Ullmark Signed One Year 2.6 Million

[matter2003]

15 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Kicking the can down the road again. I would of liked a 2 or 3 year deal but with the flat cap and whatnot; more flexibility cannot be a negative.

 

More like giving themselves flexibility if he can't improve his awful PK save percentage...the biggest part of why the PK is so bad is Ullmark is really bad at stopping the puck on it.

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

It wasn't. Jbott had tons of cap in every year after his first one and he pissed it away on 3/4 liners. So sure he designed it to have cap again but he did that the previous season as well. He wasn't some genius he just loved adding old reclamation projects. I give Botterill NO credit for essentially dicking around for 3 years and making one of the worst trades in franchise history. 

The Sabres had roughly the equivalent in cap in the summer of 2019 and Botterill used it on nothing and then in season made the great moves of Frolic and Simmonds. He gets no credit for being cheap with the cap while not filling team needs. 

Bolded is my key point.  He made the moves he could (or was allowed to) knowing it was at best an incremental stop-gap improvement that would at least give him flexibility to make some big moves in subsequent seasons.  

He also brought in RaKru which led to us getting Hall (and he tried getting him before settling for Housely).  

I get some people are still raw and a bit too stubborn to admit or recognize what he did contribute and try to do during his tenure.

1 hour ago, freester said:

You are clueless.  JBOT spent over the cap for atrocious teams resulting in us currently having to pay a cap overage charge.  In addition he signed the worst contract in the league(Skinner) during his tenure..

k. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[Palm Trees And Taxes]

This Sabres franchise hasn't sniffed the playoffs in almost a decade. And I see some fans want longer term deals. I love the 1 year deals. It is time for this franchise to prove something. 1 year contracts are great. Show us something first and if not, we can reboot and have a clean cap.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

 

This was JBotts plan and Adams is cashing in.  Say what you will about his personnel decisions (see Frolik, Sheary, etc), but it's not by chance Adams has all this cap flexibility.  They brought in a guy 3 years ago known for cap management (JBotts) and we now have two seasons (this and next) of increasing cap space with an opportunity to dump more through the expansion draft.  Credit where credit is due.

JBot WAS doing a good job with the cap, certainly better than his predecessor, UNTIL he panicked and got Skinnered. A couple years from now the bitching about how that contract screwed our cap will be endless. 

Before we praise Adams genius too much though, it's just about every team doing this, so it's not like he's special. It's just timing and the current situation. I think he grossly overpaid Montour and gave Girgensens a little too much before he caught on.  So maybe what you can say is he learns quickly. Maybe. 

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

JBot WAS doing a good job with the cap, certainly better than his predecessor, UNTIL he panicked and got Skinnered. A couple years from now the bitching about how that contract screwed our cap will be endless. 

Before we praise Adams genius too much though, it's just about every team doing this, so it's not like he's special. It's just timing and the current situation. I think he grossly overpaid Montour and gave Girgensens a little too much before he caught on.  So maybe what you can say is he learns quickly. Maybe. 

If Skinner can be put in a situation where he can get 30 plus goals then his contract wouldn't be such a concern. Two years ago he was added to a team that had a dearth of goal scorers and ended up scoring 40 goals. His plus/minus was 0. Last year was certainly a down year playing 59 games and scoring only 14 goals with a plus/minus of -26. Was last year an aberration where he struggled to adjust to the new coach with his new system? Let's face it playing on the second line or lower last year was a situation that didn't enhance so much as encumber him.

Based on how he was used last year it was apparent that Skinner was not a Krueger type of player. I'm hoping that the HC will be a little more accommodating to Skinner's weaknesses so that his scoring assets can be accentuated. As I said before getting him back to form will be a factor in whether the team is successful or not. 

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

JBot WAS doing a good job with the cap, certainly better than his predecessor, UNTIL he panicked and got Skinnered. A couple years from now the bitching about how that contract screwed our cap will be endless. 

Before we praise Adams genius too much though, it's just about every team doing this, so it's not like he's special. It's just timing and the current situation. I think he grossly overpaid Montour and gave Girgensens a little too much before he caught on.  So maybe what you can say is he learns quickly. Maybe. 

I take it you are among those who think Montour is basically replacement level and Adams should have let him walk?

Because he had a full arb rights and basically signed for a (by hockey standards) a cost-Of living increase. His qualifying offer guaranteed more than $3.5. He got Just over $3.8.

Not sure where the gross overpayment comes in.

