Peyton Krebs signs 2 year 1.45 million AAV contract

[matter2003]

[LGR4GM]

43 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 Not a surprise given he paid  a former top prospect for a 3rd line center with a career high of 12 goals 30 points. 

The Savoie trade wasn't an overpayment. It could be in time but as currently stands, that was fair value. 

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

That does change the fact that all are overpayments.  

I think it's kinda weird to be complaining about "overpayments" when the team is $7M under the cap.

Lafferty, Aube-Kubel, Malenstyn are low-risk contracts. He paid a little more to make sure he got 3 guys he targeted. Each is a cheap, short-term commitment that doesn't handicap the team in any way under that cap. If they provide what they're supposed to, they were good signings, if they don't they weren't.

Zucker is pretty obviously a huge overpayment on AAV to avoid term. Maybe he should have been more willing to accept term and chased a better player. But this contract again, doesn't handicap the team under the cap in any way, shape or form. If Zucker does what he's supposed to the signing in and of itself is fine. If Peterka and Quinn take a jump, then it looks very smart.

UPL is your straight bet on the player deal: paying the player more than you have to before you have to pay more than you want to. Like the Thompson and Power deals, time will tell if it was a good bet.

And with Krebs, it's kinda similar, but which much lower stakes.

To me, UPL is the only deal that carries any real risk.

I think what Adams didn't spend is far more questionable than what he did.

Edited Tuesday at 08:47 PM by dudacek

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Maybe Robertson signed his qualifier because the Leafs refused to honour his trade request and a low deal makes it more likely he does get claimed if he is waived?

He's basically created the best possible scenario for himself to be in the NHL next year.

The difference between Robertson and Krebs is that Robertson has not established himself as an NHL regular. Krebs has. To my knowledge he's not been a healthy scratch for a year and a half. He played 80 games last year.

The other thing I disagree with is the idea I've seen floated that Krebs is Tyson Jost.

Unlike Tyson Jost, Krebs has shown that he can play effectively in a bottom-six role. He was one of the Sabres more effective defensive players last year.

People are judging him through their trade-day top-6 glasses. The guy has shown he can be a decent 4C and the Sabres paid him like one.

 

People may be. I’m not. Look, I wasn’t surprised to see you thought this was yet another good move in what’s now been a clean sweep of good moves from Adams this summer in your estimation, but I’ve been pretty consistent in my stance I don’t think he’s any good. I disagree he was effective last year. 4 goals. We do the goals thing until it doesn’t fit the narrative. Another hope and a prayer contract: maybe he’s shown flashes to you that he “can be” but I wouldn’t say he “is”. As stands, he’s not a guy I’d want rostered on a playoff team in any capacity

maybe I’m just past “can be a decent 4C”. 

in the end it just further inflates the already excess $ we are paying to the least important part of the roster, probabaly justification for a lack of moves next summer 

Edited Tuesday at 05:30 PM by Thorny

[...]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Also in my opinion, the only way Krebs was ever getting waived was if Lindy just couldn't stand him, and I always thought he was Lindy's type

What does that mean?

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

It is.  But it is right in line with what the presumed 11 and 12 are getting.  Still expect the 13th guy on any given night to be determined based upon matchups with the opponent that night.

How do you propose Krebs be used in ways/situations that no one else on the roster can be?

Edited Tuesday at 05:52 PM by ...
double vision gets the best of me...the BEST OF MEEEEEEEee.

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Besides Lafferty, does any of the contracts KA signed this summer make sense?  $5 mill for 32 pt player in Zucker, 5 years at 4.75 for a goalie with one good year in pro hockey, 2 years at 1.45 for a 13th forward who had 4 goals last year.  1.5 for a depth forward that hasn’t been good enough to play a full season for any of his previous teams.  2 years at 1.35 for a 26 year old rookie with 6 goals.  

