Around the NHL - 2013-2014

[JJFIVEOH]

You can add veterans for the short term, no need to make long term investment at this point. Save the longer term contracts for retaining the prospects that hit.

 

So are you for or against re-signing Ott?

 

This is true unless the team is intentionally tanking. I don't see them going for the all-in intentional tank.

I don't either.

[Andrew Amerk]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but Ruff hired James Patrick to be an assistant in Dallas...

[deluca67]

So are you for or against re-signing Ott?

 

 

I don't either.

I would like to see Ott stay. I would guess at age 30 that Ott will be looking for long range security. A three year deal paying $3-4 mil would be a good contract for the Sabres. I would guess that Ott could get much more on the UFA market. A longer term for bigger dollars wouldn't be in the Sabres best interest.

Edited July 29, 2013 by deluca67

[Bullwinkle III]

I think we should keep Ott for two reasons:

 

1. He is a natural leader and can hopefully bring out leadership qualities in the kids

 

2. He is a very hard working player who can serve as a model for Ennis, Grigorenko, and Stafford

Edited July 29, 2013 by Bullwinkle III

[sicknfla]

I think we should keep Ott for two reasons:

 

1. He is a natural leader and can hopefully bring out leadership qualities in the kids

 

2. He is a very hard working player who can serve as a model for Ennis, Grigorenko, and Stafford

 

Yeah Stafford thrived last year with Ott on the team.

[carpandean]

I think we should keep Ott for two reasons:

 

1. He is a natural leader and can hopefully bring out leadership qualities in the kids

 

2. He is a very hard working player who can serve as a model for Ennis, Grigorenko, and Stafford

Yeah Stafford thrived last year with Ott on the team.

 

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than one or two players to set an example for someone like Stafford. You need an established team mentality like the Bruins built before a player like that (e.g., Horton) sees the light. You can have one or two guys who need the example to be set, but they need to be the exception, not the rule. Ott has exactly the blue-color, hardest working team in hockey mentality that this team needs more of. I want him setting the example for years to come, but I also want more of his type brought in. It sounds like Girgensons is that type of player, so that's a start.

[sicknfla]

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than one or two players to set an example for someone like Stafford. You need an established team mentality like the Bruins built before a player like that (e.g., Horton) sees the light. You can have one or two guys who need the example to be set, but they need to be the exception, not the rule. Ott has exactly the blue-color, hardest working team in hockey mentality that this team needs more of. I want him setting the example for years to come, but I also want more of his type brought in. It sounds like Girgensons is that type of player, so that's a start.

 

If your Ott and quite possibly in line for your last contract do you resign with Buffalo? Unless I am on a team I started my career with or that team is a perennial winner I go FA all day long. He would be a fool to resign here. I love the guy but I will be shocked if he signs. He leaves - Stafford stays. Kind of why we are in the position we are in.

[LGR4GM]

If your Ott and quite possibly in line for your last contract do you resign with Buffalo? Unless I am on a team I started my career with or that team is a perennial winner I go FA all day long. He would be a fool to resign here. I love the guy but I will be shocked if he signs. He leaves - Stafford stays. Kind of why we are in the position we are in.

Ott may feel very comfortable in Buffalo playing with Weber and under Rolston. Some guys like to stay places for those reasons. The good news is next year the cap will go up and we should be able to offer him a very competitive deal.

[LaLaLaFontaine]

 

I would like to see Ott stay. I would guess at age 30 that Ott will be looking for long range security. A three year deal paying $3-4 mil would be a good contract for the Sabres. I would guess that Ott could get much more on the UFA market. A longer term for bigger dollars wouldn't be in the Sabres best interest.

 

I think Ott is worth something crazy like 5 years 4.5 to 5 million. I like if we can get him for the money you suggested but i can not see it. Maybe 8 years at 3.5-4 million is possible but i am not sure we want this.

[That Aud Smell]

Cripes - a reported $30M loss for the Wild from the strike-shortened season. That almost (almost) seems impossible.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/22932035/report-wild-lost-30-million-in-lockoutshortened-season

[TrueBlueGED]

I think Ott is worth something crazy like 5 years 4.5 to 5 million. I like if we can get him for the money you suggested but i can not see it. Maybe 8 years at 3.5-4 million is possible but i am not sure we want this.

 

I agree. On the open market I think he gets close to the Clarkson contract.