But then again I don’t really understand the apathy or even dislike a few have for Montour either. He’s a 30-point defenceman who can skate like the wind and handle the puck. His not big and nasty, but he does engage. He’s a secondary special teams guy and pretty solid at even-strength. I think he tends to be bit of a puck hog, but his positive plays generally outweigh his negative plays and he’s a legit second-pairing guy.

 

[PerreaultForever]

29 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If Skinner can be put in a situation where he can get 30 plus goals then his contract wouldn't be such a concern. Two years ago he was added to a team that had a dearth of goal scorers and ended up scoring 40 goals. His plus/minus was 0. Last year was certainly a down year playing 59 games and scoring only 14 goals with a plus/minus of -26. Was last year an aberration where he struggled to adjust to the new coach with his new system? Let's face it playing on the second line or lower last year was a situation that didn't enhance so much as encumber him.

Based on how he was used last year it was apparent that Skinner was not a Krueger type of player. I'm hoping that the HC will be a little more accommodating to Skinner's weaknesses so that his scoring assets can be accentuated. As I said before getting him back to form will be a factor in whether the team is successful or not. 

Even if he scores 30 goals he will still be overpaid in the new economy. I'm interested to see what and where Hoffman ends up playing. Another 30 goal scorer with attitude problems, hard to coach, and an even greater defensive liability than Skinner (who is bad). I suspect it'll end up being a lower 1 year number.

If Skinner scores 30 goals, he helps, but not at his price, and not if he takes dumb selfish penalties and/or pouts. 

[PerreaultForever]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I take it you are among those who think Montour is basically replacement level and Adams should have let him walk?

Because he had a full arb rights and basically signed for a (by hockey standards) a cost-Of living increase. His qualifying offer guaranteed more than $3.5. He got Just over $3.8.

Not sure where the gross overpayment comes in.

But then again I don’t really understand the apathy or even dislike a few have for Montour either. He’s a 30-point defenceman who can skate like the wind and handle the puck. His not big and nasty, but he does engage. He’s a secondary special teams guy and pretty solid at even-strength. I think he tends to be bit of a puck hog, but his positive plays generally outweigh his negative plays and he’s a legit second-pairing guy.

 

The overpayment comes in based on the number he got. I don't measure D men by their offensive output, but by their defensive abilities. never liked that whole Housley 5 forwards type of thing that Montour was brought in for. I want guys who help keep the puck out of the net and let the forwards do their job. 

I really don't consider Montour much better than Bogo was, if at all, and for a 5/6 D man (which if he's any higher our D is not good enough) it's a lot of money. 

[Curt]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

The overpayment comes in based on the number he got. I don't measure D men by their offensive output, but by their defensive abilities. never liked that whole Housley 5 forwards type of thing that Montour was brought in for. I want guys who help keep the puck out of the net and let the forwards do their job. 

I really don't consider Montour much better than Bogo was, if at all, and for a 5/6 D man (which if he's any higher our D is not good enough) it's a lot of money. 

He gets the puck out of the defensive zone, with control.  If the puck isn’t in the defensive zone, the other team can’t score.  That’s how he keeps the puck out of the net.

Now, if you are looking for a guy who can stand near the net on the PK and clear the crease, Montour may not be your guy, but at ES I think his defense is pretty good.

[PerreaultForever]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

He gets the puck out of the defensive zone, with control.  If the puck isn’t in the defensive zone, the other team can’t score.  That’s how he keeps the puck out of the net.

Now, if you are looking for a guy who can stand near the net on the PK and clear the crease, Montour may not be your guy, but at ES I think his defense is pretty good.

IF, he does, that's fine, but he definitely can struggle when he doesn't and runs around caught out of position too often leaving the burden on the goalie and his partner who are the ones that get noticed more when the goal goes in. 

I suppose we will see, and maybe with better forwards he won't be an issue the same way, but I have to see it before I start to believe. 

[JohnC]

35 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Even if he scores 30 goals he will still be overpaid in the new economy. I'm interested to see what and where Hoffman ends up playing. Another 30 goal scorer with attitude problems, hard to coach, and an even greater defensive liability than Skinner (who is bad). I suspect it'll end up being a lower 1 year number.

If Skinner scores 30 goals, he helps, but not at his price, and not if he takes dumb selfish penalties and/or pouts. 

There is no argument that he is overpaid. But if he scores 30 or more goals on one of the top two lines then he as a player is an asset. There is too much fixation on a player being under or overpaid. Once a contract is signed for whatever price then the issue is whether the player is productive or not. Okposo is certainly overpaid and to a lesser extent so is Girgs. But even with an unappealing price tag  if a player is productive and serves a role that contributes to team success then there is no need to despair over the size of a contract. If you review any roster there are players who are overpaid, there are players that are underpaid and there are players who play exactly to their contract size. There is never going to be a perfect calibration of contracts to production. The best way to look at this issue is view it from an overall roster perspective. 

