Official Sabres Acquire Ben Bishop and a 2022 7th Rounder for Future Considerations

[tom webster]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

The concern I have with this move is the timing.  The timing tells me that the plan is to need the cap floor insurance.  That implies that getting outside vet help is not a priority (at least enough vet help to approach the cap floor anyway).

This is a move that could have been made the day before the season starts if we were still in need of getting to the floor.  
 

Regardless, I’ll gnash my teeth and rend garments when we actually get to the season opener and we still have significant holes.  There is alot of time. 

I think the timing has more to do with Dallas. They are trying to hire Deboer and are trying to convince him they have the flexibility to go all in on a Cup run.

[MattPie]

Looking at the draft pick hits, a 7th is something like 8% to play in the NHL meaningfully. But a 4th is only around 20%. Down in this part of the draft, more chances to hit is probably more important than that difference. And getting the pick for free because if for whatever reason the contract could be LITR is icing on the cake. As other have said, extra pick, cap flexibility, and zero consequences? Sign me up.

(I don't count the $700k paid out, that's the owners' money and not my problem; cap is the only $ number worth caring about)

[dudacek]

Here’s another way of looking at this:

If they fill out the roster by signing Olofsson for 6, Subban for 4, Hinostroza for 2 and Campbell for 5, they don’t need this to get over the floor.

But if they sign Olofsson for 4.5, Subban for 3, Hinostroza  for 1 and Campbell for 3.5, they would.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here’s another way of looking at this:

If they fill out the roster by signing Olofsson for 6, Subban for 4, Hinostroza for 2 and Campbell for 5, they don’t need this to get over the floor.

But if they sign Olofsson for 4.5, Subban for 3, Hinostroza  for 1 and Campbell for 3.5, they would.

Campbell is not signing for 3.5, not a chance. 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here’s another way of looking at this:

If they fill out the roster by signing Olofsson for 6, Subban for 4, Hinostroza for 2 and Campbell for 5, they don’t need this to get over the floor.

But if they sign Olofsson for 4.5, Subban for 3, Hinostroza  for 1 and Campbell for 3.5, they would.

What's the maximum price per year do you think Campbell will get from the market? I would say somewhere between 5 to 6, 5.5 is a realistic number. Do you see KA paying that? I'm not so sure he would. Odds are that the GM is going to go to the bargain bin and get a lower tier goalie for 3 to 3.5 M per year. 

[Huckleberry]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Campbell is not signing for 3.5, not a chance. 

Yeah I think he wants around 6 mill a year.   He is not sticking in Toronto would be my guess.

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Campbell is not signing for 3.5, not a chance. 

Not really the point.

It was supposed to be an illustration of how Bishop’s contract might become useful given the holes in the Sabres roster and how they might fill them.

Fill in some other name for $3.5 after Campbell rejects them then.

40 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What's the maximum price per year do you think Campbell will get from the market? I would say somewhere between 5 to 6, 5.5 is a realistic number. Do you see KA paying that? I'm not so sure he would. Odds are that the GM is going to go to the bargain bin and get a lower tier goalie for 3 to 3.5 M per year. 

 

Most observers seem to expect Campbell to get $5 million X 5 years. I think giving a career backup an AAV that puts him in the top dozen goalies in the league is risky, despite his good numbers over the past 2 years. I think giving a 30 year old goalie who has played more than 31 games just once in his career and never won a playoff series a 5-year contract is foolish.

i think there’s a chance Adams will overpay on salary if his scouts and his analytics department believe last year’s Campbell is for real. I strongly doubt he gives him term.

Edited June 13, 2022 by dudacek

[Brawndo]

Scratch one low end possibility. 

[Porous Five Hole]

33 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yeah I think he wants around 6 mill a year.   He is not sticking in Toronto would be my guess.

 

57 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What's the maximum price per year do you think Campbell will get from the market? I would say somewhere between 5 to 6, 5.5 is a realistic number. Do you see KA paying that? I'm not so sure he would. Odds are that the GM is going to go to the bargain bin and get a lower tier goalie for 3 to 3.5 M per year. 

