UPL and Malenstyn file for arbitration

[Taro T]

19 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Swayman got 3.475 in arbitration on a 1 year deal. I can't see them giving UPL more than that unless the Sabres don't know how to argue an arbitration case properly. 

I also think Adams will be happy with a short term deal as UPL is not his guy, Levi is. UPL is just a stop gap. 

But now we also know why he picked up Reimer. 

UPL may not be Adams' guy.  But, at least right now, UPL is Ruff's guy.  Lindy has said essentially that the crease is Ukka's and unless he spits the bit or Levi just flat out plays too good to keep on the bench; UPL will be getting ~55 games (maybe more).

[JohnC]

45 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

I’m going to politely disagree with this. 

Levi signed with the understanding he would be given every opportunity to get NHL time from the beginning and (much to the chagrin of this board) no long term goaltenders would be signed to block his path. I do not believe the promise of no AHL Time was given. 

Adams gathers opinions from various sources, the front office, coaches and such. One of his weaknesses ( yes there are a lot more) is allowing certain opinions to carry more weight. There were rumblings that certain members of the front office wanted Levi to go to Rochester, but Granato and Adams to an extent felt he gave them a better opportunity to win. A few weeks after these initial rumors, Jeff Marek mentioned on his radio show, that there are those in the Sabres Front Office who felt Levi getting a majority of the starts in Rochester was the best option for him, but a few people still wanted him in the NHL. After hearing this from a major member of the Hockey Media, I do believe those rumblings to be the truth. 

There is nothing unusual about internal disagreements within the staff for all organizations. One could make a reasonable case that rushing Levi into the NHL gave the team its best chance for a playoff run. And on the other hand, a good case could be made that rushing him without giving him the usual playing experience would set his development back. Tough decisions in hindsight don't always seem wise. But at the time they are made they can be justified. I remember in our end of season playoff run he played really well.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm rubbing off on you.

Stop it!!!  😛 

[PerreaultForever]

56 minutes ago, Taro T said:

UPL may not be Adams' guy.  But, at least right now, UPL is Ruff's guy.  Lindy has said essentially that the crease is Ukka's and unless he spits the bit or Levi just flat out plays too good to keep on the bench; UPL will be getting ~55 games (maybe more).

Of course he says that to start, because he is looking at winning now and he will play whoever is playing best. Adams is the one who might think big picture long term and for him he sees Levi as the guy I'm pretty sure of that. In any event it doesn't matter, at least one of them has to play great for them to have a chance at playoffs.

[ska-T Chitown]

22 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Whose Malenstyn?

Well, he certainly is not mine.

[kas23]

Malenstyn main argument going into arbitration: his game is so good - and the Sabres would agree - that he was acquired for a 2nd round draft pick. 

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, kas23 said:

Malenstyn main argument going into arbitration: his game is so good - and the Sabres would agree - that he was acquired for a 2nd round draft pick. 

I was thinking about this too, but I don’t know that it’s relevant.

And what I mean by that is that only specific kinds of info is allowed to be used in the hearing and it is all purely statistical: “Malenstyn’s numbers are comparable to player A’s numbers and player A makes this much”

[Pimlach]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I was thinking about this too, but I don’t know that it’s relevant.

And what I mean by that is that only specific kinds of info is allowed to be used in the hearing and it is all purely statistical: “Malenstyn’s numbers are comparable to player A’s numbers and player A makes this much”

Who much does he want?  Anyone know?  He made $775K last year.  

Give him a decent raise 

Edited July 7 by Pimlach

[TageMVP]

53 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Who much does he want?  Anyone know?  He made $775K last year.  

Give him a decent raise 

If Girgensons was worth 2.5m to Adams last year, over pay or not, (I lean towards overpaid) then Malenstyn is worth at least 2m in my opinion 

It's plausible to argue Malenstyn is better than Girgensons, too. 

He deserves a raise indeed 

[kas23]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

I was thinking about this too, but I don’t know that it’s relevant.

