Love the draft picks. Why would olofsson go to arbitration? The Sabres are in a position to slightly overpay a good rfa to reach the floor. I don't hate moving him for a good young right d. I'd rather keep him, but this trade at least makes sense.

Ownership isn't going to retain any salary. Olofsson either goes before the arb award or they hold onto him till deadline and reassess. You can also probably sign someone better than monahan in free agency, like Sturm, for way less money. Fleury isn't coming here and the pegula's arent giving him 8.5 mil.

Most likely route to the floor is some weber/boychuk esque contracts. I think the idea of the olofsson trade is a good one but probably happens with mittelstadt instead. He's cost controlled, so if a team wants to bet on his potential that is certainly more appealing.

They're not going to commit long term to him based on a 20 game resurgence. He's either dealt or getting a 1 year. The fact that even Lance Lysowski is reporting it like that makes me think they'll shop him but settle on his arb award and see what happens next year.

That's all good. All he's ever done is score. No reason to think it stops now, unless he gets hurt again and plays through it.

They've invested pretty heavy into their analytics department. They know the cost that comes with Olofsson's goal scoring. He had positive value the final 20 games, but before that he hurt his lines possession numbers, in zone numbers, didn't drive the play. His shooting talent is undeniable, but if it comes at the cost of all the things I just said you have to question giving him a long term deal at 5 mil or whatever.

I think he'll get his 1 year arb and they'll see what he can do when he's fully healthy to begin the season.

You mean he had positive value when his injury healed and he was able to produce offense? We aren't gonna agree on this.

No I mean he had positive value when they put a borderline selke forward on his line. We don't have to agree, old era sabres nonsense is over. Ventura and co. aren't going to recommend giving him term.

If the Sabres are looking to just give him 1 year for the sake of a retention flip then Arbitration might as well be used. They could just agree to a value though either way. Olofsson's value at like 2.5M in cap hit is really high because of the role he fills. I also would love to keep him.

I agree. But I also agree that weegar is a guy I would move him for.

I'm gonna disagree with you entirely on the first paragraph. Talking about what ownership will/won't do is pointless when we're not in the room.
As for your Monahan point, all we're doing is paying 6M for a second round pick. He's not in the lineup. I don't care about how good he is. Bottom line is he has NHL experience and leadership qualities that would hopefully benefit the development of players in Rochester. His talent level is also absolutely good for that league.

From a financial perspective what's the difference between spending money on Weber/Boychuk contracts, retaining money while trading pending FAs, or trading for albatross contracts that might be able to help Rochester? So that's a pointless take too.

I was gonna stop, but this is the second time that you've used asplund and selke in the same point. Selke winners tend to actually score- see Bergeron, Patrice. Bergeron had 25 goals and 65 points in 73 games. Asplund had 8 goals and 27 points in 80 games. Don't get me wrong, I like asplund, and our young centers can use the help, but asplund is a strong defensive forward. Plus it's a balance, olofsson helps offset the asplund shortcomings and vice versa.

Calling it pointless without genuinely asking (you were obviously being rhetorical) or doing some research just makes you look foolhardy. Weber's contract is insured. So as long as he doesn't play, the Sabres don't pay (at least a good chunk of it). Additionally, Weber's salary is much lower than his cap hit, so whatever small portion of that they have to pay, will be peanuts compared to his cap hit.

"The Frank J. Selke Trophy is an annual award given "to the forward who best excels in the defensive aspects of the game." The fact that the media that gets to vote constantly screws this part up doesn't mean the definition of the award changes. This is the same bunch that couldn't be bothered to look up Alex Ovechkin's position that one year of voting. Now, it happens that Bergeron happens to score a lot and is really the best defensive forward in the game, so nobody really complains about it.

Correct but I'm not worried about getting to the floor when we're about 13.5 million above it here. The things you are questioning, (acquisition of Monahan, veteran UFA goalie short term overpayment, retention on a pending UFA) don't put us below the floor if they don't happen. In this case, that's a grand total of 17 million. I'm having a hard time believing we can add a starting goalie for less than 3.5 million. Injured players are only insurable if they are on LTIR. If they are still on the active roster and counting against the cap then they are not covered by insurance. That's my understanding.

If something is interpreted collectively by the people that matter in one way, it's very strange to decide that you're going to interpret it another way lol

LTIR only gives you cap relief if you're very close to the cap. In the Sabres case, putting him on LTIR would still count towards their cap hit

My interpretation is based on the definition set forth by the NHL. The media choosing to interpret it another way is their problem. Just cause its collectively interpreted some way doesn't make it right. For years everybody thought that blocked shots was the secret to defense, or that +/- was a valuable stat. Then some dudes made a presentation, got hired by the Avs, and now they're one win away from the cup finals (I have obviously oversimplified the whole timeline for comedic effect but it helps make my point)

Edit: Its also very symbolic that you interpret someone not following the collective and drawing his own conclusions as very strange lol.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing independent thought. What I am saying is that interpreting a rule differently than those who are actually getting paid to interpret the rule is silly.
It's like people arguing with all the NHL linesman about the Makar goal from game 1.

That's still appealing to authority. The media getting paid to interpret the rule features guys like Marc Spector and Mike Harrington and again, the whole host of media personnel who still think analytics is voodoo math (I guess the Avs kinda are like witch craft) and who, despite all the games they watch, couldn't figure out what position Ovechkin played that one year.

Don't you remember the game where the ref called olofsson offside only to have the league apologize on his behalf less than 24 hours later? linesman are capable of screwing up too. Just cause they hold a position of authority, doesn't mean they are impervious to making mistakes.

Edit: Just to circle it back to the original topic, there's nothing explicitly mentioned in the NHL's definition of the selke award that states its gotta be a player who also piles up points. The fact that the media chooses to add that criteria for themselves has always been wrong, but again the reason it doesn't get any major backlash is because it just so happens that for a large portion of the last decade+ the best defensive forward has also produced very well.