The Roster Thread, Summer 2024

[Dubi Doo]

Losing Reinhart, Ullmark and Mitts is reason enough to criticize Adams, but then we add in the big RFA contracts he did give out to Power, Tage, Cozens and Samulesson?

How is all of that not reason to criticize Adams?

The 4 rfa contracts could still turn out to be steals later on, but we can't count our chickens before they hatch. There's no guarantee they will be good contracts a few years down the road and aside from Tage they've gotten off to a rocky start.

Everyone points to the Draisatil contract as what they expect all 4 of these contracts to be. But the thing they forget with Drai is that his contract was a steal beginning in year 2. Tage, Cozens and Sammy are all entering year 2 this season.
View attachment 895440

We didn't lose Reinhart or Mitts. We got Levi, Ostlund, and Byram for them. The value isn't terrible even if it doesn't favor us.

 

[BFLO]

I think you misread/misinterpreted something I said.

I was responding to the notion that Adams deserves criticism for operating "on the cheap" because he hasn't re-signed RFAs to "fair deals or slightly above" ......when really the only 2 he didn't lock up long-term were Reinhart and Mitts. I personally don't count Ullmark because he's said in multiple interviews that he wasn't re-upping long term with us. Ullmark wanted to get out of Buffalo for personal reasons.

I then pointed out that he has, in fact, re-signed the vast majority of our RFas....many to long-term deals.

You can absolutely criticize Adams for not re-signing Reinhart (or Mitts, I suppose). You can criticize him for maybe paying Power too early. But saying that he's operating "on the cheap" because he didn't sign Reinhart and Mitts is what I was/am pushing back against.

No I didn't.

Adams bridged both Reinhart and Ullmark as RFAs to one year deals on October 25th 2020. And then lost them both the following off season. It's revisionist history not to count Ullmark against Adams RFA misses.

Reinhart and Ullmark both wanted out by the end of the 2020-21 season, and who can blame them?But Adams had the chance to lock them both up long term prior to that as RFAs. And both of them wanted to be here at the time they signed those bridges. It wasn't until after that miserable last place finish, the promise of another rebuild, and in Ullmarks case losing his father and being lowballed that he chose UFA.

This was also during the "Effective, effienct and economic" 2-3 year period of basically zero spending.

With Mitts you maybe have more of an argument that it wasn't about the budget. But the #1 reason people say we had to move on from him is that you can't pay your top 3 centers $7mil each, which is a budget decision.

It's just so obvious that we lost Reinhart and Ullmark because Adams/Pegula didn't want to pay anyone in 2020 or commit to anything long term at the time.

 

[michaelsaas]

That is so not the case. Bryson most certainly isn't overpaid this offseason after the Sabres did not extend him his QO.

And Tage is not overpaid, either.

I think we consistently have overpaid for bottom six role players. I also think we overpaid for our long term contracts at the time of signing - Skinner (pre Adams), Thompson, Cozens, Samuelson, and Power were/are all overpays IMO.

FWIW I don't have a problem with this but I do think we paid more than they were worth at the time. Thompson has definitely paid off. I think Cozens will as well. Samuelson depends on injuries and Power is currently not earning that contract but I hope he will.

 

[BFLO]

Reinhart said that he didn't want to be part of another rebuild. Criticism of Adams over how that turned out seems to be poorly aimed.

Botteril's inability to build a team (or hire a coach) that could finish outside the bottom ten over several years of trying are what drove Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark out of town. There was little, if anything, that Adams could have done to change that outcome. Any other read of it just doesn't make sense.

Adams signed Ullmark and Reinhart as RFAs to 1 year bridges on October 25th 2020. Not Botterill.

Adams was the GM in charge of the season that drove Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark out of town.

There was a lot Adams could have done to change that outcome. Any other read of it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

No I didn't.

Adams bridged both Reinhart and Ullmark as RFAs to one year deals on October 25th 2020. And then lost them both the following off season. It's revisionist history not to count Ullmark against Adams RFA misses.

Reinhart and Ullmark both wanted out by the end of the 2020-21 season, and who can blame them?But Adams had the chance to lock them both up long term prior to that as RFAs. And both of them wanted to be here at the time they signed those bridges. It wasn't until after that miserable last place finish, the promise of another rebuild, and in Ullmarks case losing his father and being lowballed that he chose UFA.

This was also during the "Effective, effienct and economic" 2-3 year period of basically zero spending.

With Mitts you maybe have more of an argument that it wasn't about the budget. But the #1 reason people say we had to move on from him is that you can't pay your top 3 centers $7mil each, which is a budget decision.

It's just so obvious that we lost Reinhart and Ullmark because Adams/Pegula didn't want to pay anyone in 2020 or commit to anything long term at the time.