18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Most observers seem to expect Campbell to get $5 million X 5 years. I think giving a career backup an AAV that puts him in the top dozen goalies in the league is risky, despite his good numbers over the past 2 years. I think giving a 30 year old goalie who has played more than 31 games just once in his career and never won a playoff series a 5-year contract is foolish.

Frederik Andersen signed for 2/4.5mil AAV last offseason. Andersen’s body of work is more complete (209 games played at that time) than Campbell’s (71 games played as of today). 
 

Campbell made 1.8m last year. 
 

No one in the league is giving Campbell a five year deal, and no one is giving him 5 million AAV.

I would offer 2 years at 4 mil AAV, or 3 years at 3.6 mil AAV.

 

[Huckleberry]

7 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

 

Frederik Andersen signed for 2/4.5mil AAV last offseason. Andersen’s body of work is more complete (209 games played at that time) than Campbell’s (71 games played as of today). 
 

Campbell made 1.8m last year. 
 

No one in the league is giving Campbell a five year deal, and no one is giving him 5 million AAV.

I would offer 2 years at 4 mil AAV, or 3 years at 3.6 mil AAV.

 

Maybe, but the perception of Andersen was that of a goalie in decline, he had some rough seasons for the leafs coming over from the ducks.   He basically signed a deal to prove himself again.

Campbell made himself look like a solid 1A option in a goaliemarket where 10+ teams are looking for that and can chose between him, MAF, Halak and Holtby.

[Porous Five Hole]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Maybe, but the perception of Andersen was that of a goalie in decline, he had some rough seasons for the leafs coming over from the ducks.   He basically signed a deal to prove himself again.

Campbell made himself look like a solid 1A option in a goaliemarket where 10+ teams are looking for that and can chose between him, MAF, Halak and Holtby.

Freddy started that year 12-3-2 and then got hurt. I don’t think his previous seasons were rough. He was a solid #1 for a playoff team. 
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/andersen-playing-injury-leafs-wasnt-best-idea/sn-amp/

[sabresparaavida]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Maybe, but the perception of Andersen was that of a goalie in decline, he had some rough seasons for the leafs coming over from the ducks.   He basically signed a deal to prove himself again.

Campbell made himself look like a solid 1A option in a goaliemarket where 10+ teams are looking for that and can chose between him, MAF, Halak and Holtby.

I’d add Kruemper to that list, and maybe Husso, but yeah there’s definitely more demand for good goalies than there is supply.

[inkman]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here’s another way of looking at this:

If they fill out the roster by signing Olofsson for 6, Subban for 4, Hinostroza for 2 and Campbell for 5, they don’t need this to get over the floor.

But if they sign Olofsson for 4.5, Subban for 3, Hinostroza  for 1 and Campbell for 3.5, they would.

 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Not really the point.

It was supposed to be an illustration of how Bishop’s contract might become useful given the holes in the Sabres roster and how they might fill them.

Fill in some other name for $3.5 after Campbell rejects them then.

 

Most observers seem to expect Campbell to get $5 million X 5 years. I think giving a career backup an AAV that puts him in the top dozen goalies in the league is risky, despite his good numbers over the past 2 years. I think giving a 30 year old goalie who has played more than 31 games just once in his career and never won a playoff series a 5-year contract is foolish.

i think there’s a chance Adams will overpay on salary if his scouts and his analytics department believe last year’s Campbell is for real. I strongly doubt he gives him term.

Chad D discussed this on WGR During sports talk Saturday (my official lawn mowing background noise).  As you both implicated, this makes it so the Sabres won’t NEED to throw money at someone just to get to the floor.  It doesn’t mean they need it but if they strike out in the high end UFAs, they don’t need to give Campbell $8 million dollars or something foolish akin to that. 

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

 

Frederik Andersen signed for 2/4.5mil AAV last offseason. Andersen’s body of work is more complete (209 games played at that time) than Campbell’s (71 games played as of today). 
 