And what I mean by that is that only specific kinds of info is allowed to be used in the hearing and it is all purely statistical: “Malenstyn’s numbers are comparable to player A’s numbers and player A makes this much”

I don’t know how it works either, but if it’s purely statistical and doesn’t consider the player’s value to a team, then they should just have a computer spit out the number. It would take out all emotions out of the process and nobody could really argue over it. Actually, the more I think about it, how does the processs value intangibles?

[7+6=13]

49 minutes ago, kas23 said:

I don’t know how it works either, but if it’s purely statistical and doesn’t consider the player’s value to a team, then they should just have a computer spit out the number. It would take out all emotions out of the process and nobody could really argue over it. Actually, the more I think about it, how does the processs value intangibles?

JMO, but I'd imagine it's fairly simple to determine the numbers and "process" is just another way of saying - we give the sides time (2 weeks) to agree on something before the hearing date.

I don't believe it actually takes the arbitrator two weeks.

 

The evidence that is allowed to be presented during these hearings included a player's performance/statistics, injury history, length of service, leadership qualities and contribution to the team's results. 

Teams/players cannot use other players' salaries or the state of the team's cap situation during these discussions. 

[JustOneParade]

1 hour ago, 7+6=13 said:

JMO, but I'd imagine it's fairly simple to determine the numbers and "process" is just another way of saying - we give the sides time (2 weeks) to agree on something before the hearing date.

I don't believe it actually takes the arbitrator two weeks.

 

The evidence that is allowed to be presented during these hearings included a player's performance/statistics, injury history, length of service, leadership qualities and contribution to the team's results. 

Teams/players cannot use other players' salaries or the state of the team's cap situation during these discussions. 

Interesting. I suppose the ‘contribution to the team’s results’ necessarily gets thrown out because he was traded? They surely couldn’t base it on his contribution to the Caps’ results. Could they??

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, TageMVP said:

If Girgensons was worth 2.5m to Adams last year, over pay or not, (I lean towards overpaid) then Malenstyn is worth at least 2m in my opinion 

It's plausible to argue Malenstyn is better than Girgensons, too. 

He deserves a raise indeed 

4th line players average around 1 million across the league. Bruins for example are paying their 4th line 1 mil, 835,000 and 832,500 respectively for Jones, Kastelic and Beecher. We're already paying Lafferty 2 million for a likely 4th line role. How much do you want to keep overpaying guys for before it all collapses as the kids want their paydays?

Girgs was getting 3rd line money. It was a bad contract. A really bad contract. 

[Taro T]

53 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

4th line players average around 1 million across the league. Bruins for example are paying their 4th line 1 mil, 835,000 and 832,500 respectively for Jones, Kastelic and Beecher. We're already paying Lafferty 2 million for a likely 4th line role. How much do you want to keep overpaying guys for before it all collapses as the kids want their paydays?

Girgs was getting 3rd line money. It was a bad contract. A really bad contract. 

Yeah, they'll reach a point where they can't overpay bottom 6 guys.  But they're not at that point yet.  And only Lafferty, of the new guys, has more than a 1 year deal.  his is just a 2 year deal.  And the 1C & 2C each only get just over $7MM/yr.  

The 4th line is still a lot cheaper than the Aisles 4th line was last year.  (Aisles dropped $5.75MM on their 4th line.)  Expecting the Sabres will be giving theirs usage more similarly to the way the Aisles use theirs than the way the B's use theirs.

[TageMVP]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

4th line players average around 1 million across the league. Bruins for example are paying their 4th line 1 mil, 835,000 and 832,500 respectively for Jones, Kastelic and Beecher. We're already paying Lafferty 2 million for a likely 4th line role. How much do you want to keep overpaying guys for before it all collapses as the kids want their paydays?

Girgs was getting 3rd line money. It was a bad contract. A really bad contract. 

