Jeff Skinner rumors, trade and buyout speculation swirling

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, ... said:

So, you didn't watch them. Gotcha. 

I did, you can lean on this because you don’t have anything coherent to say but easier just to take the L

9 points in 11 games isn’t Jack sh*t

Their captain said otherwise 

as did the stats 

Edited June 21 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not saying that he is wrong. I'm simply saying that I don't see a buyout of Skinner or trade as being very controversial. That's my view.  If you want to say for a faction of the fanbase it would be controversial, then it's likely to be. But it is rare that there is ever any unanimity on any transaction. 

Some of those "casual fans" and others who don't understand the game, some kids, people who enjoy the comedy videos, they might wonder and raise an eyebrow but the minute the team starts winning and is good everybody will agree (reluctantly or willingly) that they guess there was more to it than we know and Skinner was a problem.

Of course if Ruff fails and the team loses, well then it'll be added to the Sabres incompetency list.

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I did, you can lean on this because you don’t have anything coherent to say but easier just to take the L

9 points in 11 games isn’t Jack sh*t

Their captain said otherwise 

I think we will find out what Colorado really thinks of him when they offer him his contract. 

Edited June 21 by PerreaultForever

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Some of those "casual fans" and others who don't understand the game, some kids, people who enjoy the comedy videos, they might wonder and raise an eyebrow but the minute the team starts winning and is good everybody will agree (reluctantly or willingly) that they guess there was more to it than we know and Skinner was a problem.

Of course if Ruff fails and the team loses, well then it'll be added to the Sabres incompetency list.

I think we will find out what Colorado really thinks of him when they offer him his contract. 

I know you want to frame Skinner as “those who think he has value” and “those who aren’t deluded or naive” but that’s not accurate 

- - - 

Sure, re: Casey. My point though was that he had a pretty good playoffs - we already know that 

[...]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I did, you can lean on this because you don’t have anything coherent to say but easier just to take the L

9 points in 11 games isn’t Jack sh*t

Their captain said otherwise 

That's a playoff team with high expectations, he better get 9 points in 11 games playing on the second line.

And what do you expect MacKinnon to say "yeah he was okay, too bad there weren't better options at the deadline."

Look at those minutes, they did not trust Mitts' line enough because that line wasn't bringing home the bacon.

[#freejame]

If we’re not going to spend the money in a worthwhile manner elsewhere, I’d rather watch Skinner and his edge work than save Terry a dollar. 

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know but you asked what was controversial presumably re: the perception of others and he laid it out 

I don't want to belabor a point that I already just made. As I just said it is rare that there is ever unanimity on any issue. Will some people consider a Skinner transaction controversial? Probably so. However, overall, I don't see a Skinner move having much of an effect on the fanbase. 

[sabresparaavida]

3 minutes ago, ... said:

That's a playoff team with high expectations, he better get 9 points in 11 games playing on the second line.

And what do you expect MacKinnon to say "yeah he was okay, too bad there weren't better options at the deadline."

Look at those minutes, they did not trust Mitts' line enough because that line wasn't bringing home the bacon.

Mitts was getting about 17.5 minutes a game in the playoffs, 3 minutes more than the forward behind him. That’s a reasonable amount of time considering the Avalanche have one of the best top lines in the league. 

[PerreaultForever]

47 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know you want to frame Skinner as “those who think he has value” and “those who aren’t deluded or naive” but that’s not accurate 

- - - 

Sure, re: Casey. My point though was that he had a pretty good playoffs - we already know that 

"deluded" no, "naive" maybe. I do think you have to have played hockey to truly understand locker room dynamics and team culture. Watching Shorsey isn't entirely accurate (although it has it's moments). 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

"deluded" no, "naive" maybe. I do think you have to have played hockey to truly understand locker room dynamics and team culture. Watching Shorsey isn't entirely accurate (although it has it's moments). 

