Linus Ullmark: signs with Boston Bruins

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, HoosierDaddy said:

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.

Again, I'm not discussing, at all, if the contract is good or not. If it was 6x5, or it could have been 6x1, and that still wouldn't be what I'm discussing.

Edited July 30, 2021 by WildCard

[HoosierDaddy]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Again, I'm not discussing, at all, if the contract is good or not. If it was 6x5, or it could have been 6x1, and that still wouldn't be what I'm discussing.

I’m not looking to argue here. I think we agree.  On the front page of this website, there is an article that states that Ullmark’s ask from the Sabres was 6x6. If that’s true, and the other info that the hang up was term, then KA offered him 2x6. That’s reasonable. 6x6 would be a huge overpay that would become an unmovable contract in 2 years. 

[WildCard]

3 minutes ago, HoosierDaddy said:

I’m not looking to argue here. I think we agree.  On the front page of this website, there is an article that states that Ullmark’s ask from the Sabres was 6x6. If that’s true, and the other info that the hang up was term, then KA offered him 2x6. That’s reasonable. 6x6 would be a huge overpay that would become an unmovable contract in 2 years. 

I'm not trying to argue with you lol I just literally don't care about how much he's paid. You're quoting me in a discussion in which I'm not concerned about at all with his pay and responding with the contract details. I am talking about the reasoning reported by the Buffalo News for why he wouldn't go 6 years:

”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.”

[JohnC]

50 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.”

As more information comes in the more inclined I am to agree with the GM in not willing to sign Ullmark for the 6 yr. term. (This is a change in my position.) I previously argued that the Sabres should have been willing to pay more within the same 4 year term that he signed with Boston. But as more information comes out (according to the Buff. News) it appears he wanted a 6 year contract. That's too long for a goalie of his caliber and with his injury history. 

I like Ullmark a lot. But let's not get carried away.  The value that this new regime placed on his talents and his contract demands simply didn't match. In my view the GM's decision/judgment was more more than reasonable. Wanting to retain a player is not the same as having to retain a player at a future debilitating cost. The Skinner contract is the embodiment of that mind-set that you have to have a player beyond one's actual value. Acting on a short term temptation can have longer term negative consequences.

When talking about a player's worth we are not talking about an endeavor that requires precision. We are talking about value falling within an acceptable range. With the added information that has just come out about the Ullmark saga it seems to me that our young GM used good judgment to not go outside the value parameters he established for Ullmark. 

This is a case where the player acted in his own best interest and so did the organization.  In the long run strategic thinking is better than short term tactical advantage. I wish Ullmark well.   

[Taro T]

1 hour 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.”

Something here doesn't jibe.  The word coming out of the Sabres camp for the past few days (prior to Ullmark leaving) was that they were extremely close on a deal & so close they thought they had him essentially locked up.

But if Linus needed the Sabres to get to 6 years, then they weren't close to a deal.  Were the reports from the Sabres camp lies or grossly misreading the tea leaves?  And by the latter, did they believe that being on the same page $'s wise cause them to believe that a deal was imminent even though the 2 literally were years apart?

Would really like to know the term of the deal the Sabres had believed they worked out with him.  Early reports after the signing were it was the same as the Bruin deal, but after that we heard it was shorter than that.  (Wasn't able to read the BN article, don't know if that info was in there.)

If they were both essentially in agreement that Linus probably would sign the deal at $5MM for 4 years, still believe it was foolish of Adams to not be willing to go to $6MM to keep other teams thinking harder about how to get them under their cap.  They really need 2 Ullmark or better quality goalies even if the plan is to finish in the 30's if they want the kids to be playing hockey the right way and not trying to prevent all shots from happening paradoxically allowing more & more high danger chances from occurring as they end up out of position.

If he had the authority to go higher but didn't, shame on him.  If he didn't have the authority to go higher, we're really in store for unwatchable hockey the next 2 years IMHO.

Are there other reasonable explanations for how the narrative coming out prior to late afternoon on the 28th was so far removed from what happened?  Would like to "hear" them, because am getting very numb to the current state of this squad and really lack hope that more than 1/2 of this season's games will be watchable.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, HoosierDaddy said:

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. 

I think the bolded is likely correct and I think it's a terrible plan.

But maybe UPL will prove me wrong.  That would be nice.

 

22 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Something here doesn't jibe.  The word coming out of the Sabres camp for the past few days (prior to Ullmark leaving) was that they were extremely close on a deal & so close they thought they had him essentially locked up.

But if Linus needed the Sabres to get to 6 years, then they weren't close to a deal.  Were the reports from the Sabres camp lies or grossly misreading the tea leaves?  And by the latter, did they believe that being on the same page $'s wise cause them to believe that a deal was imminent even though the 2 literally were years apart?

