Yeah agree on both fronts, but I picked Strome because the sudden nature of his turn around kinda reminded me of Casey after years of not living up to the hype.

Id have to look back on those players but the history on those 7 mil guys also matters quite a bit too as far as leverage is concerned.

I think the EH twins had him projected at 6 years and a bit under 6 mil for an 87.5 mil cap. Im not sure you can get him at that number for 6 years but 4 maybe?
- Michael Ghofrani

I haven't looked all that hard, but I'd think a 2nd productive year and doing it almost exclusively at C ups things a bit.

Suzuki doesn't feel like a bad player comp, but he got paid at 22. Kind of puts my gut in the range of Cozens, if it's long term. There's a big gap in what the player could be looking for and what the team wants. That's never a good recipe.

https://www.capfriendly.c...-9000000,signingage-17-27

I think most guys in his shoes want the long term deal. Watching everyone else land one makes it awkward here.
- Lunaion

Only problem is you can't have everyone on a long term deal. You need to have some flexibility.

He should've taken the game seriously earlier and he would've gotten a long term deal.

I haven't looked all that hard, but I'd think a 2nd productive year and doing it almost exclusively at C ups things a bit.

Suzuki doesn't feel like a bad player comp, but he got paid at 22. Kind of puts my gut in the range of Cozens, if it's long term. There's a big gap in what the player could be looking for and what the team wants. That's never a good recipe.

https://www.capfriendly.c...-9000000,signingage-17-27
- Lunaion

The Suzuki one is tough for a variety of reasons (I've long suspected Canadian market is a factor) but the obvious one is he signed that deal after a strong playoffs and Stanley cup final appearance.

If Casey does that here I'd be thrilled to see him get eleventy billion dollars (or a real number)

You can't really use the cozens deal either cause thats coming off an elc paying for potential throughout the prime years. As you mentioned, this is basically peak Mittelstadt.

Before the year I felt like he'd price himself off the team. The strome number gives me some hope, but it's assuming player and team are on the same page and yeah to your point if they're not it might prevent any sort of compromise that makes both sides happy.

The Suzuki one is tough for a variety of reasons (I've long suspected Canadian market is a factor) but the obvious one is he signed that deal after a strong playoffs and Stanley cup final appearance.

If Casey does that here I'd be thrilled to see him get eleventy billion dollars (or a real number)

You can't really use the cozens deal either cause thats coming off an elc paying for potential throughout the prime years. As you mentioned, this is basically peak Mittelstadt.

Before the year I felt like he'd price himself off the team. The strome number gives me some hope, but it's assuming player and team are on the same page and yeah to your point if they're not it might prevent any sort of compromise that makes both sides happy.
- Michael Ghofrani

None of the comps strike me as all that clean. Good C's don't usually get bridged.

Going full circle, maybe you do look away from C's and take a look at Sam. Think I wrote that idea off too quickly.

None of the comps strike me as all that clean. Good C's don't usually get bridged.

Going full circle, maybe you do look away from C's and take a look at Sam. Think I wrote that idea off too quickly.
- Lunaion

I can't convince myself that this gives them flexibility though, if it's at the same CH%.

you'd be giving him a 3 year/7 mil aav. At the risk of sounding dense, what's the point?

Like yeah I get it, fewer years on the books but it's a significant % of the cap, you may as well go for term at that number. And if the player doesn't want that at 7 mil and/or the team doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then that's an impasse.

I can't convince myself that this gives them flexibility though, if it's at the same CH%.

you'd be giving him a 3 year/7 mil aav. At the risk of sounding dense, what's the point?

Like yeah I get it, fewer years on the books but it's a significant % of the cap, you may as well go for term at that number. And if the player doesn't want that at 7 mil and/or the team doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then that's an impasse.
- Michael Ghofrani

Let’s say the hypothetical $7M AAV at 3 or 4 years comes to fruition.

Skinner, Mitts, Tuch help you win today, and are the bridge to the incoming core of the team.

Benson, Savoie, Kulich, Rosen have the benefit that Eichel and Reinhart didn’t. Walking into a team that has existing talent that wasn’t scraped down due to tanking for their services.

Meanwhile Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Dahlin, and Power will be in their prime and Tage is Tage

I can't convince myself that this gives them flexibility though, if it's at the same CH%.

you'd be giving him a 3 year/7 mil aav. At the risk of sounding dense, what's the point?