Shorsey is about as accurate a depiction as it is to say Canadians are maple syrup swigging igloo dwelling yokels who only say eh 

[PerreaultForever]

Just now, Thorny said:

Shorsey is about as accurate a depiction as it is to say Canadians are maple syrup swigging igloo dwelling yokels who only say eh 

BUT, to be fair................ we do love maple syrup and we do say eh. I mean how do you spell Canada? It's C-eh N-eh D-eh. 

In the Ottawa valley it's not eh, it's eh-f#ck. I kid you not. Go there and you'll hear the local add eh-f#ck to the end of any sentence. Like "boy it's cold today eh-f#ck". 

So, yes, but Shorsey is more accurate than you think as well. 

[LGR4GM]

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

If Skinner is bought out,

1. He gets his money.
2. He can sign wherever he can strike a deal, regardless of what Sabres might want in return for a trade.

Close.  He gets 2/3's his remaining outstanding money.  That other 1/3 is gone and he gets it over 6 years rather than 3 (provided he's bought out this season as it seems very possible he will be).

And, yes, it's up to him and his agent to strike a deal somewhere, but there is no guarantee that he'll be able to get a deal in one of the handful of cities he wants to play in.  Sooooo, he MIGHT be better off accepting a trade to some other team rather than just getting bought out.  Because if he gets traded somewhere he gets all his money and he gets it in the next 3 years.  

Unless the Sabres have to throw in some SERIOUS sweetener beyond retaining 50% of his salary (which costs them 1/6 more in actual $'s than a buyout and $4.5MM in cap space for each of the 3 remaining years), that seems to be THEIR best case resolution of the "Skinner situation."

No data whatsoever on whether somebody would be willing to trade with the Sabres or not nor just what else (if anything) they'd need from the Sabres to take Skinner off their hands.  Will be an interesting next 10 or so days.

[Mr Peabody]

If KA worked for me and a Skinner buyout was on the table I’d mandate a who’s going and a who’s coming list with actual names.  Not a “we’ll have more cap available and can sign our type of player”.   I’d need to be convinced we’d get that guy(s).   No hopium.  Realistic names we’d have a high degree of confidence we could acquire.  

I’d also want high confidence we could replace his 50-60 points.   Not “well this guy should grow into that roll”.  Someone who has a history of doing it.   
 

Guessing KA’s comments that everything is on the table means he’s doing his due diligence and I have little doubt it’s not an easy task.  

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't think he will want to. Unlike Granato, I think Ruff is going to instill a certain level day one and what Lindy wants is a place where he sets that bar and he doesn't have to worry about problem children. Everyone works for that bar and beyond 24/7. And if you don't, you sit or you're gone. 

They already know from the Kreuger time that Skinner will just shut down and float if pressed or asked to do what he doesn't want to do. They want to avoid that. 

I generally agree and would just add that there is no way they would buy him out without Lindy’s assent.  

[Buffalonill]

1 hour ago, Mr Peabody said:

If KA worked for me and a Skinner buyout was on the table I’d mandate a who’s going and a who’s coming list with actual names.  Not a “we’ll have more cap available and can sign our type of player”.   I’d need to be convinced we’d get that guy(s).   No hopium.  Realistic names we’d have a high degree of confidence we could acquire.  

I’d also want high confidence we could replace his 50-60 points.   Not “well this guy should grow into that roll”.  Someone who has a history of doing it.   
 

Guessing KA’s comments that everything is on the table means he’s doing his due diligence and I have little doubt it’s not an easy task.  

Others guys will step in like Jack quinn or zach benson to replace the points 

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

3 hours ago, Mr Peabody said:

If KA worked for me and a Skinner buyout was on the table I’d mandate a who’s going and a who’s coming list with actual names.  Not a “we’ll have more cap available and can sign our type of player”.   I’d need to be convinced we’d get that guy(s).   No hopium.  Realistic names we’d have a high degree of confidence we could acquire.  