Agreed, but what I meant is I could see Adams giving him 2m because he gave Girgensons 2.5 which was an overpay. Not that Malenstyn is particularly worth 2m, but that Adams has been overpaying lately (probably has to) 

Besides, I can't see Adams trading a 2nd round pick for him and then immediately low balling him, if this does not end up going to arbitration 

I hope neither Malenstyn nor Luukkonen go to arbitration. He sure is taking his sweet time with Luukkonen which I do not like at all. He botched Ullmark badly, don't want to see that again. Luukkonen is worth a solid, reasonable contract for at least a few years, in my opinion. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Yeah, they'll reach a point where they can't overpay bottom 6 guys.  But they're not at that point yet.  And only Lafferty, of the new guys, has more than a 1 year deal.  his is just a 2 year deal.  And the 1C & 2C each only get just over $7MM/yr.  

The 4th line is still a lot cheaper than the Aisles 4th line was last year.  (Aisles dropped $5.75MM on their 4th line.)  Expecting the Sabres will be giving theirs usage more similarly to the way the Aisles use theirs than the way the B's use theirs.

They are an outlier though. Their 4th line gets a lot of ice time and isn't really a typical 4th line. 

[PerreaultForever]

39 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Agreed, but what I meant is I could see Adams giving him 2m because he gave Girgensons 2.5 which was an overpay. Not that Malenstyn is particularly worth 2m, but that Adams has been overpaying lately (probably has to) 

Besides, I can't see Adams trading a 2nd round pick for him and then immediately low balling him, if this does not end up going to arbitration 

I hope neither Malenstyn nor Luukkonen go to arbitration. He sure is taking his sweet time with Luukkonen which I do not like at all. He botched Ullmark badly, don't want to see that again. Luukkonen is worth a solid, reasonable contract for at least a few years, in my opinion. 

Hard to make an assessment of the UPL situation without knowing how much he wants or how much they are offering. I just don't think Beck has enough of a resume to demand a high end contract (from a 4th line perspective). 

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

 

 

Cool.  Now get an agreement with UPL.

 

(Then make a trade for that mythical additional 2W and we're cooking with gas.)

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

Cool.  Now get an agreement with UPL.

 

(Then make a trade for that mythical additional 2W and we're cooking with gas.)

puckpedia tweeted that UPL’s hearing is on July 29.

[inkman]

On 7/6/2024 at 3:40 PM, PASabreFan said:

I'm rubbing off on you.

[PerreaultForever]

On 7/7/2024 at 7:43 AM, dudacek said:

I was thinking about this too, but I don’t know that it’s relevant.

And what I mean by that is that only specific kinds of info is allowed to be used in the hearing and it is all purely statistical: “Malenstyn’s numbers are comparable to player A’s numbers and player A makes this much”

Nope, they can't do that as I understand it. 

"The evidence that is allowed to be presented during these hearings included a player's performance/statistics, injury history, length of service, leadership qualities and contribution to the team's results. 

Teams/players cannot use other players' salaries or the state of the team's cap situation during these discussions. 

The arbitrator determines what the salary should be for the player, which must come no more than 48 hours after the hearing has concluded."

from:

https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nhl/news/nhl-salary-arbitration-explained-restricted-free-agent/z1hcqjbkbgrxyxpptu5snx27

[Taro T]

13 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Nope, they can't do that as I understand it. 

"The evidence that is allowed to be presented during these hearings included a player's performance/statistics, injury history, length of service, leadership qualities and contribution to the team's results. 

Teams/players cannot use other players' salaries or the state of the team's cap situation during these discussions. 

