Jake McCabe Signs 2 Year Extension 2.85 Mil AAV

[dudacek]

25 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

This seems like projection more than what's actually happening. Offering McCabe 1.95 in an arbitration case seems completely normal and par for the course, and so has every other number I've seen this summer. I think Jason is being a fairly normal GM doing a fairly normal thing with the players you'd expect him to as far as this stuff goes

I think the fact that Jason has gone to arbitration (or close to it) four times this summer and signed Larry and Zemgus for their qualifying offers makes it more than a projection.

GMs regularly sign lower roster players to term, the Sissons signing being the most obvious recent example.

Edited August 2, 2019 by dudacek

[Tondas]

2 minutes ago, ... said:

No more than $2.65M for me.  He can swing from 5 to 4, so that adds a little value.

Most agree that Risto is a second pair guy, a number 3 at $5.4 Mil. Jake can play number 4 at only $2.65? 

[Eleven]

I think it's going to begin with a 3.

[sweetlou]

I hope they settle on a 3 year $3million before the hearing.  Makes more sense for both sides.  If he awarded more than $3 million it is only going to bd for a one year contract.

[...]

7 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Most agree that Risto is a second pair guy, a number 3 at $5.4 Mil. Jake can play number 4 at only $2.65? 

Just because Risto gets $5.4M, doesn't mean he's worth $5.4M.

[Randall Flagg]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think the fact that Jason has gone to arbitration (or close to it) four times this summer and signed Larry and Zemgus for their qualifying offers makes it more than a projection.

GMs regularly sign lower roster players to term, the Sissons signing being the most obvious recent example.

Which of those guys would have been given term by other GMs? Those players all reek of arbitration QOs, and any of us would have said so at any point last season. 

I recognized at the time that my desire to give ERod term was not a common opinion 

And the Sissons deal was weird or quirky to every single fan and analyst I've seen discuss it to this point. 

I think you want that to be the sentiment for the guy in charge of our team, but I don't see a hint of that being the case any more than it is for other GMs in the league

Edited August 2, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Tondas]

3 minutes ago, ... said:

Just because Risto gets $5.4M, doesn't mean he's worth $5.4M.

Tyler Myers got $6 mil.  Is Myers 600k more valuable?  Trouba got $8 million?  What would Risto get if he was a UFA?  The market says he's worth at least his $ 5.4.

[TrueBlueGED]

27 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I'm at $3 mil.  Again, Zadorov is getting $3.2 and played 11 more games than McCabe and had the same amount of points.  It's the going rate.

Fair enough, but for what I think McCabe is, I'm looking to beat the market. I'd rather have Nelson play his off hand than pay McCabe $3M+ to skate on the third pair. 

[Tondas]

2 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Fair enough, but for what I think McCabe is, I'm looking to beat the market. I'd rather have Nelson play his off hand than pay McCabe $3M+ to skate on the third pair. 

I'm ok with that providing the $2.2 million we save keeping Nelson over McCabe is used to get more talent and not just sitting idle.

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Which of those guys would have been given term by other GMs? Those players all reek of arbitration QOs, and any of us would have said so at any point last season. 

I recognized at the time that my desire to give ERod term was not a common opinion 

And the Sissons deal was weird or quirky to every single fan and analyst I've seen discuss it to this point. 

I think you want that to be the sentiment for the guy in charge of our team, but I don't see a hint of that being the case any more than it is for other GMs in the league

Darcy and probably Murray would have signed Jake to a 4-year, $12-million deal.

No one would have been surprised to see a GM hand Ullmark a goalie-of-the-future boom or bust deal with term, like many wanted Reinhart to get last year.

ERod could have easily been signed for two or three.

Girard, Kerfoot and Compher got term and money they have yet to earn. Sundqvist got 4 years. Chariot got 3. Crouse got 3. Panic got 4. Brandon Tanev got 6!

My point is some GMs dedicate a lot of money to the bottom half of their roster (hi, Jim Benning) or pay young players money they haven’t earned yet in the hopes of benefiting on the back half.

Botterill is demonstrating so far he’s not prone to either of those tactics.

I can’t see why you would argue otherwise.

[Randall Flagg]

12 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Fair enough, but for what I think McCabe is, I'm looking to beat the market. I'd rather have Nelson play his off hand than pay McCabe $3M+ to skate on the third pair. 

I read some article showing that analytics indicate playing guys on their off hand is a horrible thing to ever do 

[TrueBlueGED]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I read some article showing that analytics indicate playing guys on their off hand is a horrible thing to ever do 

Link me. Liiiiinnnnkkkkkk mmmmmeeeeeeee

[Randall Flagg]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Darcy and probably Murray would have signed Jake to a 4-year, $12-million deal.

No one would have been surprised to see a GM hand Ullmark a goalie-of-the-future boom or bust deal with term, like many wanted Reinhart to get last year.

ERod could have easily been signed for two or three.

Girard, Kerfoot and Compher got term and money they have yet to earn. Sundqvist got 4 years. Chariot got 3. Crouse got 3. Panic got 4. Brandon Tanev got 6!

My point is some GMs dedicate a lot of money to the bottom half of their roster (hi, Jim Benning) or pay young players money they haven’t earned yet in the hopes of benefiting on the back half.

Botterill is demonstrating so far he’s not prone to either of those tactics.

I can’t see why you would argue otherwise.

I don't think Darcy would have done that, and that's not an argument - it's an unknowable, unconvincing claim. 