Not that any of these deals are horrible on their face, but they are all overpayments and some significantly like Zucker and UPL.  Not a surprise given he paid a 2nd rd pick for the 26 year old rookie forward and a former top prospect for a 3rd line center with a career high of 12 goals 30 points. 

Two scenarios:

A) we CAN’T find anywhere else to spend our money in an effort to improve so might as well overpay to get the guys we want for the bottom 6

b) we are CHOOSING to not spend all of our money in an effort to improve and thus we have the wiggle room to shell out a bit more for bottom 6 guys when we don’t need the lion’s share of the excess $ anyways 

[Thorny]

13 minutes ago, ... said:

What does that mean?

How do you propose Krebs be used in ways/situations that no one else on the roster can't be?

Lindy also has a tattoo of himself 

[...]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Two scenarios:

A) we CAN’T find anywhere else to spend our money in an effort to improve so might as well overpay to get the guys we want for the bottom 6

b) we are CHOOSING to not spend all of our money in an effort to improve and thus we have the wiggle room to shell out a bit more for bottom 6 guys when we don’t need the lion’s share of the excess $ anyways 

I was hoping that Adams had left room in the cap so he could put together a package that brings in a bitchin' player sometime before December.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, ... said:

I was hoping that Adams had left room in the cap so he could put together a package that brings in a bitchin' player sometime before December.

I’ve heard this theory a lot. Could be true, hope it’s true.

I guarantee you we will hear about how KA tried, at least, ill tell you that much  

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

 

People may be. I’m not. Look, I wasn’t surprised to see you thought this was yet another good move in what’s now been a clean sweep of good moves from Adams this summer in your estimation, but I’ve been pretty consistent in my stance I don’t think he’s any good. I disagree he was effective last year. Another hope and a prayer contract: maybe he’s shown flashes to you that he “can be” but I wouldn’t say he “is”. As stands, he’s not a guy I’d want rostered on a playoff team in any capacity

Oh for sure, I like Krebs more than you do and of course our views of his contract will differ because of that filter.

Surprised you think that I think this was a clean sweep of good moves summer from Adams though.

I would not have made the Skinner move, without a part B, even though I don't like Skinner.

I like the concept of Lafferty, Malenstyn and Aube-Kubel but I don't think they're talented enough to be the every night defensive force people hope they will be. Would have liked them more on top of a real, established middle six player.

I doubt McLeod is that player. I think this board has inflated him into something he's not in order to justify trading Savoie. I don't hate the player, or the concept of the trade, I just doubt he's the 3C solution.

if you absolutely had to play Skinner in the middle six (you didn't) I think there is a chance plugging Zucker in for him is an upgrade because of Skinner's flaws and how bad he has looked away from Thompson and Eichel. Again, I don't hate the player, I just don't like him being the leading choice for our 4W.

The only move Adams made that I outright like is Byram for Mittelstadt, because — unlike most — I think Byram is better fit than he is being credited for and will prove to be better player.

Overall, I like the vision of adding speed and edge and giving Lindy the types of players he wants and the idea of moving away from the types of players he moved away from.

I just think our GM didn't finish the job. He left far too much on the table relative to what he could have done.

Edited Tuesday at 06:38 PM by dudacek

[nfreeman]

 

Good.  It's too soon IMHO to give up on Krebsie, although I don't think he has the hands to play in the top 6.  I can still see a ceiling of a solid 3C.  I definitely want to see how he develops under a real coach.  He's 23 and has spent the bulk of his NHL career in a highly dysfunctional organization.

 

3 hours ago, Weave said:

At that price is he waiver-proof?  

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

If waived, he'd likely be claimed by Columbus, which still needs to get to the cap floor and could play Krebs on their 3rd line. Barring a long-term camp injury, the question will be who is more likely to pass through waivers: Rousek 1x775k or Krebs 2x1.45M?

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

The Sabres can carry a maximum of 3 extras.

Assuming Krebs is in stone as the 13th-forward and won't play unless injury (which I don't think is actually the case), it would be one of him, Rousek, Gilbert or Bryson getting waived.