[Taro T]

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than one or two players to set an example for someone like Stafford. You need an established team mentality like the Bruins built before a player like that (e.g., Horton) sees the light. You can have one or two guys who need the example to be set, but they need to be the exception, not the rule. Ott has exactly the blue-color, hardest working team in hockey mentality that this team needs more of. I want him setting the example for years to come, but I also want more of his type brought in. It sounds like Girgensons is that type of player, so that's a start.

I think Ott is worth something crazy like 5 years 4.5 to 5 million. I like if we can get him for the money you suggested but i can not see it. Maybe 8 years at 3.5-4 million is possible but i am not sure we want this.

I agree. On the open market I think he gets close to the Clarkson contract.

I fully expect Regier to make a legitimate offer to Ott when the time comes and expect him to come to a deal on it. It's painfully obvious to those of us that watch the Sabres that there is a major leadership / heart void on this team and it has been there since 7/1/7. I can't believe that DR doesn't see that as well. And long in tooth vets that have been brought in since that time have been attempts to correct that (Grier, Rivet, Regehr, Niedermayer). Ott is the only vet that isn't past his prime that has substantially stepped into and partially filled that void.

 

While I expect that DR is trying to re-sign RM and TV, I fully expect that he WILL re-sign Ott even if that means giving him a Clarksonesqe contract. (I don't expect it will take quite that to get him re-signed, though I fully expect there to be shouts of 'overpaid' when a deal does get worked out with him.)

 

Why would Ott re-sign here, especially if they're rebuilding? 3 reasons:

 

1. on paper, they have some seriously skilled youth that should be coming into their own before he's too long in the tooth to be of use; being an obvious choice to captain a group that (again, on paper) is upcoming could be intriguing to someone of character;

 

2. money talks - TP has a lot of it and they'll be able to fit him in under the cap; and

 

3. his 'brother' Mike Weber is a Sabre and likely will be for a long time.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Taro T

[JJFIVEOH]

I think Ott is worth something crazy like 5 years 4.5 to 5 million. I like if we can get him for the money you suggested but i can not see it. Maybe 8 years at 3.5-4 million is possible but i am not sure we want this.

 

I agree with you. I think normally an 8 year contract is risky, as many players are usually inconsistent and might not bring the expected return. But what Ott brings to the table is different, and he has been consustebt all throughout his career. Even if eight years takes him past his prime, over the hill veterans have been key to many successful Cup runs.

 

I fully expect Regier to make a legitimate offer to Ott when the time comes and expect him to come to a deal on it. It's painfully obvious to those of us that watch the Sabres that there is a major leadership / heart void on this team and it has been there since 7/1/7. I can't believe that DR doesn't see that as well. And long in tooth vets that have been brought in since that time have been attempts to correct that (Grier, Rivet, Regehr, Niedermayer). Ott is the only vet that isn't past his prime that has substantially stepped into and partially filled that void.

 

While I expect that DR is trying to re-sign RM and TV, I fully expect that he WILL re-sign Ott even if that means giving him a Clarksonesqe contract. (I don't expect it will take quite that to get him re-signed, though I fully expect there to be shouts of 'overpaid' when a deal does get worked out with him.)

 

Why would Ott re-sign here, especially if they're rebuilding? 3 reasons:

 

1. on paper, they have some seriously skilled youth that should be coming into their own before he's too long in the tooth to be of use; being an obvious choice to captain a group that (again, on paper) is upcoming could be intriguing to someone of character;

 

2. money talks - TP has a lot of it and they'll be able to fit him in under the cap; and

 

3. his 'brother' Mike Weber is a Sabre and likely will be for a long time.

 

Good call. I hope you're right.

[deluca67]

I fully expect Regier to make a legitimate offer to Ott when the time comes and expect him to come to a deal on it. It's painfully obvious to those of us that watch the Sabres that there is a major leadership / heart void on this team and it has been there since 7/1/7. I can't believe that DR doesn't see that as well. And long in tooth vets that have been brought in since that time have been attempts to correct that (Grier, Rivet, Regehr, Niedermayer). Ott is the only vet that isn't past his prime that has substantially stepped into and partially filled that void.

 

While I expect that DR is trying to re-sign RM and TV, I fully expect that he WILL re-sign Ott even if that means giving him a Clarksonesqe contract. (I don't expect it will take quite that to get him re-signed, though I fully expect there to be shouts of 'overpaid' when a deal does get worked out with him.)

 

Why would Ott re-sign here, especially if they're rebuilding? 3 reasons:

 

1. on paper, they have some seriously skilled youth that should be coming into their own before he's too long in the tooth to be of use; being an obvious choice to captain a group that (again, on paper) is upcoming could be intriguing to someone of character;

 

2. money talks - TP has a lot of it and they'll be able to fit him in under the cap; and

 

3. his 'brother' Mike Weber is a Sabre and likely will be for a long time.

