JohnC

I haven't in detail made the projection. What I do know is if the term for Olofsson's contract is within three years it won't be an obstacle to the future required signings. As you well know projections in one year can be far different two or three years down the road due to trades and other in-house transactions. I'm certainly not making an argument for salary recklessness. I just think that what we know about Olofsson's scoring talents prior to his injury a deal at $3.5-4.0 would be a reasonable deal. If you look back at the Ullmark situation the Sabres could have signed him, even if it was on a longer and more lucrative contract than what he signed with Boston. If his term was for 5 years that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been traded in his third year. My point is that there are ways to adjust to the cap situation. There comes a point where you have to compete in the present and not be so obsessed with the future. There are teams with loaded rosters with high many high salary players. Those upper echelon organizations make tough personnel decisions on who to keep and who to move. That's an inescapable part of the business. I'm just more focused on upgrading the roster than worrying about cap ramifications a number of years down the road. Again, I'm not arguing for recklessness when dealing with contracts. This is just my opinion: I believe that Olofsson and the organization will come to a deal in short order after the season because both sides want to get a deal done.

Because of his shoulder injury that not only impacted him when he returned it also didn't allow him to work on his shot while he was rehabbing and practicing. It was evident in his play. It appears that he is now returning to form. I'm basing his next contract on how he played before he was injured. As I said in prior posts the issue is more about the length of his contract than quibbling over the amount in his contract. Our current copious cap situation comfortably allows for the salary that I project. To anyone who has watched the Sabres this year it's clear this team needs additions and not subtractions to its roster.

You bring up an interesting issue. Joki has played well in a pairing with Dahlin this year. But is that pairing the most optimal pairing for Dahlin next year when Power is added to the mix? Samuelsson has played well this year. Who would be the best pairing for him? Is he a second or third pairing type of blueliner? There are a lot of combinations to consider just as there are a lot of line combinations to consider. It's obvious I have more questions than answers!

One of the major deficiencies that this team has had for a number of years is the lack of secondary scoring. If you put Olofsson on a third line with either Krebs, Mitts or even Cozens that problem will be ameliorated. I'm aware that Olofsson isn't scoring much right now. Some of that decline is due to the injury that he had. But what is apparent is that Olofsson has worked on his overall game. He is now more of a full length player rather than just a spot shooter. He's a player worth keeping.

I would be agreeable to 4.5 for 3 yrs. The more important issue for me is length of a deal. Three years seems about right. This team needs to keep and add talent. Subtracting talent is the last thing this thin team needs to do.

Just some quick thoughts on this game: The Sabres have a legitimate first line. Although Tage got the hat trick I thought the best player on the line was Skinner. He was active and made a couple of nice set up passes for Tage to convert. He was the most tenacious player on his line. In general, I thought Tokarski played well except for giving up what I thought was a soft goal. When you are playing against a superior team there is little margin for error. Those soft goals he seems to give up every game are crushers. For a player who hasn't played much this season due to injuries I thought Mitts was moving well. He wasn't making many plays but he was keeping up in a fast paced game. Kadri's goal was on a laser shot. You can't give a hot player like him so much space in a shooting lane. I am befuddled over how some others view the play of Dahlin. Even against one of the best teams in the league loaded with talent he is one of the better players on the ice. At least that is what I am seeing. Making a judgment on an isolated play or two in a fast paced game makes little sense. What I have seen from him this year compared to previous years in his young career is a more physical brand of play. This was a very entertaining game with a lot of flow to it. It was enjoyable to watch. My over-arching thought in watching this game is that it is realistic to believe that with a few more additions this team will be on the rise and become a relevant team in the league. How long will it take? My projection is two years. I have the hope that next year will be a bump up year for us that will lay the stage for future success.

Your post smartly illustrates how the impact of one player can positively reverberate to another player. As you point out with the creation of a top line it allows other players to be better slotted in more appropriate roles. The Sabres for a long time have lacked talent. Obviously so! What that has done is forced third line players to play on higher lines, and third and fourth defensive pairings to play on higher pairings where the disparity of talent is evident when playing against more robust rosters. Is Olofsson a second-line player? I'm not sure, maybe not? But if he plays on a third line and thrives because he has more opportunities to get his shot off, then his biggest asset as a shooter is better utilized. Steadily our roster is adding young players that will eventually put players in the roles that they should be in. If you add JJ, Quinn and Mitts to the mix you can see how the lower lines (second and below) will be better slotted. How many years have the lower lines contributed little in the way of secondary scoring? When you add talents like Tuch and Krebs the benefits reverberate down the line.