If Levi (who is not waiver eligible) makes the team, you can add Reimer to that group.

If Kulich or another kid (none of them are waiver eligible) makes the team that would add another body.

But I think what this contract makes obvious is that Kevyn Adams thinks more of Peyton Krebs than a lot of people on here do and it is very unlikely he will be waived.

1 hour ago, Flashsabre said:

I’m very interested to see what the plan in net is.

UPL is the starter but are they keeping Reimer up and running Levi back and forth all season. I can’t see keeping 3 goalies up again as a viable option.

 

The waiver discussion is interesting.  If Krebsie isn't any better than he was last season then he's a definite candidate -- and although Darth makes a good point about CBJ, I think the 2nd year would scare away most teams and likely cause him to clear waivers.

But at the start of the season, I'd expect Levi to get sent down and Rousek to be waived down to Rochester.

[That Aud Smell]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Lindy also has a tattoo of himself 

Welp - TIL.

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I like the concept of Lafferty, Malenstyn and Aube-Kubel

TRIPLE CONCEPT ALERT.

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Oh for sure, I like Krebs more than you do and of course our views of his contract will differ because of that filter.

Surprised you think that I think this was a clean sweep of good moves summer from Adams though.

I would not have made the Skinner move, without a part B, even though I don't like Skinner.

I like the concept of Lafferty, Malenstyn and Aube-Kubel but I don't think they're talented enough to be the every night defensive force people hope they will be. Would have liked them on top of a real, established middle six player.

I doubt McLeod is that player. I think this board has inflated him into something he's not in order to justify trading Savoie. I don't hate the player, I just doubt he's the 3C solution.

if you absolutely had to play Skinner in the middle six (you didn't) I think there is a chance plugging Zucker in for him is an upgrade because of Skinner's flaws and how bad he has looked away from Thompson and Eichel. Again, I don't hate the player, I just don't like him being the leading choice for our 4W.

The only move Adams made that I outright like is Byram for Mittelstadt, because — unlike most — I think Byram is better fit than he is being credited for and will prove to be better player.

Overall, I like the vision of adding speed and edge and giving Lindy the types of players he wants and the idea of moving away from the types of players he moved away from.

I just think he left far too much on the table rlative to what he could have done. The potential was there for so much more

I thought you bought into the idea buying out Skinner at the very least represented accountability? Sending that message is the greater of two evils, then, in this case, we should have kept Skinner and let him be “unaccountable” if shipping him out meant not truly filing the hole? (lol one of the worst written sentences on this website ever, I can’t type today)

I actually like the McLeod deal more than you, then, but I might be too biased/blinded from the fact I hate all prospects, especially gen z-ers.

I thought you liked all the moves but maybe you are just too adept at “making the case” so it sticks in my mind. What letter grade would you give KA this offseason 

 

[That Aud Smell]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

Good.  It's too soon IMHO to give up on Krebsie 

I may need a reality check. This has become a pet peeve of mine among Sabres faithful -- using a player's decidedly hockey nickname when referring to the player.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Definitely getting old, anyway.

I mean: AITA? 

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I may need a reality check. This has become a pet peeve of mine among Sabres faithful -- using a player's decidedly hockey nickname when referring to the player.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Definitely getting old, anyway.

I mean: AITA? 

Yes, but this isn’t the reason why.

[...]

9 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I may need a reality check. This has become a pet peeve of mine among Sabres faithful -- using a player's decidedly hockey nickname when referring to the player.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Definitely getting old, anyway.

I mean: AITA? 

You would be: Audsie or Smellzy.

[Thorny]

13 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I may need a reality check. This has become a pet peeve of mine among Sabres faithful -- using a player's decidedly hockey nickname when referring to the player.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Definitely getting old, anyway.

I mean: AITA? 