You have to weigh all of that against a chance of winning a Stanley Cup. Ott is a true competitor, giving up a chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup to stay in and Buffalo to be a mentor may be too much to ask. Ott must know he'll draw attention from contenders next off-season.

[LGR4GM]

You have to weigh all of that against a chance of winning a Stanley Cup. Ott is a true competitor, giving up a chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup to stay in and Buffalo to be a mentor may be too much to ask. Ott must know he'll draw attention from contenders next off-season.

Well it depends on if Ott believes he will never win a cup here. If he signs a 5yr deal for instance and believes the team will be a legit contender in 3 yrs from now... that means Ott believes that he will have several shots at the cup with the Sabres and their new youth movement. It all depends on where he sees out throughout his next deal.

[deluca67]

Well it depends on if Ott believes he will never win a cup here. If he signs a 5yr deal for instance and believes the team will be a legit contender in 3 yrs from now... that means Ott believes that he will have several shots at the cup with the Sabres and their new youth movement. It all depends on where he sees out throughout his next deal.

Ott would be taking a big chance staying in Buffalo in hopes that things will turn around within the next 4-5 years and not moving on to a team that is already a piece or two away from a Cup. I doubt too many players would be willing to stay facing that decision. It puts him in the same boat as Miller and Vanek.

[LGR4GM]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=428723

Bogosian 7yrs 36million

 

He comes from that same draft as Myers and Karlsson

Edited July 29, 2013 by LGR4GM

[JJFIVEOH]

Ott would be taking a big chance staying in Buffalo in hopes that things will turn around within the next 4-5 years and not moving on to a team that is already a piece or two away from a Cup. I doubt too many players would be willing to stay facing that decision. It puts him in the same boat as Miller and Vanek.

 

Are you serious? You think it will take more than 5 years, on top of the 1-2 years already put towards a rebuild? Do you actually watch sports? Ever stop to think that maybe some athletes realize that most contending teams don't stay that way forever and realize that being somewhere like Buffalo it's only going to get better?

 

I digress, this isn't the thread for this.

[Taro T]

You have to weigh all of that against a chance of winning a Stanley Cup. Ott is a true competitor, giving up a chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup to stay in and Buffalo to be a mentor may be too much to ask. Ott must know he'll draw attention from contenders next off-season.

How did that "I only want to play for a contender" work out for Iginla last year?

 

Why'd Ott be "giving up a chance to ever win a Stanley Cup to stay in Buffalo?"

 

The league is a lot closer parity-wise than it has ever been.

 

Exactly 1 of 30 teams wins the Stanley Cup each season. Detroit has been in the preseason favorites every year, if not THE favorite each year, since the '05 lockout ended to win it and they haven't been back to the finals in the past 4 years and I'd be surprised if they're there this coming season (especially w/ the addition of Alfie). That's more or less a full career for most guys and nearly 1/2 a lifetime for the guys that end up full time regular NHLers.

 

LA came amazingly close to missing the playoffs altogether the year they won it all. Filthy got in on the last day via tiebreakers and had to come back from 3-0 in games and then again in game 7 to eventually get to the point where they lost to the Hawks. You're beloved Devils were nearly knocked out in the 1st round by the lowly (let's call a spade a spade) Panthers in the year they went to Finals.

 

For all the $'s and panache that is the Strangers, they haven't sniffed a SC since Messier willed them to 1 back in '94.

 

Going to a "competitor" doesn't give a guy a lock on getting his name engraved. (Ask Mr. Iginla about that one.) And, though we are all thoroughly exhausted by this team, they AREN'T in the no way in H-E-double hockeysticks can they win in the next 2-4 years category that some teams are in.

 

I've stated my reasons why I expect that he'll re-up with the Sabres. (I still stand by them, though I saw just checking capgeek that he turns UFA this year, not next, so I don't consider it the lock it'd've been had his contract been up in '15.)

[Weave]

I get the impression that Ott is a guy who values loyalty. My impression is that if Buffalo wants him and the deal is fair Ott will sign on. Granted, Ott's agent will have a different idea of fair in all likelihood.

[deluca67]

How did that "I only want to play for a contender" work out for Iginla last year?

 

Why'd Ott be "giving up a chance to ever win a Stanley Cup to stay in Buffalo?"

 

The league is a lot closer parity-wise than it has ever been.