The arbitrator determines what the salary should be for the player, which must come no more than 48 hours after the hearing has concluded."

from:

https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nhl/news/nhl-salary-arbitration-explained-restricted-free-agent/z1hcqjbkbgrxyxpptu5snx27

They DO use player comparables to determine what the player should receive in arbitration.  E.g., this player gets so much ice time, scores X goals, gets Y shots, sets up Z plays, etc. etc. which is comparable to so and so who gets A, so and so who gets B, and better than so and so who gets C.  And both sides have to tell the other side which players they are going to consider comparables to the player in the arbitration hearing.  (And the player has to be in a comparable situation career-wise to be considered a comparable too.  So a UFA who signs somewhere for $10MM wouldn't likely be a comparable to a player that still is an RFA for 2 more years because the player isn't a UFA yet.)

What they can't do is say, for example were this the previous off-season, well he's more valuable to the Sabres than Skinner is because he did this and Skinner only did that so he should get way more than Skinner's $9MM. (Especially when the player in question is UPL and though he is more valuable to the Sabres, he plays a completely different position and Skinner would never be a comparable player to him.)

And they couldn't say, well the team needs to make sure they're over the cap floor and the only way they can guarantee it would be by paying him so much.  Likewise, the team can't say, well we already have to bury Stone on BF-LTIR next year so we can't give him more than $2MM even though on a team without cap trouble he'd be worth $5MM.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

They DO use player comparables to determine what the player should receive in arbitration.  E.g., this player gets so much ice time, scores X goals, gets Y shots, sets up Z plays, etc. etc. which is comparable to so and so who gets A, so and so who gets B, and better than so and so who gets C.  And both sides have to tell the other side which players they are going to consider comparables to the player in the arbitration hearing.  (And the player has to be in a comparable situation career-wise to be considered a comparable too.  So a UFA who signs somewhere for $10MM wouldn't likely be a comparable to a player that still is an RFA for 2 more years because the player isn't a UFA yet.)

What they can't do is say, for example were this the previous off-season, well he's more valuable to the Sabres than Skinner is because he did this and Skinner only did that so he should get way more than Skinner's $9MM. (Especially when the player in question is UPL and though he is more valuable to the Sabres, he plays a completely different position and Skinner would never be a comparable player to him.)

And they couldn't say, well the team needs to make sure they're over the cap floor and the only way they can guarantee it would be by paying him so much.  Likewise, the team can't say, well we already have to bury Stone on BF-LTIR next year so we can't give him more than $2MM even though on a team without cap trouble he'd be worth $5MM.

Where are you getting that from? Everything I've read says they can not use other player's salaries. Pretty sure the arbitrator looks at them, but the team and the player can't make comparative monetary arguments. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Where are you getting that from? Everything I've read says they can not use other player's salaries. Pretty sure the arbitrator looks at them, but the team and the player can't make comparative monetary arguments. 

If they DON'T use salaries, how exactly do you EVER get to saying how much a particular skill is worth?  Would seriously like to know how else you get to a contract value.  How would THAT arbitration go?

They team and player's agent both use COMPARABLE players and compare their particular skills in an effort to determine how much the player is worth.

You don't look at other player salaries on your own team (or on other teams for that matter) when the player isn't a comparable to him.  Aka, you can't say well, Dahlin's the best D-man on the team and UPL is the best goalie on the team so he should get $11MM too.  You also don't get to say, well the team has $13MM in cap space so my guy should get $6MM to get the team in line with other teams around the league.  You don't get to look at a guy that signed a UFA contract to justify a certain $ amount for an RFA.  But you ABSOLUTELY look at comparables and what they get paid.  That's the whole point of going to arbitration.  

 

Btw, am getting that directly from the CBA. The CBA SPECIFICALLY lists that the following is admissible in an arbitration hearing:

"(G) The compensation of any Player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player, provided, however, that in 
applying this or any of the above subparagraphs, the Salary Arbitrator shall not consider a Player(s) to be comparable to the 
party Player unless a party to the salary arbitration has contended that the Player(s) is comparable; nor shall the Salary Arbitrator 
consider the compensation or performance of a Player(s) unless a party to the salary arbitration has contended that the Player(s) is 
comparable."

That seems suspiciously similar to other players' salaries, no? 😉