Sabres Announce a 7 Year 30 Million Contract Extension for Mattias Samuelsson

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Of course he needs to perform for this to be a good deal.  Personally, expect he will.

Also, when looking at all this, while everybody is focused on $'s / points, with a defensive specialist believe the more accurate / useful metric is $'s/ minutes.  He's going to be getting 22-24 minutes regularly.   If he were only getting 16-18 minutes/game, he probably wouldn't be worth the deal he got.  But he's going to be getting a lot more ice time than that & that is huge.

And combine his minutes w/ Dahlin's 24-26 minutes an Power's 22-24 (and hopefully eventually 24-26)  that's locking down 68-74 minutes/ game.  Tack on 3 PP's / game where they'll only have 1 D-man on the ice & the other 3D-men only have to cover 40-46 minutes/ game.  14-16 minutes/game for D4-6 can be covered by guys that are fairly inexpensive in most cases.

It’s not me that’s focused on points. I honestly feel like I’m waisting my breath: it’s the league itself that prioritizes points when it comes to contracts. 

Again, my argument isn’t that Samuelsson can’t be worth 4 mil over 7 years because he doesn’t score enough points. My argument is that it’s very unlikely for him to score enough points over the next year or two that we’d risk very much in waiting in locking him up, certainly not to my eye as much as we’re risking in doling out a 7 year deal based on 40 NHL games. 

This conversation is kinda funny. I like Samuelsson, I think he’s good and that the contract probably works out fine. I just think there’s a fair argument to make that they took the risk a little sooner than they needed to (based on oodles of comparisons around the league). 

The funny thing is I have to fight for ground in just having it acknowledged that there’s risk in handing out a 7 year deal to a guy who hasn’t played a full nhl season yet lol. Like it’s not about winning an argument, I’m not saying it should be agreed upon that it’s really super duper risky. It’s like people find it *absurd* there’d be a little second guessing over a SEVEN year deal to a guy who’s barely played.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Thorny

[Huckleberry]

7 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Bold move

 

Samuelsson is about as safe if a bet you get tho 

Nah, the contract is low enough to trade him in 2 years if needed.  But its a gamble both ways.

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Maybe there’s confusion - I understand the math for what a 4 dman’s contract might look like. 

I think the contention is betting on Samuelsson being that, after a negligible (to MY eye, as @Curt pointed out) NHL sample size, when they appeared to have plenty of runway in waiting. 

They certainly waited to see more with a significantly better dman in Dahlin. 

Not to belabor the point, though I probably am, but with Samuelsson coming through USNTDP, NCAA, and Rochester, in addition to him being the high profile son of a long time NHLer, the Sabres probably feel like they have a heck of a lot more info on him than just half an NHL season.  They would have had plenty of contacts near him and visibility of him every step of his development.  If everything they have seen at each level is consistent and just reinforces their opinions of him, they might just feel that they KNOW who he is, on and off ice, even though they have only seen it in the NHL for half a season.

I think a significant factor with Dahlin was that he was struggling mentally and with confidence for reasons that have been well discussed.  They may have been a little unsure how he would come out of that and took a more cautious approach as a result.  I don’t think that was a concern with Samuelsson.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s not ME that’s focused on points. I honestly feel like I’m waisting my breath: it’s the LEAGUE that prioritizes points when it comes to contracts. 

Again, my argument isn’t that Samuelsson can’t be worth 4 mil over 7 years because he doesn’t score enough points. My argument is that it’s very unlikely for him to score enough points over the next year or two that we’d risk very much in waiting in locking him up, certainly not to my eye as much as we’re risking in doling out a 7 year deal based on 40 NHL games. 

This conversation is kinda funny. I like Samuelsson, I think he’s good and that the contract probably works out fine. I just think there’s a fair argument to make that they took the risk a little sooner than they needed to (based on oodles of comparisons around the league). 

The funny thing is I have to fight for ground in just having it acknowledged that there’s risk in handing out a 7 year deal to a guy who hasn’t played a full nhl season yet lol. Like it’s not about winning an argument, I’m not saying it should be agreed upon that it’s really super duper risky. It’s like people find it *absurd* there’d be a little second guessing over a SEVEN year deal to a guy who’s barely played. 