Tanev, Girard, Compher have all shown more in the NHL than any of our guys. Sundqvist wouldn't have gotten that had he not played a key role on a cup winning team while substantially bumping up his production this year. 

I can agree that Botterill tends to prefer 1 or 2 year contracts for all of his players not named Skinner or Eichel. I'm not sure why, and wish it wasn't the case, that this list includes Sam Reinhart. 

The bold isn't something that you can claim is a solely good (or solely bad) thing. He kind of did it with Eichel, though. Jack had never scored sixty points upon signing what was one of the top 5 largest contracts in NHL history at the time, no? 

And in any event, that's not the sentiment I was objecting to - I don't see any of this as pointing to some unique and good GM quality best described as "hardball with the lower guys on a bad team," the way you originally described it. I think he's applying common sense to the players he has, in the contract situations they're all in at the same time. The metanarrative in that isn't really compelling. 

And if it was true, I don't think I like it. I don't want him treating a guy like Larry or Rodrigues, each of whom is not the problem and does their job well, as if their role on the team is relatively unimportant and implicitly saying that the reason the team is where it is is because of that - this comes from the "on a bad team" part of what you said. That's irrelevant to what an individual hockey player brings to the table. Of course, given what Jason has shown us in two years, especially in what he appears to see in his pro-talent evaluation of depth forwards, this wouldn't be surprising at all, just like our collapse this year wasn't surprising at all 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Randall Flagg]

7 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Link me. Liiiiinnnnkkkkkk mmmmmeeeeeeee

https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/03/04/quantifying-the-importance-of-handedness/

[Rasmus_]

I just laughed, when I saw 4.3M.  He should settle for the 2.5M dollar defensemen that he is.  

[WildCard]

22 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I read some article showing that analytics indicate playing guys on their off hand is a horrible thing to ever do 

And Dahlin?

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I don't think Darcy would have done that, and that's not an argument - it's an unknowable, unconvincing claim. 

Tanev, Girard, Compher have all shown more in the NHL than any of our guys. Sundqvist wouldn't have gotten that had he not played a key role on a cup winning team while substantially bumping up his production this year. 

I can agree that Botterill tends to prefer 1 or 2 year contracts for all of his players not named Skinner or Eichel. I'm not sure why, and wish it wasn't the case, that this list includes Sam Reinhart. 

The bold isn't something that you can claim is a solely good (or solely bad) thing. He kind of did it with Eichel, though. Jack had never scored sixty points upon signing what was one of the top 5 largest contracts in NHL history at the time, no? 

And in any event, that's not the sentiment I was objecting to - I don't see any of this as pointing to some unique and good GM quality best described as "hardball with the lower guys on a bad team," the way you originally described it. I think he's applying common sense to the players he has, in the contract situations they're all in at the same time. The metanarrative in that isn't really compelling. 

And if it was true, I don't think I like it. I don't want him treating a guy like Larry or Rodrigues, each of whom is not the problem and does their job well, as if their role on the team is relatively unimportant and implicitly saying that the reason the team is where it is is because of that - this comes from the "on a bad team" part of what you said. That's irrelevant to what an individual hockey player brings to the table. Of course, given what Jason has shown us in two years, especially in what he appears to see in his pro-talent evaluation of depth forwards, this wouldn't be surprising at all, just like our collapse this year wasn't surprising at all 

 

Even after all that, I STILL like the way he has handled the contracts of our restricted free agents this year. 

And I have no idea if you agree or disagree. ?

[GoPuckYourself]

I like what McCabe brings to the table, he adds toughness to a group that's pretty weak. He isn't flashy and adds very little scoring but he let's players know he's around by his hits and checking ability which I like and think 3-3.2M is fair for what he is.

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

 

Even after all that, I STILL like the way he has handled the contracts of our restricted free agents this year. 

And I have no idea if you agree or disagree. ?

I agree with that! Botterill has done exactly one thing this offseason that I didn't either like or love, and that was the Vesey trade, which still isn't bad to me, just meh. 

 

[MattPie]

I don't have a lot to say on this, but:

• $3M seems like a reasonable price for a guy that can play in the NHL
• Despite all the D the Sabres have amassed, I'm not sure we're at the point where the Sabres should be throwing away proven NHL-capable people yet

[GASabresIUFAN]

27 minutes ago, MattPie said:

I don't have a lot to say on this, but:

• $3M seems like a reasonable price for a guy that can play in the NHL
• Despite all the D the Sabres have amassed, I'm not sure we're at the point where the Sabres should be throwing away proven NHL-capable people yet

Especially someone who can actually play defense

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Fair enough, but for what I think McCabe is, I'm looking to beat the market. I'd rather have Nelson play his off hand than pay McCabe $3M+ to skate on the third pair. 

I completely disagree.  Nelson is very much a borderline NHL player, while McCabe IMHO is a legit #4 and one of the only guys in the D group who will lay someone out -- especially if/when Risto is traded.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

I agree with that! Botterill has done exactly one thing this offseason that I didn't either like or love, and that was the Vesey trade, which still isn't bad to me, just meh. 

 

Then I don’t have a clue what we were debating. ?

[GoPuckYourself]

Not sure what people are seeing in Casey Nelson, the dude is soft , is a liability defending.

[Randall Flagg]

5 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

Not sure what people are seeing in Casey Nelson, the dude is soft , is a liability defending.

I think you can make a similar list of problems for 95% of the 7-8D in the NHL, so perhaps people just don't see value in dumping him and assuming his place will be taken by someone better. He is a good puck distributor, which fits in with the blue line build.