I appreciate this post. I didn't think I had to go back and detail it with posters that have been here for a while. I don't remember all the details myself but it's clear enough that when an organization doesn't commit to players, players will not commit to the organization and then find reasons to leave. My previous posts are not even meant to single out KA, because some of this mentality has been around before his tenure. It's a penny wise, pound foolish approach that gives them a bad rep around the league.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

No. This is factually incorrect. Botterill bridged him once, the 2018-2020 contract, and Adams bridged him once, the 2020-2021 contract.

So you have Adams to thank for losing Reinhart by bridging him a second time, not Botts.

Why is everyone certain Reinhart wanted a long term contract in 2020? He was coming off a fine but not spectacular season; the situation certainly looked like a re-tool was a strong possibility.

Eichel had asked to be traded, but stayed on for one year when they signed Hall.
Risto had one year left in his deal.

Reinhart struck me as a smart enough guy to read the room. Further he only signed for 3 years with Florida 2 years of RFA and 1 UFA right?

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Define overpay. There are many ways to lower the cap hit on a contract by a few hundred thousand. Buffalo is very reluctant to front-load contracts and pays limited bonus dollars. A front-loaded is worth more to the player in real dollars. A bonus contract with massive payments on July 1 is also worth more and has the added value of being way more buyout-proof. We will pay slightly more in cap hits because of this but you need deep pockets to pay Austin Matthews a $16 Million bonus on July 1. It's a bit insane Leafs did that but it's a loophole in cap.

The Tage Thompson contract was not a steal at the time, but it looks good in the mirror. Credit to management. You take swings on long-term deals, if you are Buffalo.

Unforgivable are the contracts not remotely connected to reality like Skinner's $9 x 8 years. Jost's $2 M. Okposo's $2.5 M. Zucker's $5 million feels that way.

Owen Power's contract feels like a significant overpay as well

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

F&ck you!

(Did I do that right?)

Not f***ing close

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Zucker was not an "internal contract" and certainly included a loser tax to get him to sign in Buffalo.

The post I was replying to was about always overpaying guys they re-sign.

There are some guys they have overpaid to retain. And mainly the vets on short deals in the cap floor era where it didn't really matter that they overpaid guys like Jost, Okposo, and Girgensons.

And they have to overpay guys with options to get them to sign because they have been so bad for so long. That's just the nature of things.

They didn't have to overpay Power -- that was an unforced error by Adams.

 

[ValJamesDuex]

Caps get out of cap jail on Kuznetsov, Canes get more cap relief

https://x.com/i/web/status/1813602057439580660

 

[Dingo44]

They didn't have to overpay Power -- that was an unforced error by Adams.

I'm going to save this post for use in a couple of years - I'm sure it is going to age badly.

 

[TehDoak]

going to save this post for use in a couple of years - I'm sure it is going to

Why would it? He had zero leverage with his current contract.

The proper comp for him is Charlie McAvoy.

Charlie McAvoy Contract, Cap Hit, Salary and Stats | Puckpedia

See the latest contract, injury news, and transactions for Charlie McAvoy including cap hit, AAV, salary, signing bonus, clauses, and agent on PuckPedia.

puckpedia.com

Because he was a 10.2 RFA (College RFA with no arb/offersheet rights)

He signed a 3 year, 5M per deal (6% of cap)

He then signed an 8 year, 9.5M deal (11% 0f the cap when he signed)

Power Signed a 7 year, 8.5M deal (9.5% of the cap)

Adjusted for the McAvoy contract, Power's rate should have been 5.28M followed by a 11.5% deal. Lets assume 100M at the end of Powers contract, so 4 years at 11.5M.

For that same 7 year period is 7 years, 61.84.

Power signed a 7 year, 58.45M contract.

The issue is, of course, McAvoy the 2nd half of that contract by being an elite top pairing d-man over his bridge deal.

The Sabres, essentially, have paid Power an elite level d-man, market rate deal, except they are paying more up front when cap space costs more. And even in the best case scenario where Power is an elite d-man, he can test the market at age 28. The escalating cap does help things a bit, but, paying essentially 3M over market for him the next year 3s to hopefully pay 3M under market 3 years later is a big risk.

The obvious move for Power was to let him get to RFA, and essentially offer him the McAvoy bridge, and then pay the market rate in 3 years. Worst case scenario, he doesn't turn into an elite d-man and you can move on. If he does turn into an elite d-man, now, yes, you get a few years of savings cap wise.

The only real redeeming part of this contract is they have several years to buy him out using the under 26 clause where the buyouts are reasonable (1/3rd of the remaining cap hit vs 2/3rd of a normal buyout) if things go south. Otherwise, this was a real unforced error by Adams.

Especially since, unless he won the norris last year, there wasn't much he could have done to earned a bigger deal by letting him hit RFA this summer.