Its incredibly tilted.

Of course there's risk.  Nobody has said there isn't.

But there is also risk in management preaching there's a right way of doing things and then not following up on that themselves.  And it isn't just the risk of Samuelsson getting a lot more $'s in a year.  There is also a risk to the culture should management come across as merely giving character lip service as a virtue.  And if management loses the room, they aren't getting it back.  

That risk may be small, but it isn't negligible.  And combining that w/ how much more he might get in a year, the risk is worth taking.  Again, IMHO.

And, you don't seem to be lending that risk any weight at all.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

Not to belabor the point, though I probably am, but with Samuelsson coming through USNTDP, NCAA, and Rochester, in addition to him being the high profile son of a long time NHLer, the Sabres probably feel like they have a heck of a lot more info on him than just half an NHL season.  They would have had plenty of contacts near him and visibility of him every step of his development.  If everything they have seen at each level is consistent and just reinforces their opinions of him, they might just feel that they KNOW who he is, on and off ice, even though they have only seen it in the NHL for half a season.

I think a significant factor with Dahlin was that he was struggling mentally and with confidence for reasons that have been well discussed.  They may have been a little unsure how he would come out of that and took a more cautious approach as a result.  I don’t think that was a concern with Samuelsson.

Absolutely.  His play in his "small sample" is exactly in line with his results at every other level that the hockey department looks at.

It definitely reduces the risk inherent in this deal.

[#freejame]

As someone who plays too much Franchise Hockey Manager according to his girlfriend, I'll say these are the type of deals that build dynasties. I don't offer Tage-type contracts, but top-4 locked up long term goes a long way. 

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, Eleven said:

This has to be a league record contract term for a skater with 0 NHL goals, right?

It wasn't meant to be a joke--it's a good trivia question if it's correct.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

It’s not ME that’s focused on points. I honestly feel like I’m waisting my breath: it’s the LEAGUE that prioritizes points when it comes to contracts. 

Again, my argument isn’t that Samuelsson can’t be worth 4 mil over 7 years because he doesn’t score enough points. My argument is that it’s very unlikely for him to score enough points over the next year or two that we’d risk very much in waiting in locking him up, certainly not to my eye as much as we’re risking in doling out a 7 year deal based on 40 NHL games. 

This conversation is kinda funny. I like Samuelsson, I think he’s good and that the contract probably works out fine. I just think there’s a fair argument to make that they took the risk a little sooner than they needed to (based on oodles of comparisons around the league). 

The funny thing is I have to fight for ground in just having it acknowledged that there’s risk in handing out a 7 year deal to a guy who hasn’t played a full nhl season yet lol. Like it’s not about winning an argument, I’m not saying it should be agreed upon that it’s really super duper risky. It’s like people find it *absurd* there’d be a little second guessing over a SEVEN year deal to a guy who’s barely played. 

Its incredibly tilted.

I’m pretty sure my first post was something like “It’s a gamble, but I take that bet” so I don’t think you and I are too far apart on this.

But I haven’t really noticed too many people finding it absurd to 2nd-guess the deal? More like “it’s not nearly as absurd as it appears on the surface.”

The risk is mitigated early by the cheap 1/3 buyout, and later on by the fact that it’s only $4 million, rather than some huge percentage of the cap.

But I think a big part of the reaction is what we saw in the expectations thread: most people who watch the Sabres aren’t projecting Mattias Samuelsson to be a top 4 shutdown defenceman, they believe that is what he is already. And it’s not particularly hard to imagine him at least staying there.

Edited October 13, 2022 by dudacek

[thewookie1]

I actually have more concern with Thompson’s contract than this one. It’s not anywhere near bad In any scenario. If he continues and further becomes a compliment to Dahlin, his cap hit will be awesome and it’s length eats most of his high level years.

[Doohicksie]

Some thoughts from The Hockey Guy about the contract.

"It does send the message to the young players:  If we believe in you, we're gonna make sure you're financially compensated."