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

And this is the beauty of what we are seeing: he is building a better team right now without sacrificing a single piece of the future to make it happen: no prospects, no picks, no long-term anchor contracts festering away cap space.

The blank canvas is in addition to getting better, rather than the Botterill model of instead of.

If it works he has the good problem of trying to make everyone fit, if it doesn't he can reshuffle the deck very easily.

No guarantees it will work, but you can see what he is trying to do and the sense of it. And, as you say, that's refreshing.

He's making a similar bet with the Sabres as Hall did.

Was long term with Reinhart not an option?

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

I take it you are among those who think Montour is basically replacement level and Adams should have let him walk?

Because he had a full arb rights and basically signed for a (by hockey standards) a cost-Of living increase. His qualifying offer guaranteed more than $3.5. He got Just over $3.8.

Not sure where the gross overpayment comes in.

But then again I don’t really understand the apathy or even dislike a few have for Montour either. He’s a 30-point defenceman who can skate like the wind and handle the puck. His not big and nasty, but he does engage. He’s a secondary special teams guy and pretty solid at even-strength. I think he tends to be bit of a puck hog, but his positive plays generally outweigh his negative plays and he’s a legit second-pairing guy.

 

It's merely an evaluation. The idea isn't to give away Montour for futures just to be rid of him, it's to make space for something better. I'm not concerned about losing a valuable player in Kahun because we replaced the forwards we lost with better ones. Maybe we can keep Montour, but it still looks like we'll likely need to move a player to make room, and what I'm apathetic about is merely the prospect of Montour being that player. 

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Was long term with Reinhart not an option?

Sure, but I think this is a better one. This deal with Sam gives us more space to acquire upgrades for this year’s team while keeping  the possibility of a long-term deal open for next summer, after we have a better sense of how Hall and Dahlin fit into our long-term plans. Signing him long-term now adds an extra million at least this year and an extra 6-7 next. The market seems to dictate cap space is the best return on investment at the moment,

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's merely an evaluation. The idea isn't to give away Montour for futures just to be rid of him, it's to make space for something better. I'm not concerned about losing a valuable player in Kahun because we replaced the forwards we lost with better ones. Maybe we can keep Montour, but it still looks like we'll likely need to move a player to make room, and what I'm apathetic about is merely the prospect of Montour being that player. 

Your position on this has always been pretty clear to me and I see the sense of it, even with our differing Montour evaluations.

I’d trade Montour for Kuemper too, despite the hole that creates on our D. I just don’t make the adds you might.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Sure, but I think this is a better one. This deal with Sam gives us more space to acquire upgrades for this year’s team while keeping  the possibility of a long-term deal open for next summer, after we have a better sense of how Hall and Dahlin fit into our long-term plans. Signing him long-term now adds an extra million at least this year and an extra 6-7 next. The market seems to dictate cap space is the best return on investment at the moment,

Your position on this has always been pretty clear to me and I see the sense of it, even with our differing Montour evaluations.

I’d trade Montour for Kuemper too, despite the hole that creates on our D. I just don’t make the adds you might.

I like the play too, but you said "without sacrificing any of the future" and I think it's fair to say they could have likely secured a little bit more of it with a LT Reinhart deal, if they had wanted to. 

I don't think it's fair to construe Adams' work as without risk. You haven't, but to my mind specifically I'd see little risk *without* that uncertain future they in some ways willingly signed up for, here. I understand league wide there are a lot of short term deals, but there aren't no longer term extensions being handed out. 

- - - 

If you'd do Montour for a 7th and a 7th for Kuemper, we are on the same page. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

There is no argument that he is overpaid. But if he scores 30 or more goals on one of the top two lines then he as a player is an asset. There is too much fixation on a player being under or overpaid. Once a contract is signed for whatever price then the issue is whether the player is productive or not. Okposo is certainly overpaid and to a lesser extent so is Girgs. But even with an unappealing price tag  if a player is productive and serves a role that contributes to team success then there is no need to despair over the size of a contract. If you review any roster there are players who are overpaid, there are players that are underpaid and there are players who play exactly to their contract size. There is never going to be a perfect calibration of contracts to production. The best way to look at this issue is view it from an overall roster perspective. 

Well in a way yes, it's just about winning, but everyone knows if you add too many of those overpaid players you're going to be screwed. 