Like yeah I get it, fewer years on the books but it's a significant % of the cap, you may as well go for term at that number. And if the player doesn't want that at 7 mil and/or the team doesn't feel comfortable doing that, then that's an impasse.
- Michael Ghofrani

I don't know, it's all a confusing mess. You have 5 1st round F's all close to NHL-ready. Half of them play C. Have to imagine they planned on one of them taking the 3C job and 1/2 C were signed long term. Krebs was a prized acquisition at risk of becoming the next Girgs. Things just don't fit together.

The obvious answer is thank the hockey gods and sell high next summer. Hard to imagine them going that route. Any extension we kick around is going to have a glaring problem.

Buying 1-2 years of UFA does feel like an in between cop out, but also one I could see.

I don't know, it's all a confusing mess. You have 5 1st round F's all close to NHL-ready. Half of them play C. Have to imagine they planned on one of them taking the 3C job and 1/2 C were signed long term. Krebs was a prized acquisition at risk of becoming the next Girgs. Things just don't fit together.

The obvious answer is thank the hockey gods and sell high next summer. Hard to imagine them going that route. Any extension we kick around is going to have a glaring problem.
- Lunaion

What does selling high look like though? If the best value offer is picks I don't know what good that does you, especially if he's actually good now.

It's probably the route I'd take but I'm not even sure what or who you would target.

Also related, off the top of your head, when was the last time a first rounder was bridged twice then signed a long term deal/didn't get moved? Cause none come to mind at the moment but I know I'm missing one.

Let’s say the hypothetical $7M AAV at 3 or 4 years comes to fruition.

Skinner, Mitts, Tuch help you win today, and are the bridge to the incoming core of the team.

Benson, Savoie, Kulich, Rosen have the benefit that Eichel and Reinhart didn’t. Walking into a team that has existing talent that wasn’t scraped down due to tanking for their services.

Meanwhile Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Dahlin, and Power will be in their prime and Tage is Tage
- Swedish_Jesus

But this doesn't explain the benefit to giving him 3 years instead of 7 at that number. I get your point, but it doesn't actually provide any cap flexibility in the window of contention. The whole point of shorter term usually is there's some kind of cap advantage in the interim. You give up control but save a few $$ to make moves. I'm not sure this really accomplishes that.

But this doesn't explain the benefit to giving him 3 years instead of 7 at that number. I get your point, but it doesn't actually provide any cap flexibility in the window of contention. The whole point of shorter term usually is there's some kind of cap advantage in the interim. You give up control but save a few $$ to make moves. I'm not sure this really accomplishes that.
- Michael Ghofrani

Well, for one thing, we aren’t certain what AAV he’d be looking at on a long term deal.

I also think term is the devil, and a 3-4 year deal would essentially take advantage of his most successful seasons prior to the inevitable age curve decline. The last few years of the Skinner deal scares me for that reason.

There may not necessarily be cap savings, but it also enables the team to continue to use their assets on supporting the existing core instead of splurging assets to find Casey’s replacement in the instance one or more of the prospects don’t live up to the hype.

There are enough variables at play (rising cap and players on ELC’s) that suggest it will be more then ok.

What does selling high look like though? If the best value offer is picks I don't know what good that does you, especially if he's actually good now.

It's probably the route I'd take but I'm not even sure what or who you would target.

Also related, off the top of your head, when was the last time a first rounder was bridged twice then signed a long term deal/didn't get moved? Cause none come to mind at the moment but I know I'm missing one.
- Michael Ghofrani

Think it would have to be a hockey trade with a mindset of changing your team comp a bit. A more rugged winger or D.

No clue on the bridges. Imagine there are some, but might have to go back a few years when bridges were more common. Just played the Rangers, Kakko and Lafreniere might be on the verge.

Well, for one thing, we aren’t certain what AAV he’d be looking at on a long term deal.

I also think term is the devil, and a 3-4 year deal would essentially take advantage of his most successful seasons prior to the inevitable age curve decline. The last few years of the Skinner deal scares me for that reason.

There may not necessarily be cap savings, but it also enables the team to continue to use their assets on supporting the existing core instead of splurging assets to find Casey’s replacement in the instance one or more of the prospects don’t live up to the hype.
There are enough variables at play (rising cap and players on ELC’s) that suggest it will be more then ok.
- Swedish_Jesus

They'd all have to fall well short for that to happen though, and I'm like 99% sure Benson is the truth.