Edited October 13, 2022 by Doohickie

[Hank]

Seems like no matter what deal is done there's always the same few posters who aren't happy with the deal. Seems like those same few posters weren't happy when Adams was hired. Seems like those same few posters inevitably bitch about goaltending regardless of who or what topic the thread is about. Seems like those same few posters don't really have an interest in good faith discussion. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

Seems like no matter what deal is done there's always the same few posters who aren't happy with the deal. Seems like those same few posters weren't happy when Adams was hired. Seems like those same few posters inevitably bitch about goaltending regardless of who or what topic the thread is about. Seems like those same few posters don't really have an interest in good faith discussion. 

Eh, you get the usual suspects & then a couple of others that have their reasons for not liking that particular move.

[nfreeman]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

And Mike Peca got a huge deal from the Aisles because he was a Selke quality player that all teams need but is in very short supply.  He was paid for his full game, not just the offensive aspects of it.  And deservedly so.

Samuelsson will most likely be Jay McKee & has a realistic potential to be a Mike Ramsey.  The team has a ton of cap space, the cap is going up w/ at least 5 years left on his deal, & they are showing the players that they not only preach doing things the right way but will actually reward it.  Jay McKee walking was a huge part of the Sabres failure to get by the Otters the last time those teams meant in meaningful games.

Love this deal, not just for having the guy they project to being their shut down D-man for the foreseeable future locked down, but for the intangible value it'll have in the room.

This entire day was about Adams & Pegula saying bust your arse, do things the right way, do your job well, & we will take care of you.  All 3 of these announcements scream both that & we ARE a family.

Great post, especially the comparison to McKee, who was worth every GD nickel the Sabres refused to pay him.
 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

It’s not me that’s focused on points. I honestly feel like I’m waisting my breath: it’s the league itself that prioritizes points when it comes to contracts. 

Again, my argument isn’t that Samuelsson can’t be worth 4 mil over 7 years because he doesn’t score enough points. My argument is that it’s very unlikely for him to score enough points over the next year or two that we’d risk very much in waiting in locking him up, certainly not to my eye as much as we’re risking in doling out a 7 year deal based on 40 NHL games. 

Well, you may not be focused on points, but your position appears to be based on the assumption that points are the only factor that would cause Mule’s cost to rise.  I think that assumption is faulty.

If Mule signed a 2- or 3-year bridge deal, he’d be due for a new contract after 2 or 3 years.  During that period (and I’d expect that KA is quite confident in this), Mule would’ve been Dahlin’s partner and the #3 defenseman, averaging 22-23ish min per game, on a hopefully ascendant powerhouse team — and at the end of that value-juicing period, the cap is likely to be spiking.  As @Doohickiehas noted, Cernak, who is a good comparable, just signed an 8-year extension at $5.2MM per year.  Cernak, who had 1 goal last year in 19 min per game, will be 26 when that contract starts.

I think in that context it’s quite possible that Mule could’ve cost $6MM per year following a bridge, with the subsequent big contract covering fewer of his prime years and more expensive post prime years.

[GoPuckYourself]

I like this signing alot, 4.28M for a wrecking ball and shutdown defensemen. I'm all for it!

Edited October 13, 2022 by GoPuckYourself

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Great post, especially the comparison to McKee, who was worth every GD nickel the Sabres refused to pay him.
 

Well, you may not be focused on points, but your position appears to be based on the assumption that points are the only factor that would cause Mule’s cost to rise.  I think that assumption is faulty.

If Mule signed a 2- or 3-year bridge deal, he’d be due for a new contract after 2 or 3 years.  During that period (and I’d expect that KA is quite confident in this), Mule would’ve been Dahlin’s partner and the #3 defenseman, averaging 22-23ish min per game, on a hopefully ascendant powerhouse team — and at the end of that value-juicing period, the cap is likely to be spiking.  As @Doohickiehas noted, Cernak, who is a good comparable, just signed an 8-year extension at $5.2MM per year.  Cernak, who had 1 goal last year in 19 min per game, will be 26 when that contract starts.

I think in that context it’s quite possible that Mule could’ve cost $6MM per year following a bridge, with the subsequent big contract covering fewer of his prime years and more expensive post prime years.

You misunderstood my position, then. My argument isn’t that points are the only thing that causes his deal to rise, it’s that they are unlikely to rise enough, considering his game, for his contract to go up beyond the 4 mil per that imo *already accounts for* the potential salary increase we might have thought could accompany Samuelsson committing one full season of top 4 defensive d-man game to record. He has certainly not YET earned his current deal, by traditional standard.