 

[Chainshot]

Caps get out of cap jail-Kuznetsov, Canes get more cap relief

https://x.com/i/web/status/1813602057439580660

No more super slow motion shootout attempts. He was probably the posterchild for the idea of having a chaser on those.

 

[BFLO]

Why is everyone certain Reinhart wanted a long term contract in 2020? He was coming off a fine but not spectacular season; the situation certainly looked like a re-tool was a strong possibility.

Eichel had asked to be traded, but stayed on for one year when they signed Hall.
Risto had one year left in his deal.

Reinhart struck me as a smart enough guy to read the room. Further he only signed for 3 years with Florida 2 years of RFA and 1 UFA right?

People are sure Reinhart wanted a long term deal here because it's what he told the media. Adams has never disputed it.

According to Reinhart we never offered him a long term deal. Which Adams has also never disputed.

Reinhart signed for 1 year of RFA and 2 UFA with florida.

 

[BFLO]

We didn't lose Reinhart or Mitts. We got Levi, Ostlund, and Byram for them. The value isn't terrible even if it doesn't favor us.

True.

But what did we get for Ullmark? Oh that's right... Adams bridged him right to UFA and got nothing.

 

[Diaspora]

Adams signed Ullmark and Reinhart as RFAs to 1 year bridges on October 25th 2020. Not Botterill.

Adams was the GM in charge of the season that drove Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark out of town.

There was a lot Adams could have done to change that outcome. Any other read of it just doesn't make sense.

Do you think that Reinhart would have signed a long-term contract knowing Jack had already asked out? He was close enough to UFA to walk himself out the door. Same with Ullmark. They gave Eichel the bag, and he forced his way out. They didn't want to be there. Bridges were on fire the day Adams walked in (and the abrupt changes with COVID didn't help).

A big contributor to the team finishing 31st that year was that everyone in that "core" had one foot out the door.

Adams has not shown any hesitation signing players he likes to term on big contracts (Tage, Cozens, Sammy, Dahlin, Power). But they all wanted to sign. I can't tell you what happened during conversations with Reinhart and Ullmark, but I see no course of action that would have kept those players here.

I could be wrong. If someone could conduct a master class here on how to convince a twenty-five year old millionaire to sign a long-term contract when the big sell was "stick around for a few years while we suck and we can cut the rebuild time from five years to four".

I just don't have that kind of imagination.

 

[zenthusiast]

if you ignore the series of failures that precipitated departures (perpetrated by multiple regimes) the eventual end seems unavoidable, but there were many ways to turn before crashing into the wall

 

[Chainshot]

if you ignore the series of failures that precipitated departures (perpetrated by multiple regimes) the eventual end seems unavoidable, but there were many ways to turn before crashing into the wall

Might want to update your name to "Zenthusiast".

 

[TehDoak]

Do you think that Reinhart would have signed a long-term contract knowing Jack had already asked out? He was close enough to UFA to walk himself out the door. Same with Ullmark. They gave Eichel the bag, and he forced his way out. They didn't want to be there. Bridges were on fire the day Adams walked in (and the abrupt changes with COVID didn't help).

This is a bit of revisionist history. They were a .500 team at a crossroads.

Ownership obviously felt they were a player away from contention (Terry said that Hall made them a contender)

When Adams came in, he wanted to tear it all down (again)....when they approached Eichel, he said f*** no and to trade him if they wanted to go that route.

A big contributor to the team finishing 31st that year was that everyone in that "core" had one foot out the door.

Biggest contributor to that finish was Eichel getting injured before the season started. Krueger had buy in when Eichel was playing at hart trophy level. Once Eichel couldn't carry the team (and Hall sucked), the team packed it in, badly. A big reason was the additions that Adams made that summer were just bad. Staal, Hall, Eakin, etc....all sucked.

Adams has not shown any hesitation signing players he likes to term on big contracts (Tage, Cozens, Sammy, Dahlin, Power). But they all wanted to sign. I can't tell you what happened during conversations with Reinhart and Ullmark, but I see no course of action that would have kept those players here.

All of those deals were signed at high end of market rate. A few well above market rate (Power, Samuelsson, Thompson). Agents are risk adverse. Unless a player is truly unhappy, the lure of guaranteed money when they don't have a reasonable waiting period to UFA, will almost always win out. The money Klingberg lost 'betting on himself' will be remembered by players for awhile.

I could be wrong. If someone could conduct a master class here on how to convince a twenty-five year old millionaire to sign a long-term contract when the big sell was "stick around for a few years while we suck and we can cut the rebuild time from five years to four".

I just don't have that kind of imagination.

They didn't need to rebuild though, they had a solid core in place already. Adams simply had to sell them on a quick retool. But the knock down drag out fight with Eichel about his surgery, a rebuild was the only option they had left.

 

[Jim Bob]

They didn't have to overpay Power -- that was an unforced error by Adams.

I won't call that an overpay or a value deal yet.