I’d also want high confidence we could replace his 50-60 points.   Not “well this guy should grow into that roll”.  Someone who has a history of doing it.   
 

Guessing KA’s comments that everything is on the table means he’s doing his due diligence and I have little doubt it’s not an easy task.  

It's not about replacing his points.  It's replacing the impact of a guy who barely skates in the defensive zone.  At best he's probably a break even player.  Maybe one of the worst contracts in nhl history.

[#freejame]

6 hours ago, Darryl Shannon's +/- said:

It's not about replacing his points.  It's replacing the impact of a guy who barely skates in the defensive zone.  At best he's probably a break even player.  Maybe one of the worst contracts in nhl history.

lol…no. Probably not even top 10. 

[JustOneParade]

10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I generally agree and would just add that there is no way they would buy him out without Lindy’s assent.  

And I would have to assume that would include Lindy having a long sit down with Skinner in making that determination.

[Pimlach]

16 hours ago, msw2112 said:

I understand the animosity towards Skinner, but he does have some plusses as a player:

• He's a very productive goal scorer (which every team needs)
• He's a scrappy guy who gets under opponents' skin (which the Sabres need in abundance)
• There's no indication that he's not a team player or a negative presence in the locker room

Chances are that he's on the way out as he's not helpful in the defensive zone and doesn't appear to play well in a structure, but the guy is not a terrible hockey player.  He's clearly overpaid, but if he is bought out, there's a financial loss, plus, there will be significant cost to replace his offensive production.

Maybe Lindy can work with the guy to overcome his deficiencies.  He'll likely have more influence than a Krueger or Granato did, as he's a proven winner in the league.  I'll leave that up to Lindy (and Adams) to decide.

Proven winner?   Lindy or Skinner?  
 

Lindy seems to have already made his assessment on Skinner, hence the trade/buyout rumors.  

[Buffalonill]

@Thorny atleast tell us why 🙂

[Thorny]

Just now, Buffalonill said:

@Thorny atleast tell us why 🙂

A) we need both, not merely replacing the status quo 

b) we shouldn’t be counting on rookies to replace his production. That would be unserious. I would understand a buyout but he’d need to be replaced with experience 

Experienced good player (s)

[dudacek]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

A) we need both, not merely replacing the status quo 

b) we shouldn’t be counting on rookies to replace his production. That would be unserious. I would understand a buyout but he’d need to be replaced with experience 

Experienced good player (s)

Agreed. I like the idea because I see it as creating an opportunity to make the team better.

But it becomes moot at best (and more likely self-destructive) if that opportunity is left unseized.

 

[Buffalonill]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

A) we need both, not merely replacing the status quo 

b) we shouldn’t be counting on rookies to replace his production. That would be unserious. I would understand a buyout but he’d need to be replaced with experience 

Experienced good player (s)

But benson and Quinn aren't rookies?

Quinn will most likely surpass Skinner if healthy 

And benson is going to get more minutes and his point total will increase.

Everyone wants changes but then they backpedal I don't get it

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Buffalonill said:

But benson and Quinn aren't rookies?

Quinn will most likely surpass Skinner if healthy 

And benson is going to get more minutes and his point total will increase.

Everyone wants changes but then they backpedal I don't get it

Oh i thought you meant other young players would step in in much the same fashion they did, not literally them. 

Benson was already here. Quinn, sure: but I still maintain we need both, given where we finished, so if Skinner isn’t here he needs replacing 

[French Collection]

Skinner’s production can easily be replaced by a combination of signings and trades.

Sign Kane and it is almost a wash.

Trade Krebs/Joki/prospects/picks for a real 3C and they are ahead of the game. This guy should get 15-20 goals.

Do better than KO, Girgs, Jost, Robinson, VO and there is more ground gained.

A slight bump up from TNT and Cozens and a full year from Quinn and they are back to having one of the highest scoring teams.