What would an arbiter award? 

The contract is probably ok but has a fair bit of risk, let’s not pretend it’s inclusive of what he’s merely proven to be worth, at least in terms of what he’s committed to NHL record and league comparisons therein. The defensive development we are predicting merely earns what we just paid him. If he finds a good offensive game, could be a *really* good deal. 

If he performs as hoped, the deal is fair. From my perspective, I can’t yet say I expect that level player based on the limited NHL action I’ve seen him commit to record.

Not to the extent I’d have gambled NOW, is all I’m saying.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

And hold on, I never argued for a bridge deal. I argued this deal was premature. Ie - he had another year on his current deal, another half-to-full season would go a long way towards further establishing the player and he’s not significantly going to bump up his deal in that time (he’ll STILL be relatively unproven), and certainly not close to Cernak levels, who’s not a good comparable, at all, by experience/being established standards.

I’d have let the season, his first full year in the NHL, play out, before giving him a 7 year deal, yes. Guilty.

At the end of the day, while I think the deal carries significant risk, ill reiterate again that I think it probably works out fine. That’s a testament to the belief I do have in the player. 

Or, really, more accurately, the individuals evaluating said player. I think. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

TSN guys were going to town mocking this deal playing the "I've never heard of this guy" card a lot telling you they really have stopped paying attention to Buffalo at all. 

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

TSN guys were going to town mocking this deal playing the "I've never heard of this guy" card a lot telling you they really have stopped paying attention to Buffalo at all. 

Oh man is it going to be fun when Buffalo forces itself into the conversation

[inkman]

To be fair, giving a guy $30 mill without having scored a goal or playing a full season is a little nuts.  Love the player, don’t hate the contract but it’s somewhat unprecedented.  

[Doohicksie]

37 minutes ago, inkman said:

To be fair, giving a guy $30 mill without having scored a goal or playing a full season is a little nuts.  Love the player, don’t hate the contract but it’s somewhat unprecedented.  

Klingberg only played 65 games prior to the Stars giving him a similar contract.  Yes I recognize the difference, that Klingberg is more offensive, but the Stars saw enough to recognize what they had.  Same situation with the Sabres I believe.

[nfreeman]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

And hold on, I never argued for a bridge deal. I argued this deal was premature. Ie - he had another year on his current deal, another half-to-full season would go a long way towards further establishing the player and he’s not significantly going to bump up his deal in that time (he’ll STILL be relatively unproven), and certainly not close to Cernak levels, who’s not a good comparable, at all, by experience/being established standards.

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing about the contract being early.  The point, as you know, is that early contracts on the right guys result in cap savings, which is one of the key factors in assembling long-term cup contending rosters.

Cernak, who IMHO is a good comparable in terms of role and size, being well established is the exact reason he got 8 x $5.2 after a 1-goal season.  Waiting for Mule to similarly establish himself, as I stated upthread, could easily drive his cost above $6MM per year.

Also, if your point is simply that they should’ve waited until halfway through this season, or next summer, just to see how Mule does this season — there are a lot of factors that go into this.  Mule was ready to sign long-term now.   That might not have been the case in January.  They also might be working on deals with other guys (like Cozens), whose decisions could be influenced by the fact that Mule has now signed.

I understand your concern, and I think it’s valid in the abstract, but I think there are also good reasons to have pulled the trigger now.  

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, Hank said:

Seems like no matter what deal is done there's always the same few posters who aren't happy with the deal. Seems like those same few posters weren't happy when Adams was hired. Seems like those same few posters inevitably bitch about goaltending regardless of who or what topic the thread is about. Seems like those same few posters don't really have an interest in good faith discussion. 

Team Stormcloud

[JustOneParade]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh man is it going to be fun when Buffalo forces itself into the conversation

Same thing the Bills went through.

[MattPie]

15 hours ago, Eleven said:

It wasn't meant to be a joke--it's a good trivia question if it's correct.

I suspect you're right, but I don't have the knowledge to go find out if its true.

[WhenWillItEnd66]

I thin this is going to be a good signing and a deal for years to come. Muel is a good defensive physical dman which this team needs. 4 Mil for a top 4 dman is not bad at all.