I thought the goalie played well. And for the most part there was effort. From an entertainment standpoint it was atrocious.

This game was tough to watch. It was raggedly with little flow to it. Even the RJ, the voice of the Sabres, made a comment that it would be merciful to put the children to bed rather than witness this punishing game. These clunker games can be dispiriting to the fans. So I wouldn't be too critical with the expressions of frustration.

The Skinner issue related to his contract and production is for the most part a closed issue. It is a sunk cost that can't be retrieved. The franchise has to live with its future ramifications. The best way to handle his case is to upgrade the team around him and get as much production as possible from him. He's not movable, so that option is unlikely. As you point out those very long-term deals historically lose their value at the back end of the contracts. The organization is simply stuck with the consequences of that deal. Was that contract worth it? Probably not. The moral of the story is to build a roster with more talent spread out so that the consequences of losing a primary player wouldn't be so damaging. Where we are at is where we are at. If you can't change the situation then you just have to adapt to it. How does the Skinner example relate to Olofsson? I'm not so much worried about what he makes per year. On the other hand I would be against giving him a contract longer than three years. I think we agree on that????

With respect to your argument that Skinner's numbers don't compare to the numbers of good players on upper echelon teams you are without realizing it making my point. Upgrade the team in general and the stats for more players will be elevated. With respect to VO a three year deal at $4.75 to 5 M would in my estimation be a reasonable deal. As I said in a prior post I wouldn't give him a deal longer than 3 yrs. On this issue I believe we are in accord. My sense (opinion) is that getting a suitable deal for him and the organization is not going to be a major issue. TBD.

Is Skinner over-paid? I'm going against the current here and say not necessarily. If he scores 30 + goals for us, he is a valuable player bordering on indispensable. What has turned his game around is that he no longer is playing for a troglodyte coach who is strangling him into oblivion. And when you have a scorer like him and play him with talented players such as Tuch and Tage it translates into production. The Sabres now have a credible first line that can compete with other first-rate first lines. And Skinner is a central member of that unit. What he earns shouldn't be a troubling issue for a franchise that had a challenge to meet the cap floor. When dealing with a roster it is impossible to perfectly calibrate the value/production ratio. Some players are going to be overpaid while some players will be underpaid. The key consideration is to not get so consumed with the salary and focus more on putting a player in a position to maximize his talents and value. That's what Granato has done with Skinner and Dahlin. For those who harshly criticize Skinner for being overpaid my response would be what if he wasn't on the roster? This team would have a gaping hole that would require filling. The next question would be how much would it cost to get a Skinner like scorer? It would not be much different from what we are already paying him. Look at the standings. The reality is that the Sabres are near the bottom of the standings vying with bottom feeding teams such as Ottawa. A primary issue at this time shouldn't be who is over or under paid because the Sabres have plenty of cap space. The critical issue is keeping and adding talent. When the time comes when the cap issue becomes a factor then address it. Make no mistake what I am saying here. I'm not promoting salary profligacy because that would be reckless. What I am saying is that the focus should be on adding talent and not subtracting it for a non-existent cap issue. This team still has a way to go before achieving relevancy. Let's not step back and have to go further to reach the destination.

If he goes on a scoring rampage and his value goes up then I have no problem paying him the going rate. However, I would be reluctant to give him a 5 year contract. If a deal can't get done, then give him a one year contract and let him bet on himself. I would rather have a player excel and then have to deal with an increase in cost than deal with a middling productive player and get him at a cheap price. Having young players who produce and then having to decide who to pay and who to deal is a better situation to be in than having a roster filled with cheap JAGS. For the next few years the Sabres will be able to accommodate an increase in payroll. If, and when, it gets to the point that they have to make tough decisions on who to keep and who to deal off then that's what you do, just like every good team has to do. This is just my impression but I sense that Olofsson wants to get a deal here; and it is my impression that so does the organization.

It's like repeatedly going to the same restaurant in order to complain about the food. ☠️

I think we are more in accord than discord. I say let his play dictate his worth. If he regains his scoring touch and excels on a line with Krebs and Cousins, then his value/contract cost increases. If he struggles and his production lags, then his value/contract cost declines. That's how the system works. When talking about the Sabres financial situation there is a context here. It is that the Sabres currently have a lot of cap space. The GM certainly won't find himself being squeezed by Olof's salary requirements. As I previously stated this franchise needs to add talent, not subtract it. It's time to move up and advance. Creating additional holes and then having to go back to fill them is an act of futility that the fan base shouldn't have to be subjected to. It's time to get serious and do what you have to do to compete with the big boys.