Idk for me, after a certain cap hit % the value of shorter term goes out the window. The only players you should be giving that big a piece of the pie to are core players and you shouldn't be giving core players 3 year deals.

If there's a concern over the age factor (which is fair) then he's probably not part of your core moving forward. If someone asks me who I think the core of this team is I don't include Skinner in that convo for example, likely for many of the same reasons you're worried about the back half of his deal.

Think it would have to be a hockey trade with a mindset of changing your team comp a bit. A more rugged winger or D.

No clue on the bridges. Imagine there are some, but might have to go back a few years when bridges were more common. Just played the Rangers, Kakko and Lafreniere might be on the verge.
- Lunaion

I would do this, but I'm struggling to think of a team that would part ways with one for a 25/26 year old who needs a new deal. Unless the team is super thin at centre.

Rangers came to mind as well but then I'm thinking at their current trajectory, one of them will get dealt and the other will get a long term extension after an older player gets dealt.

I would do this, but I'm struggling to think of a team that would part ways with one for a 25/26 year old who needs a new deal. Unless the team is super thin at centre.

Rangers came to mind as well but then I'm thinking at their current trajectory, one of them will get dealt and the other will get a long term extension after an older player gets dealt.
- Michael Ghofrani

Remember what it was like without top 6 C's? Gut says there's gotta be some teams.

Home to Minny?

Remember what it was like without top 6 C's? Gut says there's gotta be some teams.

Home to Minny?
- Lunaion

We are due for our annual Minnesota trade. But they've got Rossi and Eriksson Ek, Not sure there's a fit.

Seattle could be a fit. Wennberg is sorta meh. Unless I'm missing someone in their system who is supposed to be really good.

We are due for our annual Minnesota trade. But they've got Rossi and Eriksson Ek, Not sure there's a fit.

Seattle could be a fit. Wennberg is sorta meh. Unless I'm missing someone in their system who is supposed to be really good.
- Michael Ghofrani

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shane-wright

So excited to join the Detroit Red Wings! #LGRW   

https://twitter.com/88PKa...eLNRJPqX1vi_gDQmVLrg&s=19

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/shane-wright
- kingcong39

LOL I knew I was forgetting someone.

Thinking Mitts = Eichel and extending him long term with that mentality, will keep the Sabres out of the playoffs.

Not even close.

Remember what it was like without top 6 C's? Gut says there's gotta be some teams.

Home to Minny?
- Lunaion

How about Calgary after they trade Lindholm

The bald will prevail:

https://x.com/sportsnet/s.../1729680471762616779?s=46

How about Calgary after they trade Lindholm
- Buff36

Do you think GM’s actively avoid sending players to Buffalo to maintain relationships with agents/players?

Would help Adams case for hoarding and justify him spoiling anyone who says they want to be in Buffalo.

It would also explain Terry’s bad reputation as an owner, as he burns every bridge with the Eichel drama as the cherry on top.

Do you think GM’s actively avoid sending players to Buffalo to maintain relationships with agents/players?

Would help Adams case for hoarding and justify him spoiling anyone who says they want to be Buffalo.

It would also explain Terry’s bad reputation as an owner, as he burns every bridge with the Eichel drama as the cherry on top.
- washedup20

Well if all Adams ever does is have conversations and isn't willing to move a key piece. I think that could effect how other GM's talk to you or not even call you because all you do is talk. I just find it wild after 4 years and Adams preaching about Culture change, but still No good players still want to Come here. When you actively don't try to improve your team with good signings or even trades, players notice that.

Well if all Adams ever does is have conversations and isn't willing to move a key piece. I think that could effect how other GM's talk to you or not even call you because all you do is talk. I just find it wild after 4 years and Adams preaching about Culture change, but still No good players still want to Come here. When you actively don't try to improve your team with good signings or even trades, players notice that.
- Buff36

Great points, it is wild how little has actually changed for the amount of press conferences held discussing how much things have changed.

Nobody likes a chatty cathy.

Great points, it is wild how little has actually changed for the amount of press conferences held discussing how much things have changed.

Nobody likes a chatty cathy.


- washedup20

Well maybe at the Christmas party someone can reach up under Adams Bloomers and make her Sorry his Brain pop and open him up to more aggressive behavior.