Would really like to know the term of the deal the Sabres had believed they worked out with him.  Early reports after the signing were it was the same as the Bruin deal, but after that we heard it was shorter than that.  (Wasn't able to read the BN article, don't know if that info was in there.)

If they were both essentially in agreement that Linus probably would sign the deal at $5MM for 4 years, still believe it was foolish of Adams to not be willing to go to $6MM to keep other teams thinking harder about how to get them under their cap.  They really need 2 Ullmark or better quality goalies even if the plan is to finish in the 30's if they want the kids to be playing hockey the right way and not trying to prevent all shots from happening paradoxically allowing more & more high danger chances from occurring as they end up out of position.

If he had the authority to go higher but didn't, shame on him.  If he didn't have the authority to go higher, we're really in store for unwatchable hockey the next 2 years IMHO.

Are there other reasonable explanations for how the narrative coming out prior to late afternoon on the 28th was so far removed from what happened?  Would like to "hear" them, because am getting very numb to the current state of this squad and really lack hope that more than 1/2 of this season's games will be watchable.

Well, there were posters here saying that the Sabres and Linus were very close to a deal, but I didn't interpret KA's words on Linus this way.  I interpreted his statements as "we want Linus, and we hope we can reach a deal with him, but it needs to be on a deal that makes sense for us."

Based on Vogl's tweets, which were probably sourced from Linus' agent, and based on KA's repeated statements about prioritizing flexibility and not boxing out younger players, I don't think the Sabres were willing to go longer than 2 years -- which made Linus' decision on the Bruins' offer a no-brainer.

I think there is a very good likelihood that KA's decision on how much term to offer Linus turns out to be catastrophic.

We'll see.

[Shootica]

I'm starting to get the sense that we (both the org and much of the fanbase) are so enamored with the idea of UPL that we're losing sight of who he currently is.  I like him and believe in his development, but at this point he still hasn't even posted an AHL season north of .900.  Refusing to give Ullmark more that 2 years to create room for UPL, if that's what they did, seems incredibly optimistic.

They need to allow him proper developmental time, and they need to plan around the possibility that he may not develop into a surefire #1 goalie.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Shootica

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, Shootica said:

I'm starting to get the sense that we (both the org and much of the fanbase) are so enamored with the idea of UPL that we're losing sight of who he currently is.  I like him and believe in his development, but at this point he still hasn't even posted an AHL season north of .900.  Refusing to give Ullmark more that 2 years to create room for UPL, if that's what they did, seems incredibly optimistic.

The Buffalo news was quoted that Ullmark asked for six. That’s a substantial gulf.

[Shootica]

Just now, SDS said:

The Buffalo news was quoted that Ullmark asked for six. That’s a substantial gulf.

If that's the case then I can understand it.  6 years is a lot.  I wrote that about the idea that we wouldn't offer more than 2.

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

It’s amazing how much differently I feel about him leaving than I did Lehner.

I wish him the best.

 

May he never win another game.

[Taro T]

41 minutes ago, SwampD said:

It’s amazing how much differently I feel about him leaving than I did Lehner.

I wish him the best.

 

May he never win another game.

Yep.  May he be the victim of 200 0-1 outcomes should he stay where he is.

[Broken Ankles]

5 hours ago, SwampD said:

It’s amazing how much differently I feel about him leaving than I did Lehner.

I wish him the best.

 

May he never win another game.

  This. Nothing more important than my team, nothing less important than theirs. I felt concerned for Lehner as a human, but as a player, nothing. 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I think the bolded is likely correct and I think it's a terrible plan.

But maybe UPL will prove me wrong.  That would be nice.

 

Well, there were posters here saying that the Sabres and Linus were very close to a deal, but I didn't interpret KA's words on Linus this way.  I interpreted his statements as "we want Linus, and we hope we can reach a deal with him, but it needs to be on a deal that makes sense for us."

Based on Vogl's tweets, which were probably sourced from Linus' agent, and based on KA's repeated statements about prioritizing flexibility and not boxing out younger players, I don't think the Sabres were willing to go longer than 2 years -- which made Linus' decision on the Bruins' offer a no-brainer.

I think there is a very good likelihood that KA's decision on how much term to offer Linus turns out to be catastrophic.

We'll see.

We here differing reports that make it difficult to know what the actual contract demands were made by Ullmark. But if it is true that Ullmark wanted a six year contract term from Buffalo after he had a four year offer from Boston then Adams made the right call. Did Adams only offer a two year term? It's becomes a moot point if Boston offered a four year term requiring an even lengthier contract from Buffalo in order to stay. Considering what has been claimed by both sides I'm more inclined to side with our GM on his decision.