News Article: Ott in limbo

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
I assume you're defining a contender at the time he's traded, and not a post-hoc review of what happens in the playoffs. Are LA and SJ contenders? Because I'd say they are. But they could very well meet in the 1st round, and one team is going home. Ditto for Boston and Detroit.

Yes (in the re-sign with the team he's traded to scenario)


Do you think he's wholly unaware that if he made it to UFA that he'd have offers from good teams that most consider to be contenders? Or that he's sitting there thinking he has to re-sign with Buffalo right now because no "contenders" are even going to make him a competitive offer?

He's not stupid. His agent isn't stupid. He knows his game is valued by teams who'll be good. Yet he still wants to re-sign here right now. The idea that he's not going to return because he'll get offers from contenders, yet he'll re-sign here now despite knowing he'll get offers from contenders if he chooses to wait until July is ridiculous.

You are correct. He and his agent are not stupid. And they know that 16-20 million dollars in the hand has a greater value vs the risk assumed by the player waiting for UFA (Injury, changing market landscapes, etc)


My comment was in response to your "taste of the playoffs" theme that you were hammering before. I think plenty of contenders will make offers for Ott in UFA.

And you think the is a good chance Ott will choose to return to Buffalo over those offers (because of all the non hockey related aspects)... and that is what is ridiculous.

Where our paths diverge is that I know that he already knows that, yet he's willing to re-sign in Buffalo, anyways. I don't think the presence of contenders making him offers is going to have the sway that you do, because, again, I'm sure he's already taken that into account in deciding he'd like to be in Buffalo long-term.

As previously discussed, he's willing to take money now, verse the risk inherited by waiting. This is common.

Once he absorbs all that risk, and makes it to Free Agency, everything changes

I think you know this, but it doesn't fit with your narrative.

Which is why Ryane Clowe re-signed with the Rangers, right? Or Jagr with the Bruins?

Cap.
Did Ryan Clowe return to San Jose? He loved it there.

You seemingly want your presumption to be that he's going to be in the Conference Finals or better. There's no guarantee of that, even if he's traded to one of the better teams in the league--see LA/SJ example above.

My presumption is that he will be in the playoffs (if traded)

Classic. You have a billion presumptions built into your theory too.

-It's going to be a Cup contender, not simply a good team who may get bounced early. (Even though a "Cup contender" may get bounced in Round 1--see Bos/Det or LA/SJ examples.)

-That "Cup contender" is most definitely going to want re-sign him, regardless of contract demands and available cap space.

-If the acquiring Cup contender doesn't want him, some other nebulous "contender" will offer him a deal more attractive or lucrative than what Buffalo could provide him.

And on and on and on.

They are potential outcomes, and only ONE of them would need to come true for it to significantly alter Ott's desire to return.


Maybe, maybe not. Four or five years of Ott at $4m-$5m doesn't exactly have me giddy. I think I'd prefer the 7 years of team control over a youngster, or the ability to flip that pick in a bigger trade for a young NHL player.

What do we have a **** load of? Youngsters with plenty of team control and assets to use in trade.

What do we have next to none of? Veterans who can lead by example.

But the best option is trading him, getting that mid- to late-1st rounder, and possibly re-signing him in the offseason.

And it isn't unrealistic.

The nest option is re-signing him, the value he brings is a dire need.

The idea that he would re-sign after being traded is somewhere between: very unlikely-unrealistic-pipedream-fantasy land
 

Zip15

Registered User
Jun 3, 2009
28,121
5,401
Bodymore
Yes (in the re-sign with the team he's traded to scenario)




You are correct. He and his agent are not stupid. And they know that 16-20 million dollars in the hand has a greater value vs the risk assumed by the player waiting for UFA (Injury, changing market landscapes, etc)




And you think the is a good chance Ott will choose to return to Buffalo over those offers (because of all the non hockey related aspects)... and that is what is ridiculous.



As previously discussed, he's willing to take money now, verse the risk inherited by waiting. This is common.

Once he absorbs all that risk, and makes it to Free Agency, everything changes

I think you know this, but it doesn't fit with your narrative.



Cap.
Did Ryan Clowe return to San Jose? He loved it there.



My presumption is that he will be in the playoffs (if traded)



They are potential outcomes, and only ONE of them would need to come true for it to significantly alter Ott's desire to return.




What do we have a **** load of? Youngsters with plenty of team control and assets to use in trade.

What do we have next to none of? Veterans who can lead by example.



The nest option is re-signing him, the value he brings is a dire need.

