Foligno be part of a trade for Fowler. There expect salary cap hits would roughly equal fowlers.

 

[Heraldic]

neither Foligno nor Girgensons are getting long term contracts.

You sound pretty confident. Based on what?

They gave McCabe a 3 yr deal in part because 2018 they could have a bunch of RFAS/UFAs to decide on. After the deal McCabe is still an RFA (6 yrs in).

You would have given longer term deal to McCabe?

That was basically as long deal as possible to give to a guy finishing his rookie season and who really didn't establish himself on the role he was playing in.

On paper Buffalo has 5 prospect wingers in Fasching, Baptiste, Bailey, Carrier, and Nylander. they also have a few other wingers in their depth that could develop. You figure Reinhart or ROR could be a wingerand they signed Okposo.

There is no reason to commit long term to Foligno nor Girgensons.

How about getting them under a contract which buys 2-4 RFA years to drag the cap hit lower than it would be compared to the situation where you give them now short term deal and another deal after that.

If guys like Fasching, Baptiste etc leap frog them - good. You know you have a solid team and you have valuable assets to trade. Absolutely nothing problematic there.

both area players who could be prone to an offer sheet when you consider roughly $3.3-$3.5M per is just a 2nd round comp. Buffalo wouldn't want to pay him that much. They need to cap space in 18/19 when Eichel and Reinhart are due raises but Ennis and Moulson could still be on the books.

Their far from being prime targets for offersheets. They're second tier pieces at best. Those rarely get offersheeted.

They don't need cap space only 18/19... They need cap space after that as well. And that's the reason you try to get the guys you feel confident in under a long term contract eating as many RFA years as possible. That's exactly the reason you don't bridge Risto, but offer him long-term contract instead.

It's actually not that complicated.

 

[Jame]

Or it creates space to re-sign Lindholm. Ducks are extremely tight spot salary wise. Have you checked their situation?

Yes, I am very familiar with their numbers. I don't interpret them simply to fit a Sabres debate.

Probably not. But between both of them Larsson probably has less value (and I know you disagree, so let's not start another havoc. )

I notices earlier that once again you found a way to interject Larsson

If Murray has a clear vision of Girgs, and he wants him to be a long-term piece (as he has informed Girgs' camp before) with as low cap hit as possible, there isn't any better situation to get him under than the season when he had underwhelming numbers. One year with Vesey and Eichel (for example) to shoot his numbers high makes it tons of times harder.

If Girgs has a clear vision for himself, there isn't a worse time possible to agree to a long term deal.

And both parties were seeking for that kind of deal from the beginning? And were there other deals made then (with young regular guys) before it?

I'll wait for the long term deal you think is being negotiated, but hedged and said wouldn't get done.

 

[Heraldic]

Yes, I am very familiar with their numbers. I don't interpret them simply to fit a Sabres debate.

Then you should know why it is pretty important for BM to know exactly where he is salary wise.

I notices earlier that once again you found a way to interject Larsson

What?

If Girgs has a clear vision for himself, there isn't a worse time possible to agree to a long term deal.

Exactly. That's why I'm not expecting Girgs' side to accept a long term deal. And that's why this is the time for Murray to try to get him under a long term deal if he is confident in Girgs being a long-term piece.

I'll wait for the long term deal you think is being negotiated, but hedged and said wouldn't get done.

Last season Mark Pysyk was the only RFA signing from the regular team... Given we had tons of cap space, the RFA contract talks were priority number zero and likely did start only after free agency.

This year was TOTALLY different. Murray had several regular players on RFA status, and expected cap usage was a lot closer to the maximum. So he absolutely had to start the negotiations pretty fast. That's why we saw the Larsson deal so early, and McCabe deal before the draft as well. It was crucial for Murray to get some kind of idea about the cost of those contracts.

You remember there being any reports before the draft of Murray and Pysyk negotiating last year? I don't.

What is your guess about not getting the deals inked with those players and getting the deal inked so fast with Larsson?

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Fowler + Stoner for Ennis (maybe some salary retained), and a 3rd. Trade Franson to Edm for a 6th. Anaheim sheds some cap, but even more salary. Stoner's cap hit replaces Franson's, but overall Buffalo breaks close to even...maybe adds 1 mil in cap.

Also, with Kulikov being a pending UFA I don't see why TM would abandon the idea of still adding a LHD that he's targeted prior. There's no reason (right now) to think Kulikov should be penciled into the 2017 opening roster. If TM adds Fowler and everything goes well, then TM doesn't have to worry about re-signing Kulikov. I also don't worry about expansion draft stuff since Kulikov doesn't have to be protected anyway. With Fowler, TM can protect Risto, Fowler, and McCabe, and not worry about losing Bogosian. Nelson will be exempt, so there's at least another RHD. If Bogosian is that important (which I doubt) then TM can protect 4-4 if he wants.

 

[SabresFanNorthPortFL]

There is no reason to rush a deal, it's going to be a long summer.....

