Jeff Skinner - $9M healthy scratch

[AD1066]

You could outsource many decisions to the poll section of this website and still do better than this contract. Even Twitch Plays GM might've done better on term.

It's always dumbfounding when highly-compensated executives whose entire lives revolve around hockey make decisions that the average fan could immediately tell you is a bad idea. I can understand those contracts that carry risk of a player declining and not being worth it in later years, but this had zero chance of being successful from the onset.

 

[Sweetpotato]

At $9m, he’s supposed to rise above the excuse of playing with bad linemates. He should make his linemates be better.

A team giving someone 9 million/year doesn't change the player they are, if Lou gave Eberle 9 million/year tomorrow would your expectations change of his play. As a coach you're not worried about how much money they're paid your job is to get the most out of them, in this case Skinner is a complimentary player and needs elite talent. You can either have a boat anchor or a 40 goal scorer, I know which one I'd choose.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Honest question. Who’s worse? I can’t think of a contract I’d want less at this point due to the term remaining on it.

I'm sticking with EK as the worst. The reason being there's more years left, and he's one of the few highest paid players in the league. Skinner is very highly paid for being not very good, but he's 24th. Benn is 16th, Subban is tied for 24th with Skinner, Voracek is 32. EK is fourth, behind McDavid, Panarin, and Matthews. I find it more egregious, given there are more salary mistakes in that next tier. There are really no salary mistakes in the top few spots. Maybe Tavares in a tie for fifth, but even he is way better than EK.

 

[StreetHawk]

Karlsson is a shocker at how badly he has declined.

Skinner, I would never have classified him as a core guy. Was a very good player, but not someone I would have tied myself to into his mid 30's.

 

[RogerR]

Karlsson is a shocker at how badly he has declined.

Skinner, I would never have classified him as a core guy. Was a very good player, but not someone I would have tied myself to into his mid 30's.

He destroyed his ankle in 2017.

 

[McVespa99]

really sucks. Buffalo was pretty much forced to give him a big deal and they're being punished for it. No sport is as handcuffed by salary caps as much as hockey

Buffalo was not forced to sign him to a huge overpay. The day his deal was announced I felt it would be a horrific signing. Sometimes you have to let a player walk rather than sign him to a terrible contract. This was one of those times.

 

[Stickpucker]

yes. they never are able to sign free agents and they needed to prove that they were serious about winning. they traded for a guy and he scored 40 goals for them, they couldn't let him walk

Since he blocked trades to everywhere but Buffalo or Toronto....Buffalo had all the leverage. Not like he was going to get signed in Toronto and didn't want to play anywhere else.

 

[nbwingsfan]

No, Kreuger's just had him in his doghouse all season. He set Skinner up to fail (played him on the 4th line) and then scratched him when he did.

As others have said, if you're paid $9M a year then the linemates excuse doesn't fly

 

[JT Kreider]

Bobrovsky and Karlsson are not worse. Both are awful yes, but at the very worst their teams are getting something from those players.

Bobrovsky has lost his job to Driedger and is the worst goalie in the entire Panthers organization. Driedger, Montembault, Knight.

 

[InfinityIggy]

No he just is a player who had that typical career year in a contract year. He never should have gotten that deal based on his career stats. He was always going to regress from that form.

While that is all true, this isn't typical regression to the mean either. Skinner isn't an 'aging veteran' either, so the steepness of the drop off is still peculiar.

 

[RogerR]

He's a complimentary player who needs help to be effective. Don't give guys like that massive long-term deals. Especailly when they suddenly have a career year in a contract year.

 

[JT Kreider]

He destroyed his ankle in 2017.

There was like a 30 game stretch his first year in San Jose where he was the best player in the league

 

[RogerR]

There was like a 30 game stretch his first year in San Jose where he was the best player in the league

Not sure he was the best, but he started out good yes.

 

[Barnum]

The contract would be different, a la NFL, guarantee money versus option money.


A bit like a movie star signing option for multiple movies, if the team keep the player that mean they are not underachiever if they release them (and if they release them they still pay the guarantee money and the player can sign with a different team like a FA) that mean they do not get the extra in the contract.

It would certainly not team walking away from contract that didn't made that an option model, it would be how the league and contract wording work.

This isn’t anything like the other guy was talking about. The other guy was rambling about taking money away, if a player doesn’t live up to expectations but he doesn’t understand how asinine the idea is and how complicated that system would be to judge if a player lives up to a contract in a satisfactory level.