 

Exactly 1 of 30 teams wins the Stanley Cup each season. Detroit has been in the preseason favorites every year, if not THE favorite each year, since the '05 lockout ended to win it and they haven't been back to the finals in the past 4 years and I'd be surprised if they're there this coming season (especially w/ the addition of Alfie). That's more or less a full career for most guys and nearly 1/2 a lifetime for the guys that end up full time regular NHLers.

 

LA came amazingly close to missing the playoffs altogether the year they won it all. Filthy got in on the last day via tiebreakers and had to come back from 3-0 in games and then again in game 7 to eventually get to the point where they lost to the Hawks. You're beloved Devils were nearly knocked out in the 1st round by the lowly (let's call a spade a spade) Panthers in the year they went to Finals.

 

For all the $'s and panache that is the Strangers, they haven't sniffed a SC since Messier willed them to 1 back in '94.

 

Going to a "competitor" doesn't give a guy a lock on getting his name engraved. (Ask Mr. Iginla about that one.) And, though we are all thoroughly exhausted by this team, they AREN'T in the no way in H-E-double hockeysticks can they win in the next 2-4 years category that some teams are in.

 

I've stated my reasons why I expect that he'll re-up with the Sabres. (I still stand by them, though I saw just checking capgeek that he turns UFA this year, not next, so I don't consider it the lock it'd've been had his contract been up in '15.)

How close is the parity in this league when the final four teams this season just happened to be he last four Cup Champions.

 

The Sabres are in as bad a position as any team in the NHL. They are prospect heavy with not much on the actual NHL roster. Reasonable expectations are that the influx of youth won't yield results for at 2-3 years down the road. Your looking at another couple of seasons for that youth to mature.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I'd trade a 2nd just to keep Ott's wife walking the streets of WNY.

[Taro T]

How close is the parity in this league when the final four teams this season just happened to be he last four Cup Champions.

 

The Sabres are in as bad a position as any team in the NHL. They are prospect heavy with not much on the actual NHL roster. Reasonable expectations are that the influx of youth won't yield results for at 2-3 years down the road. Your looking at another couple of seasons for that youth to mature.

How far is parity when the season before, the final 4 teams had 2 that had never won a Stanley Cup (one of which had never been beyond the 2nd round in its entire history) and 2 others than had gone nearly a decade and nearly 2 decades respectively since their last Stanley Cups? And btw, the 2 teams in the finals that year were a 6 and an 8 seed. Nope, no signs of parity there. <_<

[deluca67]

How far is parity when the season before, the final 4 teams had 2 that had never won a Stanley Cup (one of which had never been beyond the 2nd round in its entire history) and 2 others than had gone nearly a decade and nearly 2 decades respectively since their last Stanley Cups? And btw, the 2 teams in the finals that year were a 6 and an 8 seed. Nope, no signs of parity there. <_<

New Jersey was a 6th seed with 102 points and the Kings were far from being a traditional 8th seed, not many 8th seeds have that level of talent. The Kings were a good team that fell to 8th.

 

So 2011-12 had two teams that had previously won Stanley Cups. Which makes 6 of the last eight teams to make the Final Four had previously won Stanley Cups? Yeah, that's a sign of parity.

[Taro T]

New Jersey was a 6th seed with 102 points and the Kings were far from being a traditional 8th seed, not many 8th seeds have that level of talent. The Kings were a good team that fell to 8th.

 

So 2011-12 had two teams that had previously won Stanley Cups. Which makes 6 of the last eight teams to make the Final Four had previously won Stanley Cups? Yeah, that's a sign of parity.

Shocking! 75% of the teams in the conference championships have won SC's in the past. :o

 

You do realize that 19 (of 30) teams have previously won (or at least been awarded) Stanley Cups, right? If we discount the past 4 expansion teams, that's 19 of 26. Which, is 73%. So, a completely random sample of teams other than those from the latest round of expansion would result in 73% of the competitors having won a SC in the past. 75% is as close to 73% as we can get choosing 8 teams. That is what statistically is expected.

 

Clearly, that 6 out of 8 is PROOF that parity doesn't exist. <_<

 

And, 24 of 30 (80% of all) teams have previously been in the SCF's. If we throw out the most recent version of expansion teams again, EVERYBODY but Phoenix Arizona and San Jose have been in the finals before. AKA, 92% of all teams not counting the most recent expansion. We had 7 out of 8 teams (88%) in the CF's that had been to a SC before. Again, it is what would statistically be expected.

 

And, along those previous lines, clearly, that 7 out of 8 is PROOF that parity doesn't exist. <_<

 

:P