The idea that he would re-sign after being traded is somewhere between: very unlikely-unrealistic-pipedream-fantasy land

We clearly disagree. I think it's not unrealistic--which is far from a guarantee that something would happen--to think that a guy who clearly wants to be here would burn that bridge if the team moves him at the deadline and then seeks to re-sign him. You think it's "fantasyland."

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. We can agree to disagree.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
We clearly disagree. I think it's not unrealistic--which is far from a guarantee that something would happen--to think that a guy who clearly wants to be here would burn that bridge if the team moves him at the deadline and then seeks to re-sign him. You think it's "fantasyland."

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. We can agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree on your scenario. I think you more or less are more interested in trading him, and the re-signing thing is just a feel good tertiary piece of your opinion. It provides cover for the argument regarding WHY you would part with a veteran, role filling player, who is one of the few leaders on the team, when you've previously discussed the need for such players to supplement the rebuild/youth movement.... "no no, see... we'll just re-sign him afterwards!!!"... it's cover for the contradiction :)

It's not easy to get quality veterans to sign on to a rebuild... If Ott is willing to do it in season, when the other options are not yet available... we should jump at the opportunity.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
If we are going to use Gaustad as the reference point for Ott returning a 1st... the team that trades a 1st for Ott, probably intends to re-sign Ott. That would be taking the entire Goose trade into consideration, for "projections" sake...


In the trade Ott and then we re-sign him scenario... if a 1st is not available, do you still want to trade him? What if the best offer is a 2nd and 3rd?
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
History of 1st rounders traded for rentals... this is bare bones...

13-14
Vanek

12-13
Iginla

11-12
Gaustad (4th) - Re-signed with Nashville

10-11
Kaberle

09-10
Kovy

08-09
none

07-08
Hossa
Foote (re-signed with Colorado)
Campbell

06-07
Smyth
Guerin
Zubrus
Tkachuk (went back to st louis following season)

So, if the Goose trade is the barometer for a 1st rounder in return of Ott... we have to take into account the fact that they re-signed him, which they obviously intended to do, which increased the amount they were willing to pay (a 1st)

Basically, trading Ott for a 1st, and having him then re-sign with us... is pretty incompatible.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
150,782
100,666
Tarnation
Ott is probably the test-case for them to try to find young-ish vets who can be viable, valuable pieces in the top 9 to use as framing for the incoming kids. Shiny new toys are cool -- if they land a first or whatever for him, hey, that's the business of a bad team maximizing future potential -- but for all the clamour about NOT going the route of the Oilers, one of the keys is to have vets who aren't at the end of their usefulness as part of the roster as they push through to the other side. Going all-kid seems to get teams into trouble. It's part of why having Ehrhoff around (recapture risk not withstanding) as a veteran minute eater on the backend is so desireable -- let the kids work to supplaint the vets and also have NHLers around to support them.

As for the comments about Ott for a first, wouldn't his value have been higher last season with the possibility of two playoff runs as compared to this year where it is only one? Yes, a team might be in love with the idea of a faceoff-specialist/pest type for their middle lines, but he's not been THAT exceptional at the dot and there is the question of only having him for a single playoff. That Nashville blinked for Gaustad a few years ago is fine. Maybe someone else blinks for Ott this year. I have my doubts.
 

Chainshot

Give 'em Enough Rope
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
150,782
100,666
Tarnation
If we are going to use Gaustad as the reference point for Ott returning a 1st... the team that trades a 1st for Ott, probably intends to re-sign Ott. That would be taking the entire Goose trade into consideration, for "projections" sake...


In the trade Ott and then we re-sign him scenario... if a 1st is not available, do you still want to trade him? What if the best offer is a 2nd and 3rd?

I'd rather they start looking for players who are further along the development path than more picks. If say Morin was available from the Hawks, that's the sort of return I'd rather see.
 

Moskau

Registered User
Jun 30, 2004
19,978
4,743
WNY
As for the comments about Ott for a first, wouldn't his value have been higher last season with the possibility of two playoff runs as compared to this year where it is only one?
Eh, it was a really deep draft. This year isn't. It doesn't quite even it out but it makes it closer than it seems.

I don't think many teams bat an eye at giving up a late 1st rounder in this years draft if it puts them over the top. Quite frankly it was a terrible move not to get the 1st for Ott last year and it's even worse now when you assess what happened at the draft where the team was willing to overpay to get back into the 1st round and couldn't find a taker. If Regier was just going to gut the team and set it up to fail this season anyways he should have just pulled the trigger and overpaid for someone like Gordon in free agency.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
Eh, it was a really deep draft. This year isn't. It doesn't quite even it out but it makes it closer than it seems.