No, it’s cringe. Its prevalence is largely a function of Stan twitter I think. I realized last year, went down a bit of a wormhole on twitter I didn’t realize existed. You know how you can find the platform flooded with like, kids who have Timothy Chalamet or Draco Malfoy or whoever as their profile pictures, and the account’s personality is centred in totality around following / promoting “staning” said celebrity..it exists with hockey players too haha. There are a world of sabres / nhl fans out there discussing how beautiful Krebs hair is and how heartwarming Jack Quinn’s smile is, etc

I suppose cringe is the wrong word, shouldn’t say that. It’s just a type of fandom I don’t feel at all akin to. I’m a “separation of art from artist” guy to a T and this is more “artist, art (results) is secondary” type stuff.
 

But to each their own: I’ve analyzed and talked about the Sabres social media presence a lot and it doesn’t seem that interesting to people i don’t think, maybe dudacek has picked up what I’ve thrown down a few times, but by and large…but ya: I’d wager the sabres official media does a *great* job tailoring content to these folks as that market seems to be thriving online 

Edited Tuesday at 06:15 PM by Thorny

[Mr Peabody]

15 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I may need a reality check. This has become a pet peeve of mine among Sabres faithful -- using a player's decidedly hockey nickname when referring to the player.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky. Definitely getting old, anyway.

I mean: AITA? 

If he’s got to have a nickname at least make it Maynard, right?

[Thorny]

The only acceptable stance on nicknames as a grown ass man 

[Thorny]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No, it’s cringe. Its prevalence is largely a function of Stan twitter I think. I realized last year, went down a bit of a wormhole on twitter I didn’t realize existed. You know how you can find the platform flooded with like, kids who have Timothy Chalamet or Draco Malfoy or whoever as their profile pictures, and the account’s personality is centred in totality around following / promoting “staning” said celebrity..it exists with hockey players too haha. There are a world of sabres / nhl fans out there discussing how beautiful Krebs hair is and how heartwarming Jack Quinn’s smile is, etc

I suppose cringe is the wrong word, shouldn’t say that. It’s just a type of fandom I don’t feel at all akin to. I’m a “separation of art from artist” guy to a T and this is more “artist, art (results) is secondary” type stuff.
 

But to each their own: I’ve analyzed and talked about the Sabres social media presence a lot and it doesn’t seem that interesting to people i don’t think, maybe dudacek has picked up what I’ve thrown down a few times, but by and large…but ya: I’d wager the sabres official media does a *great* job tailoring content to these folks as that market seems to be thriving online 

Right on fracking cue:

 

Arrival outfits 

[That Aud Smell]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

There are a world of sabres / nhl fans out there discussing how beautiful Krebs hair is and how heartwarming Jack Quinn’s smile is, etc

Good post. And I hear all of that.

Colour me more confused and amused by that segment of the fandom.

I've got a nephew who's straight as an arrow, married, expecting a first child. And dude regularly and unironically texts me links to Instagram posts that are essentially thirst traps for various Sabres (Krebs is a favourite (and, for sure, my guy refers to him as Krebsie (both in texts and in conversation))) -- and my nephew often includes accompanying messages like "check out these studs" or emojis such as 🤩.

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Good post. And I hear all of that.

Colour me more confused and amused by that segment of the fandom.

I've got a nephew who's straight as an arrow, married, expecting a first child. And dude regularly and unironically texts me links to Instagram posts that are essentially thirst traps for various Sabres (Krebs is a favourite (and, for sure, my guy refers to him as Krebsie (both in texts and in conversation))) -- and my nephew often includes accompanying messages like "check out these studs" or emojis such as 🤩.

Basically, you are right: we are old 

[Doohickie]

Peyton Krebs:  22 goals, 17 assists as 4C this season.

He will be top 3 among Sabres forwards in +/- this season.

[...]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Basically, you are right: we are old 

You'd be Thornyzies.

Or perhaps Thornzies.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, ... said:

You'd be Thornyzies.

Or perhaps Thornzies.

Nah, it'd be Thorns or Thorner.