For example, at one point in time, Mike Peca was paid the equivalent of 6 million per season (in 2018 money) around 2005ish but Peca never scored more than 25 but once in his career and 20+ in 4 scattered seasons. However, I would bet more than 3/4 of the league would have given Peca that money at the time. How would you judge “the Mike Peca’s” of the NHL and if they are living up to their contract? There was no way you could look at Peca’s stat sheet and judge if he was living up to his contract, however he brought everything else to the table that teams need and desire on the ice but how in the hell do you decide on a player like that? And there are a lot of players in the league like that, that add to a team’s success that doesn’t translate on the scoreboard.

What if you sign a 40 goal scorer but one season he scores 29 in a season. That’s a big drop...take his money away? Who is deciding if a player lives up to a contract? The owner? Lol, ya, sure thing.

What you are talking about is bonus performances which the NHL already has in the system. It is not the player’s fault that GMs and owners do not make more use of it.

If fact, it is not the player’s fault for any bad or terrible contract. The blame for bad contracts is squarely on the GM for being bad at their job and handing them out. Imagine a system where you can throw an ungodly amount of money at a star player to pry him away from an opponent and then deem that contract unworthy at the end of the season and not pay that player. Holy shit...

 

[tsujimoto74]

As others have said, if you're paid $9M a year then the linemates excuse doesn't fly

He could be paid $20M a year and he'd still be a finisher, not a driver. If you don't give him chances to finish plays, he's not worth anything.

 

[42]

really sucks. Buffalo was pretty much forced to give him a big deal and they're being punished for it. No sport is as handcuffed by salary caps as much as hockey

No team is ever forced to give any player a big deal. Teams always have a choice.

 

[nbwingsfan]

He could be paid $20M a year and he'd still be a finisher, not a driver. If you don't give him chances to finish plays, he's not worth anything.

Hes not worth anything to begin with. Hes like $4M overpaid

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

He could be paid $20M a year and he'd still be a finisher, not a driver. If you don't give him chances to finish plays, he's not worth anything.

I think that's further proof you never pay someone like him that kind of money.

I think there's merit to the idea that if you make that kind of money, you should be able to produce or create for your line. If you're the type of player who can't do that and need someone to set up your chances, then you don't deserve that kind of money.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Hes not worth anything to begin with. Hes like $4M overpaid

See, that's the thing, he's not. He's like $2M overpaid if you actually use him for what he's good for and get 30-40G out of him every year.

 

[NK94]

As others have said, if you're paid $9M a year then the linemates excuse doesn't fly

Especially when said linemates are outproducing him.

 

[Miri]

And look... Buffalo still lost last night. Seems like they've got it all under control over there.

Buffalo is the weirdest team ever. They have crapton of high first-round picks - players (Eichel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, Cozens, Dahlin, Ristolainen), supported by bunch of veterans, who used to be quality players elsewhere (and high draft picks themselves - Hall, Skinner, Staal, Okposo) - and they still cant win shit, year after year. Is there any team more underachieving then them? Or is it the case of half of the players never really living up to the expectations given their draft pedigree and the other half past it?

 

[tsujimoto74]

I think that's further proof you never pay someone like him that kind of money.

I think there's merit to the idea that if you make that kind of money, you should be able to produce or create for your line. If you're the type of player who can't do that and need someone to set up your chances, then you don't deserve that kind of money.

There's nothing anyone can do about the contract now. So the question is do you use him correctly and get several years of ~$7M value production from your $9M player, or do you do whatever it is that Kreuger's doing and have $9M doing absolutely nothing for you?

 

[Artorius Horus T]

He could be excellent in Chicago.

If Toews plays another game again, in his career,
team him up with Toews and Skinner will score 35+ goals a season.

Kubalik +
Seabrook's LTIR contract
= about 11 mill

for Jeff Skinner + Sabres 2022 1st (if you have your 2022 1st)

DeBrincat-Suter-Kane
Skinner-Toews-Dach

 

[MadLuke]

This isn’t anything like the other guy was talking about. The other guy was rambling about taking money away, if a player doesn’t live up to expectations but he doesn’t understand how asinine the idea is and how complicated that system would be to judge if a player lives up to a contract in a satisfactory level.

His original message was:
One day the NHL will figure out that in the next agreement with the NHLPA, contracts should only be guaranteed for the current and following year only. Either that or lower the buyout percentages.

It is quite similar and the way it would work as well (the team can use it's option to keep the player or not), not one would have to judge in is system, team use their options or not.

 

[shadow1]

Things are looking awful, but unless I'm mistaken, Skinner's been playing on a line with Curtis Lazar and Riley Sheahan, hasn't he?

I don't watch enough Sabres games to know for certain if it's a coaching issue, but Skinner went from a consistent ~50 point player (coming off a 40 goal season) to a guy who has 24 points in 73 games with Ralph Krueger behind the bench.

Skinner has 6 additional years left on his deal. Eichel seems to be disgruntled. It's almost a given Krueger will be fired at some point. Why wait?