Campbell made 1.8m last year. 
 

No one in the league is giving Campbell a five year deal, and no one is giving him 5 million AAV.

I would offer 2 years at 4 mil AAV, or 3 years at 3.6 mil AAV.

 

Salary scales change year to year usually on an upward track. I don't know how long his contract will be for but it wouldn't be surprising if he was in the $5 M plus range. The market will judge what his worth is. When a number of teams are bidding for an essential service the price will go up. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by JohnC

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not really the point.

It was supposed to be an illustration of how Bishop’s contract might become useful given the holes in the Sabres roster and how they might fill them.

Fill in some other name for $3.5 after Campbell rejects them then.

 

Most observers seem to expect Campbell to get $5 million X 5 years. I think giving a career backup an AAV that puts him in the top dozen goalies in the league is risky, despite his good numbers over the past 2 years. I think giving a 30 year old goalie who has played more than 31 games just once in his career and never won a playoff series a 5-year contract is foolish.

i think there’s a chance Adams will overpay on salary if his scouts and his analytics department believe last year’s Campbell is for real. I strongly doubt he gives him term.

Well 30 years old is pretty young and spry compared to the goalie we signed this year.

Ullmark got 20 million for 4 years, most agree it was a high price, but that's what goalies can get. Campbell will get more than that so your 5x5 is not unreasonable. Somebody will offer him that, if not more. 

I think the point we can agree on though is the team has holes. Fair enough? Given that, I'd simply rather we picked up a contract or two of players who can actually play some hockey and meet the floor that way. Nick Foligno, for example, would have been perfect. 4th line duty with Kyle and Girgs, veteran leadership, local historical connections, perfect fit even if he scores about as much as Hayden. There are other teams as well who would gladly unload players so they can have free agency room. If we aren't spending big in free agency ourselves, the least we can do imo is add something/anything to the roster and not just dead money.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

. 

I think the point we can agree on though is the team has holes. Fair enough? Given that, I'd simply rather we picked up a contract or two of players who can actually play some hockey and meet the floor that way. Nick Foligno, for example, would have been perfect. 4th line duty with Kyle and Girgs, veteran leadership, local historical connections, perfect fit even if he scores about as much as Hayden. There are other teams as well who would gladly unload players so they can have free agency room. If we aren't spending big in free agency ourselves, the least we can do imo is add something/anything to the roster and not just dead money.

That’s perfectly valid.

One Foligno isn’t enough to get you over the floor. Multiple Folignos can, but if you pick up multiple guys like Foligno to be roster regulars, that means guys like Peterka or Quinn will be sitting out. You can’t have both. There are only so many roster spots available. Right now, the Sabres have 12 forwards and 5 defencemen who should be in the NHL.

Personally, I would much rather watch JJ Peterka than a guy like Nick Foligno.

Edited June 13, 2022 by dudacek

[Doohicksie]

23 hours ago, Weave said:

The concern I have with this move is the timing.  The timing tells me that the plan is to need the cap floor insurance.  

The timing is driven by Dallas.  They wanted the contract gone prior to negotiating their contracts for Otter and Robertson.

[Doohicksie]

5 hours ago, sabresparaavida said:

there’s definitely more demand for good goalies than there is supply.

This should help the Sabres who have plenty of cap space. 

[Taro T]

28 minutes ago, dudacek said:

That’s perfectly valid.

One Foligno isn’t enough to get you over the floor. Multiple Folignos can, but if you pick up multiple guys like Foligno to be roster regulars, that means guys like Peterka or Quinn will be sitting out. You can’t have both. There are only so many roster spots available. Right now, the Sabres have 12 forwards and 5 defencemen who should be in the NHL.

Personally, I would much rather watch JJ Peterka than a guy like Nick Foligno.

And to cover for injuries, they really need to be at at least 14 & 8 heading into the season.  (And Bjork shouldn't be one of those 14.  Perfectly fine w/ him starting the year at 15 - the 2nd injury callup who hopefully will get supplanted by a guy like Biro or Murray.)

