Linus Ullmark: signs with Boston Bruins

[rickshaw]

Well, things in goal looking bleak. If the 40 year old can be our number one, yikes. 
 

Jack must be licking his chops to stay now. Lol

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

9 hours ago, Pimlach said:

The young core is going to play with who? 

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, Thorny said:

Smart Sabres twitter says we are doing it right, btw. For those that are leaning that way. 

Maybe it's true. Maybe I am too biased against the strategy because I don't want it to happen, don't believe it will work. I don't want to waste two more years watching a bad team. I can't get on board with it. 

But it's out there. 

Smart Sabres Twitter isn't looking at an invoice to pay to watch this #### show.

They're charging 8% more than they did the last time fans were allowed to fill the building.  There should be a 20% reduction in price from that.  (Yeah, yeah, CBA, other owners, whatever.  There is no imperative to win & unless an actual NHL goalie gets brought in, really doubt there's an imperative to be entertaining either.  The price should go down, not up.)

[Broken Ankles]

As if losing Hall and Ullmark to the Dastardly* Bruins weren’t enough, they go and sign Steven Fogarty. When will the pain end? 

[nucci]

[dudacek]

It really looks like term was the issue here.

Bad call by Adams in my opinion. Time will tell.

[Thwomp!]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It really looks like term was the issue here.

Bad call by Adams in my opinion. Time will tell.

They're not giving term to anyone.  Tons of cap room for the next owner 😉

[nucci]

offer your No.1 goalie a 1 year deal and expect him to take it?

[darksabre]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It really looks like term was the issue here.

Bad call by Adams in my opinion. Time will tell.

It's not like 4 years is even that much term. When I think of negotiations over contract length I imagine things like 6-8 year deals as being worth debating. But 4?

[SDS]

9 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's not like 4 years is even that much term. When I think of negotiations over contract length I imagine things like 6-8 year deals as being worth debating. But 4?

I think this is suggestive of financial constraints being put on acquisitions.

[darksabre]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

I think this is suggestive of financial constraints being put on acquisitions.

I certainly can't argue that it doesn't look like that 

[Radar]

45 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It really looks like term was the issue here.

Bad call by Adams in my opinion. Time will tell.

I think his injury history plus goalies in pipeline made them not wanting four years. JMO. Wish they didn't wait to the last minute same for Rhinehart.

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, nucci said:

And people maintain we aren't "trying to lose". 

By prioritizing the rebuild tank, they are unable/unwilling to take on long term contracts at this time. This expectedly and predictably leads to the loss of their goalie, who they do not replace with anyone capable. These are all willing side affects of the plan: losing is a willing side affect 

They of course won't say "we want to lose", but not taking on a LT contract, even a relatively safe one for a very good player you need, when you'll be left with almost nothing after, is the priority - leaving the rest inevitable 

[SDS]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

And people maintain we aren't "trying to lose". 

By prioritizing the rebuild tank, they are unable/unwilling to take on long term contracts at this time. This expectedly and predictably leads to the loss of their goalie, who they do not replace with anyone capable. These are all willing side affects of the plan: losing is a willing side affect 

They of course won't say "we want to lose", but not taking on a LT contract, even a relatively safe one for a very good player you need, when you'll be left with almost nothing after, is the priority - leaving the rest inevitable 

Is your point that they offered him a contract that they knew he would decline? They’ve been talking all summer and the thought is that they were close. So did they sincerely try to sign him or not?

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, SDS said:

Is your point that they offered him a contract that they knew he would decline? They’ve been talking all summer and the thought is that they were close. So did they sincerely try to sign him or not?

They offered him a contract they knew he MIGHT not take - that's my point

When they COULD have offered him one they knew he WOULD

The PRIORITIZED the overall rebuild plan above the signing - this is all actually really simple 

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

They offered him a contract they knew he MIGHT not take - that's my point

For what purpose? Did they want him or not? Are they trying to lose or not? If the point is they’re trying to lose then they could have just let him walk. Why the dog and pony show? Why scramble to sign two goalies an hour or so after his decision? I’m not down with your point here.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, SDS said:

For what purpose? Did they want him or not? Are they trying to lose or not? If the point is they’re trying to lose then they could have just let him walk. Why the dog and pony show? Why scramble to sign two goalies an hour or so after his decision? I’m not done with your point here.

See edit - they wanted him, of course. My point is that "want" is irrelevant if it is so low a priority that it coming to fruition is severely handicapped. 

They prioritized no-long-term-deals over signing him. It was a decision in the name of the rebuild rather than a decision with regards to the roster next season 

My point is that the scenario of wanting to lose, and the scenario of making decisions, as a rule, where they know not winning is the most likely result, is for all intents and purposes the same thing

Edited July 29, 2021 by Thorny

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, SDS said:

For what purpose? Did they want him or not? Are they trying to lose or not? If the point is they’re trying to lose then they could have just let him walk. Why the dog and pony show? Why scramble to sign two goalies an hour or so after his decision? I’m not down with your point here.