I don't think many teams bat an eye at giving up a late 1st rounder in this years draft if it puts them over the top. Quite frankly it was a terrible move not to get the 1st for Ott last year and it's even worse now when you assess what happened at the draft where the team was willing to overpay to get back into the 1st round and couldn't find a taker. If Regier was just going to gut the team and set it up to fail this season anyways he should have just pulled the trigger and overpaid for someone like Gordon in free agency.

Plenty of us have recognized the holes in the roster, and how they contribute to failure of proper player usage, and even contribute to rushing players.

Keeping Ott for that reason alone was the right move last year. Regier rightfully took plenty of heat from us for not adding more players to help slot the roster/development. Moving Ott would've only exasperated the problem.

Assuming we could've signed Gordon or someone else, fails to learn from the failures of free agency in the past. We offered more for players who choose to go elsewhere (Cullen)
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
I'd rather they start looking for players who are further along the development path than more picks. If say Morin was available from the Hawks, that's the sort of return I'd rather see.

I agree, id prefer more player targets, than more draft picks... but i'd still prefer to re-sign Ott.
 

Havok89

Registered User
Oct 26, 2010
5,127
916
I agree, id prefer more player targets, than more draft picks... but i'd still prefer to re-sign Ott.

I want to resign Ott as well, but I don't want him wearing the C. He's a leader on the ice and in the room, but I feel he's at his best when he's a complete jerk on the ice - something he's had to tone down since wearing the C.

Trading him for a first and letting him know they will pursue him July 1st could help both parties. Having Mike Weber here is a bit of leverage, no?
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
I want to resign Ott as well, but I don't want him wearing the C. He's a leader on the ice and in the room, but I feel he's at his best when he's a complete jerk on the ice - something he's had to tone down since wearing the C.

Trading him for a first and letting him know they will pursue him July 1st could help both parties. Having Mike Weber here is a bit of leverage, no?

re-signing in season and getting the long term guaranteed money is different than making it to free agency and choosing to return to the worst team in hockey because your pal is there for 2 more years...

I never wanted Ott to wear the C... but I think it's of little consequence. I think we'd be re-signing more for continuity of leadership than pesty/jerkiness on the ice... if he continues to wear the C, and it continues to tone down his game... the team is still better for it
 

La Cosa Nostra

Caporegime
Jun 25, 2009
14,074
2,336
If the value of Ott is a late 1st in the 25-30 range and the value of Moulson is a 1st between 20-25 and a 2nd rounder, who would you rather attempt to keep? I am almost positive Moulson does have a higher trade value then Ott being the better player and all. If we had more vets I would like to move both guys but we simply can't unless we pull a Florida from 2 years ago and sign half a team in free agency. I think I would rather have Moulson signed long term and receive a late 1st for Ott then keep Ott and get a 1st and 2nd back from Moulson.... I just think Moulson will last longer then Ott at their current level of play, with Ott being a year older, with a lot more games keeping in mind wear and tear along with Otts style of play not really helping his longevity. And of course, 30 goal scorers are more valuable then 30 point 2 way physical players. Should be interesting to see how the deadline is, if LaFontaine can hire a GM somewhat soon. Just hire Botterill and be done with it.
 

Moskau

Registered User
Jun 30, 2004
19,978
4,743
WNY
I want to resign Ott as well, but I don't want him wearing the C. He's a leader on the ice and in the room, but I feel he's at his best when he's a complete jerk on the ice - something he's had to tone down since wearing the C.

Trading him for a first and letting him know they will pursue him July 1st could help both parties. Having Mike Weber here is a bit of leverage, no?
He sucker punched a guy in the face during a face-off while wearing the C. :laugh:
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
If the value of Ott is a late 1st in the 25-30 range and the value of Moulson is a 1st between 20-25 and a 2nd rounder, who would you rather attempt to keep? I am almost positive Moulson does have a higher trade value then Ott being the better player and all. If we had more vets I would like to move both guys but we simply can't unless we pull a Florida from 2 years ago and sign half a team in free agency. I think I would rather have Moulson signed long term and receive a late 1st for Ott then keep Ott and get a 1st and 2nd back from Moulson.... I just think Moulson will last longer then Ott at their current level of play, with Ott being a year older, with a lot more games keeping in mind wear and tear along with Otts style of play not really helping his longevity. Should be interesting to see how the deadline is, if LaFontaine can hire a GM somewhat soon. Just hire Botterill and be done with it.

I have zero interest in re-signing Matt Moulson.