GMBM needs to get his house in order first. I think GMTM needs to keep his "cards close to his vest" in this instance, let GMBM come to GMTM. You know I want him but I don't need him, and I'm not paying stupid prices.

Other teams are shrinking their cap spaces, so dwindling down the list of teams that are looking...just wait and something will available later in the summer...

 

[joshjull]

Yes, I think BM would love to have a cost controllable winger in place. But, there are other teams.



Working on an extension isn't indicative of anything other than him being a RFA



i don't think Girgs is going to get a long term deal. Murray should only be pursuing one if he brings cap value, and Girgs hasn't put up the numbers to get the kind of long term deal that is going bring him monetary value.

I would expect, if he's not traded, that he take the 1 year, prove it deal (Larsson)... or a 2-3 year deal (McCabe) deal.

Which one year Larsson contract are you referring to? His last two contracts were one year deals.

 

[TehDoak]

There is no reason to rush a deal, it's going to be a long summer.....

GMBM needs to get his house in order first. I think GMTM needs to keep his "cards close to his vest" in this instance, let GMBM come to GMTM. You know I want him but I don't need him, and I'm not paying stupid prices.

Other teams are shrinking their cap spaces, so dwindling down the list of teams that are looking...just wait and something will available later in the summer...

How many GMs can't get to their summer homes till things get sorted though

 

[flashsabre]

if they think Nelson needs seasoning I wouldn't mind signing Justin Schultz for the third pairing and to run the PP. had a good bounce back hear with the Stanley Cup champs and adds more then Franson.

 

[Reddawg]

if they think Nelson needs seasoning I wouldn't mind signing Justin Schultz for the third pairing and to run the PP. had a good bounce back hear with the Stanley Cup champs and adds more then Franson.

Saying that Schultz is a pylon is insulting to pylons. He wouldn't add anything remotely substantial to this team.

 

[sabres4ever]

Is there a date when the free agent signings closes? I can't seem to find any through NHL, EPSN, etc.

 

[Husko]

Is there a date when the free agent signings closes? I can't seem to find any through NHL, EPSN, etc.

As far as I know free agents can be signed anytime year-round? (maybe some playoff exception?)

 

[Jame]

Then you should know why it is pretty important for BM to know exactly where he is salary wise.

He can easily hold the line on Girgs. IF BM is looking for 1st + young top 6 for Fowler, the young top 6 wing being a RFA is NOT a deal breaker.

What?

I noticed earlier that once again you found a way to interject Larsson

Exactly. That's why I'm not expecting Girgs' side to accept a long term deal. And that's why this is the time for Murray to try to get him under a long term deal if he is confident in Girgs being a long-term piece.

ok.

Last season Mark Pysyk was the only RFA signing from the regular team... Given we had tons of cap space, the RFA contract talks were priority number zero and likely did start only after free agency.

Similarly, Girgs isn't a priority right now.

This year was TOTALLY different. Murray had several regular players on RFA status, and expected cap usage was a lot closer to the maximum. So he absolutely had to start the negotiations pretty fast. That's why we saw the Larsson deal so early, and McCabe deal before the draft as well. It was crucial for Murray to get some kind of idea about the cost of those contracts.

You remember there being any reports before the draft of Murray and Pysyk negotiating last year? I don't.

Did the Buffalo media ask a question that triggered a generic response that we could then apply a silly amount of importance on?

What is your guess about not getting the deals inked with those players and getting the deal inked so fast with Larsson?

Larsson had no leverage and wants to prove his value. He knows his role going in to the year.

Girgs may believe his draft status and half season of some offense gives him some leverage for a better contract. He and his agent could know that he's been involved in potential trade talks and would rather see the summer play out before committing to a contract. Girgs camp may have floated the Dynamo rumor to gain some leverage.

I would guess that Murray has the 1 year deal on the table and the long term, low value deal on the table. I suspect Girgs doesn't like either, and wants the 2-3 year deal. Murray got the 3 year deal with McCabe done first to set some expectations for Girgs camp.

I suspect Murray and Girgs settle on a 2 year deal similar to Foligno's. Or we can go back to Marcus Kruger's 2 year bridge. Or Tanner Pearson's 2 year bridge from the same 1st round draft class.

 

[Husko]

I find this latest trend of severing up responses to the same poster into several mini posts quite annoying in a totally idiosyncratic way

 

[Beerz]

 

[SoFFacet]

I find this latest trend of severing up responses to the same poster into several mini posts quite annoying in a totally idiosyncratic way

Its a good way to keep things organized if there really are separate things to be arguing about, or if one really does feel the need to rebut every single sentence that someone else posted. But it can be overdone, yes.

I just wish that people would include the identifier text that appears in the first leading quote bracket, in every one of the quote segments. It makes it easier to keep track of where all the of the quoted text is coming from. Without the identifier all of the quote segments after the first one are ambiguous.