Skinner at his price, was a mistake. If we'd traded him at the deadline we'd have another prospect(s) and lots of money to sign whoever or offer sheet or just pay a bunch of other guys. We'll see what Hall does for us. That's the bigger question. 

[JohnC]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well in a way yes, it's just about winning, but everyone knows if you add too many of those overpaid players you're going to be screwed. 

Skinner at his price, was a mistake. If we'd traded him at the deadline we'd have another prospect(s) and lots of money to sign whoever or offer sheet or just pay a bunch of other guys. We'll see what Hall does for us. That's the bigger question. 

The last thing this franchise would want to do if Skinner gets back on track and the team is positioning itself for the playoffs is to deal the contributing player for future considerations that will probably get you little in return. That makes little sense to me. I don't understand the constant talk about taking actions that set you back in the present in order to theoretically put your team in a better situation for the future. This team has been struggling for more than a decade and the fan base is withering because of the futility of this franchise. It's about time to focus on the now. The future can be addressed when it becomes the now. 

If you are an ardent believer that Skinner's contract is a grandiose mistake don't you think that the market will also have the same assessment? And if that is what the market believes then why would it be receptive to taking him on from a team that is determined to shed him? Okposo certainly has an onerous contract compared to his contribution. How many GMs are burning our phone lines to make a deal for him?

The solution to get a better return on our money is to put him in a position to score goals. That's not only the best solution but the most realistic solution. 

[nfreeman]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

I like the play too, but you said "without sacrificing any of the future" and I think it's fair to say they could have likely secured a little bit more of it with a LT Reinhart deal, if they had wanted to. 

I don't think it's fair to construe Adams' work as without risk. You haven't, but to my mind specifically I'd see little risk *without* that uncertain future they in some ways willingly signed up for, here. I understand league wide there are a lot of short term deals, but there aren't no longer term extensions being handed out. 

- - - 

If you'd do Montour for a 7th and a 7th for Kuemper, we are on the same page. 

Yes, but most likely at the cost of precluding them from being able to afford to keep Hall.  That would've been ill-advised, since they would've been making that decision before they needed to.

[Pimlach]

23 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

In case no one else noted:

Ullmark's contract, unlike Reinhart's, takes him to UFA upon expiry.

Yes.  I was hoping for 2-3 years at 2.8’ish.  
 

There are a lots of cans kicked down the road.   Add another solid goalie and this team will be very competitive.  

Edited October 27, 2020 by Pimlach

[Andrew Amerk]

22 hours ago, inkman said:

That was shi$$y

Shagged Em 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Yes, but most likely at the cost of precluding them from being able to afford to keep Hall.  That would've been ill-advised, since they would've been making that decision before they needed to.

Well if we are sitting here next summer having dealt Reinhart for futures after he informed the team he was headed for arbitration than UFA, and after Hall decided to go to market as well, there will be an argument we should have locked up Reinhart. 

My only point is that I think the decisions are still results dependent. 

[Andrew Amerk]

10 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

More like giving themselves flexibility if he can't improve his awful PK save percentage...the biggest part of why the PK is so bad is Ullmark is really bad at stopping the puck on it.

It IS a team game, you know. 

[pi2000]

9 hours ago, Ruff Around The Edges said:

This Sabres franchise hasn't sniffed the playoffs in almost a decade. And I see some fans want longer term deals. I love the 1 year deals. It is time for this franchise to prove something. 1 year contracts are great. Show us something first and if not, we can reboot and have a clean cap.

On the flip side, if they do show out, it will be a challenge to retain them.

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, pi2000 said:

On the flip side, if they do show out, it will be a challenge to retain them.

I would rather have a player on a short contract who plays well than have a player who is locked up for a long time and not distinguishing himself on the ice. If the organization wants to keep a player it will work it out. If the organization wants to move a player it will have the flexibility to do it with these shorter term deals. 

Some talented players (ex.Hall) want long term deals but can't secure them because of the Covid economy. And there are organizations that want to lock players up but because of the uncertainty of the Covid revenue stream can't commit itself to such a lengthy deal. In other words both players and organizations are dealing with and coping with unexpected financial challenges that couldn't be foreseen. You adjust to the circumstances. That's life!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

Was long term with Reinhart not an option?

I would have prefered a 5, or 6, year deal now in this COVID era reduced salary situation.

IMO, Samson is a keeper.  We are finally getting a *real* roster full, or mostly full, or *real* NHL players.

Now, give me an upgrade in goal, or give me another painful season ending.

+++++

Back on point ...

I think the Linus deal is a very good one.