Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 Unless you're the one paying him, I don't see the issue.
LGR4GM Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 Are you in fact 12? If I am that means a 12yr old understands why burning a year of that contract is bad and you don't.
Derrico Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 I can see I'm wasting my time. The point is I'm not sure we want Girgs, Risto and Zadarov (also maybe Pysyk?) all coming off of their ELC the same season. Although we've been talking about the cap floor lately, I have no doubt the Sabres will spent to the cap limit once the team is on the upswing. By burning a year now we would have to pay more to Zadarov later when the team is hopefully good and we need that cap space at that time.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 The point is I'm not sure we want Girgs, Risto and Zadarov (also maybe Pysyk?) all coming off of their ELC the same season. Although we've been talking about the cap floor lately, I have no doubt the Sabres will spent to the cap limit once the team is on the upswing. By burning a year now we would have to pay more to Zadarov later when the team is hopefully good and we need that cap space at that time. We were talking about Grigs, not Z. Wouldn't using a year of his contract last year actually spread it out even more? That puts Grigs and Girgs in the same re-signing year and the others in another year. If a year wasn't used on Grigs last he would be in the same rotation with Risto and Z. That's assuming they're all the same length.
Derrico Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 We were talking about Grigs, not Z. Wouldn't using a year of his contract last year actually spread it out even more? That puts Grigs and Girgs in the same re-signing year and the others in another year. If a year wasn't used on Grigs last he would be in the same rotation with Risto and Z. That's assuming they're all the same length. My bad.
LGR4GM Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 We were talking about Grigs, not Z. Wouldn't using a year of his contract last year actually spread it out even more? That puts Grigs and Girgs in the same re-signing year and the others in another year. If a year wasn't used on Grigs last he would be in the same rotation with Risto and Z. That's assuming they're all the same length. If Grigorenko was not used during a garbage year last year wouldnt he have been allowed safe minutes in QMJHL while the Sabres sucked again? Would he not have been able to return there again this year if needed? Would Grigs not be out of the spotlight like he belongs, working and tuning a skill set that is very slowly starting to show at the NHL level? Would Buffalo have an entire extra year to evaluate that talent before making a decision? Grigs should have stayed in the Q last year and maybe this year. I think he will pan out still and I like him, but that is a fact. Zadorov should be returned to the OHL. Stop wasting years of these kids contracts on nothing.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 If Grigorenko was not used during a garbage year last year wouldnt he have been allowed safe minutes in QMJHL while the Sabres sucked again? Would he not have been able to return there again this year if needed? Would Grigs not be out of the spotlight like he belongs, working and tuning a skill set that is very slowly starting to show at the NHL level? Would Buffalo have an entire extra year to evaluate that talent before making a decision? Grigs should have stayed in the Q last year and maybe this year. I think he will pan out still and I like him, but that is a fact. Zadorov should be returned to the OHL. Stop wasting years of these kids contracts on nothing. That's your opinion, but what does it have to do with economics?
LGR4GM Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 That's your opinion, but what does it have to do with economics? You don't see the issue with paying him or with burning a year of the contract?
dudacek Posted October 29, 2013 Report Posted October 29, 2013 Burning a contract year is overrated. The issue is whether or not a kid can play.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 You don't see the issue with paying him or with burning a year of the contract? None that are very significant. Burning a contract year is overrated. The issue is whether or not a kid can play. Yup
LGR4GM Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 Burning a contract year is overrated. The issue is whether or not a kid can play. None that are very significant. Yup I completely disagree and think this way of thinking is short sighted. Also Grigorenko clearly couldn't play last year and is still finding his way this year.
Hoss Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 Was there something wrong with his last draft? Do we know yet? No. Looks good so far, but I'm just saying in general. That's when the next big decisions start and I'd rather let somebody else do that. He also didn't seem to be the decision maker at the last draft anyways.
dudacek Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 I completely disagree and think this way of thinking is short sighted. Also Grigorenko clearly couldn't play last year and is still finding his way this year. The entry level contract is not that big a deal. What kind of bargaining position is Grigs going to be in if he comes off his entry level deal at the end of next year having come off a 28-point season, his best yet? He signs an affordable two- or three-year deal that still leaves him an RFA when it's over. When it runs out, that, more or less, will put him in the position Hodgson was in this summer. At which point the Sabres will have had him for five or six NHL years and can decide whether or not he is worth a long-term commitment. Yeah, he could qualify for a UFA at 25 instead of 27, but a smart GM won't let him reach UFA at all. The key is the timing of the bridge contract.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 I completely disagree and think this way of thinking is short sighted. Also Grigorenko clearly couldn't play last year and is still finding his way this year. Clearly, in hindsight. Had Grigs been sent back down last year and the Sabres missed out on the playoffs by as little as they did last year, Sabres fans would have been calling for Darcy's head for being short a center. I know it, and you know it. I don't see what's short sighted about the economical impact. Dudacek pretty much covered it.
Weave Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 The contract thing might've been an issue during the Golisano era. I'm not worried about it now.
LGR4GM Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 Clearly, in hindsight. Had Grigs been sent back down last year and the Sabres missed out on the playoffs by as little as they did last year, Sabres fans would have been calling for Darcy's head for being short a center. I know it, and you know it. I don't see what's short sighted about the economical impact. Dudacek pretty much covered it. Sabres fans have been calling for Darcy's head for years! As for the money aspect it isn't about the money it is about when he becomes a UFA. Up to that point he has to play here or not in the NHL.
Weave Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 Sabres fans have been calling for Darcy's head for years! As for the money aspect it isn't about the money it is about when he becomes a UFA. Up to that point he has to play here or not in the NHL. Dudacek covered that. We'll still have 5-6 years to determine if he's worthy of a long term deal.
dudacek Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 If you want to argue being in the NHL at 18 was/is bad for Zadorov's development, or any other players, that's fine. You can make a good argument for that. But from a management perspective, playing an 18-year-old is actually makes good economic sense: you can get three NHL years at entry level rates, four NHL years at RFA rates and it allows you to make a bridge contract decision after five or six NHL years. And if you keep your guy long-term, you are going to maximize your investment more paying the big money to him from 25 to 32 than you are from 27 to 34. Are you better off paying Zemgus Girgensons and Mikhail Grigorenko $1.85 million to be your 12 and 13th forward, or Patrick Kaleta and Cody McCormick $2.25 million? Obviously, the answer depends on your team's big picture situation, but from a dollar perspective the answer is clear. The traditional model of signing a kid at 19 and bringing him to the bigs maybe after a year or two in the minors gives you two or three NHL years of entry level and three or four at RFA rates. And you have to make a bridge decision on four years of NHL work. See Ennis, Tyler.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.