The bolded is the appropriate question.

It doesn't build goodwill with the fans - it makes them look clueless or duplicitous.  IMHO.  (Stated a bit too harshly, but it's late and not coming up with a less hyperbolic statement that is still accurate.)

It doesn't build goodwill with Ullmark.  Obviously.

And it doesn't build goodwill with the players - they WANT a good goalie and good teammates.  Linus is both.

 

[Cascade Youth]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

The bolded is the appropriate question.

It doesn't build goodwill with the fans - it makes them look clueless or duplicitous.  IMHO.  (Stated a bit too harshly, but it's late and not coming up with a less hyperbolic statement that is still accurate.)

It doesn't build goodwill with Ullmark.  Obviously.

And it doesn't build goodwill with the players - they WANT a good goalie and good teammates.  Linus is both.

 

I mean, Adams announced (through the Buff News) that bringing Ullmark back to be the starter was a priority heading into the offseason.  The whole thing comes off as disingenuous at worst, inept at best.  And lurking in the background of all of this is the well-known fact that the owner loves UPL, the guy who Ullmark would theoretically be “blocking” 2 or 3 years from now.  It’s really hard not to be fed up with all of this.

[SDS]

3 hours ago, Cascade Youth said:

I mean, Adams announced (through the Buff News) that bringing Ullmark back to be the starter was a priority heading into the offseason.  The whole thing comes off as disingenuous at worst, inept at best.  And lurking in the background of all of this is the well-known fact that the owner loves UPL, the guy who Ullmark would theoretically be “blocking” 2 or 3 years from now.  It’s really hard not to be fed up with all of this.

From the Buffalo news:

”Ullmark, for example, signed for four years in Boston and reportedly wanted six from the Sabres, a scenario that would have severely impacted the development curve and playing time of Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen, the team's top prospect goalie.”

[WildCard]

8 minutes ago, SDS said:

From the Buffalo news:

”Ullmark, for example, signed for four years in Boston and reportedly wanted six from the Sabres, a scenario that would have severely impacted the development curve and playing time of Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen, the team's top prospect goalie.”

I'm not sure how two extra years does that to UPL. Just bench Ullmark. Or if you're that upset about potential playing time for an extremely unproven goalie prospect 4 freaking years from now, trade Ullmark when the time comes.

That is an insane reason to not sign him. Honestly I don't believe it.

Edited July 30, 2021 by WildCard

[Brawndo]

 

[HoosierDaddy]

17 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I'm not sure how two extra years does that to UPL. Just bench Ullmark. Or if you're that upset about potential playing time for an extremely unproven goalie prospect 4 freaking years from now, trade Ullmark when the time comes.

That is an insane reason to not sign him. Honestly I don't believe it.

I actually think that it was a good move. It’s not like we’re talking about Vasilevsky here. Ullmark is an average NHL goalie with an injury history. He probably wanted 6x5.5. That’s an overpay and a contract that’s hard to move. We’ll have to overpay players to play here when we are trying to win again, but not now. Their plan has to be UPL winning the job out of camp and Anderson mentoring him. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by HoosierDaddy
Autocorrected Ullmark to I’ll mark

[WildCard]

Just now, HoosierDaddy said:

I actually think that it was a good move. It’s not like we’re talking about Vasilevsky here. I’ll mark is an average NHL goalie with an injury history. He probably wanted 6x5.5. That’s an overpay and a contract that’s hard to move. We’ll have to overpay players to play here when we are trying to win again, but not now. Their plan has to be UPL winning the job out of camp and Anderson mentoring him. 

I wouldn't pay Ullmark that, but that's not what I'm discussing in the quote I took from SDS. Adams explanation is simply the term, not the cost, and only because it affects UPL/other goalies potential playing time years down the line, not because of Ullmark's injury history.

[HoosierDaddy]

Just now, WildCard said:

I wouldn't pay Ullmark that, but that's not what I'm discussing in the quote I took from SDS. Adams explanation is simply the term, not the cost, and only because it affects UPL/other goalies potential playing time years down the line, not because of Ullmark's injury history.

 

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

I wouldn't pay Ullmark that, but that's not what I'm discussing in the quote I took from SDS. Adams explanation is simply the term, not the cost, and only because it affects UPL/other goalies potential playing time years down the line, not because of Ullmark's injury history.

Then we agree. He got 4x5 from Boston. If he came to the sabres and said “gimme 6x5 and I’ll stay,” KA has to say no. In a league with guaranteed contracts and a hard cap, the contracts are as important as the players. We already have the Skinner and Okposo untradable contracts hanging around our necks like lead weights. We cannot afford to add another bad contract to our books when, if this all works out, we’ll have a lot of young players to pay in a few years. We all know this, but we just can’t stand the losing anymore. I know I can’t. But I’m lucky in that I can just tune it all out because the NHL might as well not exist here in Cincinnati.