Adams may agree w/ those of you who don't want to see any veterans that could beat Peterka out for a spot (or Quinn, or Asplund, or whomever) but really expect that's shortsighted unless a rather substantial part of Adams secretly longs to be in the mix for Berard in any but an extreme longshot way.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

That’s perfectly valid.

One Foligno isn’t enough to get you over the floor. Multiple Folignos can, but if you pick up multiple guys like Foligno to be roster regulars, that means guys like Peterka or Quinn will be sitting out. You can’t have both. There are only so many roster spots available. Right now, the Sabres have 12 forwards and 5 defencemen who should be in the NHL.

Personally, I would much rather watch JJ Peterka than a guy like Nick Foligno.

No it absolutely doesn't mean that. What it means is you have a body in that hole UNTIL Quinn etc. is actually ready to take that spot and/or you have a veteran guy who can step into that spot if/when the kid has a slump or struggle period and needs a little stint watching or even going back down for a bit. If Quinn etc. is so good he wins the spot and the veteran sits out so what? Reserve player in case of injuries and nothing lost. 

I am simply not as confident as many are that we will succeed with more kids right away and having them all sink or swim together. I personally do not think Quinn is ready, Peterka might be. 

[dudacek]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No it absolutely doesn't mean that. What it means is you have a body in that hole UNTIL Quinn etc. is actually ready to take that spot and/or you have a veteran guy who can step into that spot if/when the kid has a slump or struggle period and needs a little stint watching or even going back down for a bit. If Quinn etc. is so good he wins the spot and the veteran sits out so what? Reserve player in case of injuries and nothing lost. 

It absolutely does.

If you simply add 3 Folignos to get to the floor, you have 15 forwards, one of which has to go to minors because of roster limits.

You can’t send down the more expensive Foligno in favour of a Quinn because you would drop below the floor again.

There is a workaround though. You could acquire a dead money IR contract to get you over the floor. If that contract is big enough, you could send down or waive or trade whoever you want and not have to worry about that move dropping you under the floor.

That’s the biggest irony of this frustrating thread; People are saying the Sabres got Bishop so they don’t have to pay some more veterans. Getting him actually means they can.

Edited June 14, 2022 by dudacek

[Doohicksie]

It blows my mind that what was largely an administrative move by the GM to manage the salary cap is still going strong after 10 pages.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

It absolutely does.

If you simply add 3 Folignos to get to the floor, you have 15 forwards, one of which has to go to minors because of roster limits.

You can’t send down the more expensive Foligno in favour of a Quinn because you would drop below the floor again.

There is a workaround though. You could acquire a dead money IR contract to get you over the floor. If that contract is big enough, you could send down or waive or trade whoever you want and not have to worry about that move dropping you under the floor.

That’s the biggest irony of this frustrating thread; People are saying the Sabres got Bishop so they don’t have to pay some more veterans. Getting him actually means they can.

Don't believe the bolded is quite correct.  Players on 1 way contracts that get sent down only have ~$1MM cleared from the cap (league minimum plus $375k) to let the team bring another cheap player up to take his roster spot.

The league & PA don't want guys getting sent down just to bury their cap hits.  Consider it the Wade Redden Rule.

[inkman]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No it absolutely doesn't mean that. What it means is you have a body in that hole…

That’s the goal 

[shrader]

On 6/13/2022 at 9:15 AM, dudacek said:

Most observers seem to expect Campbell to get $5 million X 5 years. I think giving a career backup an AAV that puts him in the top dozen goalies in the league is risky, despite his good numbers over the past 2 years. I think giving a 30 year old goalie who has played more than 31 games just once in his career and never won a playoff series a 5-year contract is foolish.

If you tweaked the age slightly, I'd swear you were talking about a certain Swedish goalie we didn't sign last year.  I guess those extra years do make a big difference, but that contract's not looking so hot right now.