With this being year 1 of the extension, there is plenty of time for that deal to be a value over the long haul compared to what would have happened if they would have given him a 2-3 year bridge deal.

 

[Beerz]

We didn't lose Reinhart or Mitts. We got Levi, Ostlund, and Byram for them. The value isn't terrible even if it doesn't favor us.

Wasn't it Levi and Kulich for Reinhart?

 

[Jim Bob]

I think we consistently have overpaid for bottom six role players. I also think we overpaid for our long term contracts at the time of signing - Skinner (pre Adams), Thompson, Cozens, Samuelson, and Power were/are all overpays IMO.

FWIW I don't have a problem with this but I do think we paid more than they were worth at the time. Thompson has definitely paid off. I think Cozens will as well. Samuelson depends on injuries and Power is currently not earning that contract but I hope he will.

This is year 1 of Power's second contract.

And all of those long term deals are all upside bets where they might be overpaid early in the deal, but you get excess value on the backend of the deals. We aren't towards the back end of any of those long term deals yet.

And Thompson has given them excess value already.

Wasn't it Levi and Kulich for Reinhart?

Yes.

Ostlund was picked with the 1st from Vegas in the Eichel trade.

2022 NHL Entry Draft Transactions

Traded • Jack Eichel • conditional third round pick (2023 third round pick if Golden Knights 2022 first round pick is not in top 10, else 2024 third round pick) (2023 #77-Mathieu Cataford) to Golden Knights for • Alex Tuch • Peyton Krebs • first round pick (protected top 10 in 2022, unprotected in 2023) (2022 #16-Noah Ostlund) • conditional second round pick (2023 second round pick if Golden Knights 2022 first round pick is not in top 10, else 2024 second round pick) (2023 #64-Riley Heidt) on 2021-11-04

 

[Chainshot]

This is a bit of revisionist history. They were a .500 team at a crossroads.

Ownership obviously felt they were a player away from contention (Terry said that Hall made them a contender)

When Adams came in, he wanted to tear it all down (again)....when they approached Eichel, he said f*** no and to trade him if they wanted to go that route.




Biggest contributor to that finish was Eichel getting injured before the season started. Krueger had buy in when Eichel was playing at hart trophy level. Once Eichel couldn't carry the team (and Hall sucked), the team packed it in, badly. A big reason was the additions that Adams made that summer were just bad. Staal, Hall, Eakin, etc....all sucked.

There was also the team getting rocked by COVID and them continuing to play. Some of the players have talked about how hard their recovery time was. Sick, badly coached, and poorly constructed... it's no wonder they Staal'd, err stalled out.

All of those deals were signed at high end of market rate. A few well above market rate (Power, Samuelsson, Thompson). Agents are risk adverse. Unless a player is truly unhappy, the lure of guaranteed money when they don't have a reasonable waiting period to UFA, will almost always win out. The money Klingberg lost 'betting on himself' will be remembered by players for awhile.

I would say that Adams is stubborn about both "his guys" and contracts. And that has ramifications - including the what seems like the overpay on Power. I'm curious what he's going to do with Peterka and Quinn since they're certainly "his guys".

They didn't need to rebuild though, they had a solid core in place already. Adams simply had to sell them on a quick retool. But the knock down drag out fight with Eichel about his surgery, a rebuild was the only option they had left.

As a dead last team, it isn't hard to see why.

 

[michaelsaas]

This is year 1 of Power's second contract.

And all of those long term deals are all upside bets where they might be overpaid early in the deal, but you get excess value on the backend of the deals. We aren't towards the back end of any of those long term deals yet.

And Thompson has given them excess value already.

I understand that. Again I don't have any issues with these signings. I was bringing it up in context of the discussion about an internal cap. The fact is currently Power is not earning that contract, we all hope he does but it is a gamble. Take a look at the thread on Thompson's contract when it was signed, many were very worried it was a massive overpay.

But I will admit, early on in Adams tenure after he signed Hall and I believe a couple of other players, I decided he was overpaying on contracts. Research suggests that first impression can often persist even when faced with legitimate, contrary evidence. I try to be aware of that but it is easier said then done. I also try to be mindful of that when people keep banging the same drum over and over on these boards even in the face of contradictory evidence (I am not referencing any specific poster or thread here, just in general).

 

[Diaspora]

if you ignore the series of failures that precipitated departures (perpetrated by multiple regimes) the eventual end seems unavoidable, but there were many ways to turn before crashing into the wall

Yes, and hindsight makes those opportunities to change course painfully obvious. One would hope that a decision-maker learns from other people's mistakes. Pointing out past mistakes may be educational, but it does nothing to improve circumstances or make the consequences go away. The new situation poses new questions in need of different answers.

Adams has partial responsibility for what happened in his first year and full responsibility for everything that came after Ralph got his walking papers. His clock is ticking. If progress stalls this year, he should go.