I'd rather give Stafford an extension than re-sign Moulson.
I'd rather give Ennis the C, and let him center the #1 line for 82 games, than re-sign Moulson
I'd rather move Tyler Myers to forward, than re-sign Moulson...

see I can think of many more stupid things this franchise can do, than re-signing Moulson

quick Layne, tell me all about all the goals he's scored in his career :rolleyes:
 

Havok89

Registered User
Oct 26, 2010
5,127
916
re-signing in season and getting the long term guaranteed money is different than making it to free agency and choosing to return to the worst team in hockey because your pal is there for 2 more years...

I never wanted Ott to wear the C... but I think it's of little consequence. I think we'd be re-signing more for continuity of leadership than pesty/jerkiness on the ice... if he continues to wear the C, and it continues to tone down his game... the team is still better for it

And how much are you willing to give to Ott, over how many years. This is the deciding factor for me. If Ott wants too much over more than 4 years I'd trade him for a late first rounder.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
And how much are you willing to give to Ott, over how many years. This is the deciding factor for me. If Ott wants too much over more than 4 years I'd trade him for a late first rounder.

Im really not to concerned about it. Cap space won't be an issue for awhile.

My preference would be for something in the 4 yr / 4.0 per range... but if a 5 year, 4.5 deal was what it took to get it done... I wouldn't fret it.

I would not go anymore than 5 years tops. And would prefer 3-4 years.
I would not go into the 5.0 per range, and would be comfortable in the 4.5 range.
 

brian_griffin

"Eric Cartman?"
May 10, 2007
16,695
7,926
In the Panderverse
I stopped reading when Jame was at his 3rd deuce of simultaneous "speed tennis" with 3 other posters, though I may catch it on DVR later...

IMO, another shot at trading a pending UFA then resigning two months later is if the UFA has older kids/family who love the city/schools/friends and don't want to move (or move again). [I don't know if that factored into Wrecking Ball's scenario with PIT-CAR-PIT.]

I'm not aware such circumstances are in play with Ott.
 

La Cosa Nostra

Caporegime
Jun 25, 2009
14,074
2,336
I have zero interest in re-signing Matt Moulson.

I'd rather give Stafford an extension than re-sign Moulson.
I'd rather give Ennis the C, and let him center the #1 line for 82 games, than re-sign Moulson
I'd rather move Tyler Myers to forward, than re-sign Moulson...

see I can think of many more stupid things this franchise can do, than re-signing Moulson

quick Layne, tell me all about all the goals he's scored in his career :rolleyes:

And 30 GMs would disagree with you. Matt Moulson is a better hockey player then Steve Ott. Steve Ott is not elite defensively. Steve Ott has minimal offensive talent/production yet is played like a 1st line forward here. His faceoff pct is way down from last year. Mikhail Grigorenko of all people has a better pct then him. You want to give Steve Ott 4 million a year. Sorry, for 4 million a year you need to be scoring more then 12 goals a season sorry. You can get 2 way forwards even better defensively and with comparable offensive numbers for 2.5-3 million a season. Steve Ott is elite in no areas of his game. He hits a lot but isn't even a punishing hitter. He is merely above average defensively and isn't that good of a PKer. Teams need goal scorers. Unless you want a team full of Steve Otts so they can continue the Sabres 1.6 gpg this season.Moulson has 4 more points then Ott in 13 less games. They have an almost identical cap hit and Moulson will cost between 5-5.5 a year.With how much more Moulson produces then Ott, it isn't even close. Ott doesn't possess enough qualities that you over value so much to make up for how little he procurd compared to Moulson.

I know you dislike one way offensive players in favor of defensive minded players with limited offense and above average but nowhere near elite defensive skills such as Jordan Staal, Sean Couturier and Ott but no team is going to win anything scoring 1.6 goals a game. Not every single player has to kill penalties, hit everything that moves, take selfish penalties at key opportunities and act like a buffoon trying to lick opponents helmets. Some players do one thing and one thing only and that's put the puck in the net. You can acquire defensive minded forwards just as good in their own end if not better then Ott and for far less then 4 million.
 

Paxon

202* Stanley Cup Champions
Jul 13, 2003
29,005
5,177
Rochester, NY
I find it hard to believe anyone would want to keep Moulson at the salary he'd command vs. getting return for him.
 

SabresFan26

Registered User
May 28, 2003
10,359
2,074
Visit site
I would not spend the money that some are suggesting for Ott. I would definitely be interested in keeping him as a veteran for the rebuild though. I see him as a 3rd liner currently or even lower in a few years.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad