Offer Sheets, is it about to happen?

[JoeSchmoe]

46 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Big oof.  Naw.

 

Maths:

If impact is defined by a 200GP player, then even in the back half of the 1st round, you still have a ~44% chance of selecting an impact player.  Over the course of four selections, each which that chance, here's what you get:

9.8% chance of not selecting an impact player

30.9% chance of selecting precisely one impact player

36.4% chance of selecting precisely two impact players

19.1% chance of selecting precisely three impact players

3.8% chance of selecting precisely four impact players

And four years of firsts isn't temporary.  In a sport with an average career length of five years, that's an eternity.

 

But none of this matters because:

...be matched by the other team.

Precisely this. If it did make sense, you'd have to overpay. That said, GMs that are afraid of pissing off their fan bases usually match, even when it doesn't make sense to do so (as in Vanek's case).

But the math highly favours keeping the picks, again with the extra FA money it leaves you, in addition to the high probability of getting more than one impact player.

Edited May 11, 2022 by JoeSchmoe

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Precisely this. If it did make sense, you'd have to overpay. That said, GMs that are afraid of pissing off their fan bases usually match, even when it doesn't make sense to do so (as in Vanek's case).

But the math highly favours keeping the picks, again with the extra FA money it leaves you, in addition to the high probability of getting more than one impact player.

To underscore your point, by keeping your picks and having a stable of prospects in your system your organization is able to handle the loss of a good player to the market. So, the net result is that you are able to move up a player from the system and have the financial wherewithal to participate in the free agent market, not necessarily at the top level but at the mid-tier level.  

[tom webster]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

To underscore your point, by keeping your picks and having a stable of prospects in your system your organization is able to handle the loss of a good player to the market. So, the net result is that you are able to move up a player from the system and have the financial wherewithal to participate in the free agent market, not necessarily at the top level but at the mid-tier level.  

What you also aren’t factoring into the equation are two facts;

1) the likely explosion of the cap in two or three years. Any players signed to long term deals before then will become bargains and the self imposed cap crunch will be gone. The time to strike is now for teams with space and the desire and wherewithal to pull it off.

2) the notion that smart teams haven’t found a way to manipulate the cap when needed. All this need for cheap players is still a concept I’m waiting to bear some fruit.

[Trettioåtta]

3 hours ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

I don't think this is going to happen, but if it does ... 

If I'm KA I do not match.  That's a lot of $ for VO and 2023 1st is pretty solid even if it's lower in round 1.

The issue here is that you're trading a top 6 player for a future over a year away from even playing (at best). For a team that is looking at possibly 12 years without playoffs that is potentially a big call. Deep draft or not.

[Trettioåtta]

2 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

Big oof.  Naw.

 

Maths:

If impact is defined by a 200GP player, then even in the back half of the 1st round, you still have a ~44% chance of selecting an impact player.  Over the course of four selections, each which that chance, here's what you get:

9.8% chance of not selecting an impact player

30.9% chance of selecting precisely one impact player

36.4% chance of selecting precisely two impact players

19.1% chance of selecting precisely three impact players

3.8% chance of selecting precisely four impact players

And four years of firsts isn't temporary.  In a sport with an average career length of five years, that's an eternity.

 

But none of this matters because:

...be matched by the other team.

20% chance for three players that could be bottom 9 players vs a bonafide PPG player who plays in all situations could be worth it though.

Nylander, Zadorov, Ristolainen and Grigorenko for Huberdeau is a trade everyone would make. I think prospects and picks can often by hyped up, and games played can be a poor way of evaluating 'impact' (even though I know it's common). How many late first round picks make it to 200 career points, rather than 200 games, for example?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

54 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

The issue here is that you're trading a top 6 player for a future over a year away from even playing (at best). For a team that is looking at possibly 12 years without playoffs that is potentially a big call. Deep draft or not.

Fair point and I get it.

$5 or $6 per for VO is a lot and is a pretty big overpay I think.  That's the problem.  At least it is for me.

[Trettioåtta]

1 minute ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Fair point and I get it.

$5 or $6 per for VO is a lot and is a pretty big overpay I think.  That's the problem.  At least it is for me.

I entirely agree. I don't like it - and with all our ELCs due to end in the next couple years, we don't want money wasted. Potentially a 4 x 5.5 makes us quite vulnerable

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

Fair point and I get it.

$5 or $6 per for VO is a lot and is a pretty big overpay I think.  That's the problem.  At least it is for me.

 

9 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

I entirely agree. I don't like it - and with all our ELCs due to end in the next couple years, we don't want money wasted. Potentially a 4 x 5.5 makes us quite vulnerable

Really expect people to be very pleasantly surprised by what Olofsson brings next season when healthy.  Could see him in the 30 goal club & not strictly a 1 trick pony like Skinner WAS prior to this past season.

[JoeSchmoe]

1 hour ago, Trettioåtta said:

Nylander, Zadorov, Ristolainen and Grigorenko for Huberdeau is a trade everyone would make.

That was the bottom end prognosis.

On the other hand, there's Power, Quinn, Cozens, and Dahlin. I don't think anyone makes that trade. 

At the same time, an RFA is that much closer to UFA, so you only have the guy for a limited time before you either have to give him a potential Skinner level contract or watch him sail off into the sunset.

[RochesterExpat]

I was a fan of trying the offer sheet on Oettinger (pretty sure I said this in the thread about fixing goaltending) because I thought he could be had for $4m and Dallas might let him walk to sign their other RFAs (Jason Robertson is due a payday, although they may bridge him) and UFAs. His play during the playoffs has ruled that one out entirely.

[Trettioåtta]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

That was the bottom end prognosis.

On the other hand, there's Power, Quinn, Cozens, and Dahlin. I don't think anyone makes that trade. 

At the same time, an RFA is that much closer to UFA, so you only have the guy for a limited time before you either have to give him a potential Skinner level contract or watch him sail off into the sunset.

Fair - but there is no way you should be signing that free agent if you're anywhere near the bottom. I get miscalculations occur, but the only way I do it is if the cupboard is well stocked, and the team looks ready to take the next big step, but is missing a piece, so the other team gets four 20-32 picks.

E.g. picking the Wild as the classic bubble-style team:

• 2014: Alex Tuch
• 2015: Joel Eriksson Ek
• 2016: Luke Kunin
• 2018: Filip Johansson

I still trade that for Hubes (or pretty much any 23 year old stud)

[JoeSchmoe]

1 hour ago, Trettioåtta said:

I get miscalculations occur, but the only way I do it is if the cupboard is well stocked, and the team looks ready to take the next big step

As I stated before, sacrificing future draft picks to improve for only a few years is bad for a franchise. The key to winning is by being competitive year after year until you get lucky.

It's statistically smarter to keep a competitive team year after year after year than to marginally improve your odds in a 2 or 3 year window by loading up, only to fall off afterwards. By giving up 4 first rounders, you will no doubt fall off a cliff as a franchise at the end of those 4 years (in a cap world).

[Weave]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmoe said:

As I stated before, sacrificing future draft picks to improve for only a few years is bad for a franchise. The key to winning is by being competitive year after year until you get lucky.

It's statistically smarter to keep a competitive team year after year after year than to marginally improve your odds in a 2 or 3 year window by loading up, only to fall off afterwards. By giving up 4 first rounders, you will no doubt fall off a cliff as a franchise at the end of those 4 years (in a cap world).

I think that’s thinking too generically.  Situation matters.  A team with a pretty decent pipeline can afford to move picks.   A team without a pipeline is taking a huge gamble.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, tom webster said:

What you also aren’t factoring into the equation are two facts;

1) the likely explosion of the cap in two or three years. Any players signed to long term deals before then will become bargains and the self imposed cap crunch will be gone. The time to strike is now for teams with space and the desire and wherewithal to pull it off.

2) the notion that smart teams haven’t found a way to manipulate the cap when needed. All this need for cheap players is still a concept I’m waiting to bear some fruit.

You look at our payroll situation right now. The Sabres are going to struggle to meet the cap floor, as it did last year. I'm aware that there will be a number of young players who when their next contract comes up will merit a significant raise. It's understood that because of the next contract cycle there will be an increase in payroll. However, (my opinion) the owners have lost a lot of money over the past few years. I see this team for the foreseeable being a low payroll team. My point is that the organization is going to count on cheap players longer than you think. 

[PromoTheRobot]

23 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I will go the other way with this:  I wouldn't count out Kevyn extending an offer to an RFA who's ready to contribute right now but still as a lot of tread on the tires.  He's the kind of GM that will use any means available to build the team to his plan.

Goalie is the position on the Sabres that is a huge question mark. If KA has a chance to add a young keeper why wouldn't he? Because of UPL? Levi?

[Zamboni]

9 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Goalie is the position on the Sabres that is a huge question mark. If KA has a chance to add a young keeper why wouldn't he? Because of UPL? Levi?

You see it differently. And that’s fine… I think KA goes after a stop gap vet who will sign for one or two years, max. I think he’s counting on a goalie who is already Sabres property to develop and take the #1 reins in two years. UPL, Levi, whoever rises to the challenge.

[sweetlou]

If the offer sheet gives you a player that puts the team in the top echelon of the league you may make the trade.  Why? Because all the picks would be late 1st rd picks. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, sweetlou said:

If the offer sheet gives you a player that puts the team in the top echelon of the league you may make the trade.  Why? Because all the picks would be late 1st rd picks. 

True.

Plus, if the trade doesn't pan out, there's a very good probability that at least for the last 2 years the team doesn't have its own 1st rounders it's somebody else's problem.  😉

 

[tom webster]

22 hours ago, Zamboni said:

You see it differently. And that’s fine… I think KA goes after a stop gap vet who will sign for one or two years, max. I think he’s counting on a goalie who is already Sabres property to develop and take the #1 reins in two years. UPL, Levi, whoever rises to the challenge.

He keeps saying that but I really hope it’s just GM speak. Building a contender is about creating internal competition. You acquire talent and make the players compete for playing time. You have them nothing.  I’m really hoping that when Sabre brass talks to Bills brass, that is the point BB stresses.