If Olofsson is on a good third line because the team has enough good players to make up two good top lines, then what is wrong with that? Having a deep team instead of a thin team is a better situation to be in especially when you factor for the inevitable injuries. The Sabres have struggled for more than a decade. I'm more worried about the present then worried about the salary implications a few years down the road. If the time comes when there is a cap squeeze then you do what every other team does---you make the necessary moves to adjust to that situation.

As you accurately describe the situation both parties wanted out. There was no secret about either sides desire. The end result is both parties basically got what they wanted. It's not an issue who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in this conflict. In many respects it was a business decision where both sides came to the same conclusion. The issue for the GM was whether he was going to get a reasonable return on his asset. And the GM had to contend with the complicating feature of Jack's health and desired surgery procedure. Considering the circumstances, I believe the GM got a fair return.

I would say $3.5 to $4.5 per year on a medium length term, three years at most. I'm not glossing over what he is capable of as a player. Before he was hurt he was arguably the best shooter on the team. And when he was healthy he was an exceptional scorer on the PP. The organization knows what he is capable of when healthy. What shouldn't be minimized is the injury to his shoulder and how it affected his play. The season is slightly over the half way mark. How he plays in the remaining portion of the season will certainly have an influence on the size of his next contract. I just don't think that it is smart to shed a player that was developed in the system on a team that requires more additions. My evaluation on him relates to how he played when healthy. In my opinion it will be a big mistake to make an evaluation of him based on his limited production when he was hurt.

As you put it the water is under the bridge. My sense is that the organization was taking a hard stance with Jack. There was clearly bad blood between the parties involved. I just think that it eventually worked out well for Jack and the organization. I have no animosity toward Jack. I wish him well and the organization well. Irreconcilable differences happen in sports and in life. A change of scenery was required by all in order to move on. I'm more than happy with the return.

Thanks for the listing of picks. If Olofsson returns to form he would be more valuable to this team for the present and future than an additional pick. Unless his contract demands is out of line with his talent level I prefer that he is kept.

If Olofsson regains his scoring and shooting form, he is a valuable asset for this team right now. It's time to consider the present instead of worrying about the horizon. The Sabres have plenty of draft assets for the next couple of years. Subtracting talent that has been developed within our system would in my opinion would be a mistake. Olof the shooter would be a great complement to Krebs on a line. Unless there is an unrealistic offer I say no with a potential trade.

I wouldn't trade him for a first. We have three first round picks this year, and I believe two first round picks ??? the next year. In addition, we have multiple second and third round picks for the next couple of years. Assuming that his contract demand is reasonable, and if it appears that he has regained his scoring form, it would make no sense to give up a player that we developed in our system. What this team needs are additions and not subtractions to its talent base. There needs to be a commitment to win sooner rather than later. You do it with players on hand rather with future assets.

What you left out is that Eichel and the organization were at an impasse in regards to the surgery he should have. The Sabres would not permit him to have the surgery he wanted, and thus couldn't play at all. Vegas who traded for him allowed the preferred surgery. He is now back on the ice. If he were still with the Sabres he would not be playing. Jack already lost a year because of the surgery issue. It was time for him to go and for the organization to move on. If you were at the game and wanted to boo that would be your prerogative. If I were at the game I would act differently. As the saying goes: To each their own.

I understand why some people have an animus toward Jack. But when he is healthy he is a top 12 player in this league. (I don't have any animus toward Jack as much as I do for the organization's ineptitude that he was subjected to.) The trade of Jack worked out reasonably well for us. Both Tuch and Krebs will both be good players for us. They are part of the building blocks for the on- going rebuild. Just my opinion: If Jack gets booed when he returns for a game I will be disappointed. I would consider it to be classless. Cheer for your team and be silent instead of booing this particular departed player. It didn't work out for him here. Trading him was the right move for him and the organization.

Thought Cozens played a terrific game. Dahlin is playing with a level of confidence where he knows that he is a top tier player in this league. And based on his play, he is. Tuch is such a terrific addition. In addition to being one of our best players he is embracing his role as a leader. The pass from Krebs to Olofsson was outstanding. Overall, I thought Tokarski played well. However, I thought the third goal he gave up was a bad goal to give up. When the Islanders tied the score in the third period the Sabres didn't back off. Joki is playing well. As others have noted this team is fun to watch.