Confirmed with Link: Zemgus Girgensons signs 1-yr contract ($1.15M)

[Jim Bob]

This deal helps make sense as to why Risto is taking so long. Sabres are a cap team all of a sudden.

I don't think that is the issue with Risto.

They have around $8.5M in available cap space (with Cody McCormick's $1.5M on LTIR). That's plenty of room to sign Risto.

My guess is that the issue is around how much money Risto's agent wants for a long term deal.

Murray might be offering Bogosian type money and Risto's agent might want more than Dougie Hamilton got last year and close to what Ekblad signed for.

 

[Heraldic]

They have around $8.5M in available cap space (with Cody McCormick's $1.5M on LTIR). That's plenty of room to sign Risto.

You're using General Fanager's numbers? While they have placed some players already on IR, they haven't taken it into account when calculating the cap. So, we actually have 10 million left (when McCormick is put into LTIR).

After signing Risto we have to add one forward/defenseman to reach the 23 player total. So if Risto signs around 6 million deal, and the depth player is around 700k, we should have a bit over 3 million left.

 

[Vito_81]

Zemgus' best play came on the worst teams.

"Find a consistent role...."

That's exec speak for "he's expendable"

Maybe not expendable, but he certainly is on the cusp of being there. Murray needs Z to step it up and show him if he really is valuable.

These are the beginning stages of Hawks territory. You absolutely cannot overpay these middle lineup guys when you have to be spending a lot of dollars on your big guns.

I dont think Murray is ready to sell low of Girgensons at this point. But he certainly knows he can't be keeping everyone.

This is a win-win for both sides. IMO the tricky part will be next summer after Girgs puts up a big 16-17 season

 

[Der Jaeger]

Maybe not expendable, but he certainly is on the cusp of being there. Murray needs Z to step it up and show him if he really is valuable.

These are the beginning stages of Hawks territory. You absolutely cannot overpay these middle lineup guys when you have to be spending a lot of dollars on your big guns.

I dont think Murray is ready to sell low of Girgensons at this point. But he certainly knows he can't be keeping everyone.

This is a win-win for both sides. IMO the tricky part will be next summer after Girgs puts up a big 16-17 season

Agree. The team's shell looks something like this:

- O'Reilly - Okposo
- Eichel -
- Reinhart -

- Ristolainen
-
-

They need 1-2 more core defensemen, and then it's complete. I'd start moving guys like Kane and Ennis for picks and prospects. By the time Girgensons, Larsson, Foligno, and McCabe price out of the salary structure, Fasching, Guhle, Bailey, Nylander, Nelson, and Asplund are contributing. The draft picks develop. Then the second group prices out, and the next group is in.

Chicago has been doing that with Toews, Kane, Hossa, Kruger, Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson effectively.

 

[Selanne00008]

Maybe not expendable, but he certainly is on the cusp of being there. Murray needs Z to step it up and show him if he really is valuable.

These are the beginning stages of Hawks territory. You absolutely cannot overpay these middle lineup guys when you have to be spending a lot of dollars on your big guns.

I dont think Murray is ready to sell low of Girgensons at this point. But he certainly knows he can't be keeping everyone.

This is a win-win for both sides. IMO the tricky part will be next summer after Girgs puts up a big 16-17 season

Or if it's another mediocre season, where more specifically the next training camp he has a big chance of being passed by our younger 19-21 year olds like a Bailey Fasching, etc. He could really be trade bait. I wouldn't mind a 2nd rounder or a solid 2015 draft D prospect in return. Keeps our cap situation low (fill in Girgs 2017 contract at say 1.5 mill with a rookie deal), and keeps our pipeline stocked.

 

[Dreakon13]

I like Girgs, I always pictured him a part of this team long term... unreasonable as I may be, it pains me a little to see a 1 year deal. Kind of gives me the impression that he's closer to the door, then he is to the core.

But such is life. If he kills it this year and really establishes his role on the team, then this is great for both sides. If he doesn't, and/or a kid like Bailey or Fasching comes up and takes his spot, then it gives us a lot of options in terms of his future on the team or his price tag come next offseason. Can't really complain.

 

[joshjull]

Or if it's another mediocre season, where more specifically the next training camp he has a big chance of being passed by our younger 19-21 year olds like a Bailey Fasching, etc. He could really be trade bait. I wouldn't mind a 2nd rounder or a solid 2015 draft D prospect in return. Keeps our cap situation low (fill in Girgs 2017 contract at say 1.5 mill with a rookie deal), and keeps our pipeline stocked.

Lets say, worst case scenario, he doesn't develop offensively beyond an average bottom 6 forward. But he still brings the same good defensive game , speed and skating that allows him to fill in as needed on top 6 lines without hurting you. If he is that same player, he will still be inexpensive but still have value to the roster. The trades you suggest are basically trading him just to trade him. Which doesn't make much sense. Trading him to improve the roster I get but that's not what you're proposing. Its like some are adverse to depth.

 

[gallagt01]

I like Girgs, I always pictured him a part of this team long term... unreasonable as I may be, it pains me a little to see a 1 year deal. Kind of gives me the impression that he's closer to the door, then he is to the core.

I don't think this contract is indicative of that at all. Girgensons told Latvian media (IIRC) earlier this offseason that Buffalo wanted him to sign long-term.

He and his agent are smart enough and confident enough to realize that Girgensons is better than what he showed last season. He'd be dumb to sign long-term right now.

 

[ThunderD]

I'm not sure what you mean. Strictly speaking, no player requires protection in the expansion draft, except for players with no movement clauses. That said, aside from players who have two or fewer years of professional experience, players who are not protected are eligible for claim in the expansion draft. Larsson and Foligno both far exceed the minimum requires to be eligible for claim. They would both need to be protected to not be claimed.

Pending RFAs and UFAs both also need to be protected to not be claimed (except for RFAs who don't meet the experience requirements, of course). The major difference is that UFAs would become unrestricted free agents shortly after the expansion draft, whereas RFAs would not, and Las Vegas would still retain their right to first refusal with regards to any offer sheets. An unrestricted free agent lost in the expansion draft could, at least in theory, be re-signed freely by the team who lost him after the opening of the free agency period following the expansion draft, whereas a restricted free agent would not.

That's actually exactly what I mean. Kulikov makes more sense to have than Pysyk (not to start a debate here) because we would have to protect Pysyk to keep him whereas Kulikov we don't have to protect. If Kulikov is taken, he just comes back to us in free agency (should he want to which you would think he would).

With RFAs, it would seem if we left Girgs unprotected, we would have to acquire him in an offer sheet which could get very costly. Yet I have heard some people say that when Larsson was signed to this 1 year deal he would not have to be protected (like Kulikov) even though he was an RFA. To me that made no sense and I could never get a straight answer as some experts say yes and some say no. The NHL doesn't really clarify this in their articles or any other article on the expansion draft. Thus my statement. As well, you could see I am talking about more than 1-2 year pros like Foligno & Larsson.

 

[wunderpanda]

Happy he was signed, but looks like trade bait now. Been saying he's expendable since January so the deal isn't surprising.

 

[joshjull]

Zemgus' best play came on the worst teams.

"Find a consistent role...."

That's exec speak for "he's expendable"

Thats Murray stating the obvious. That they (Murray, Disco and Girgs) need to figure out where he fits best (center or wing, defensive or offensive line). Murray has talked about this a few times early in the offseason. He also talked about being happy with Girgs overall game/development but wants to see more from him offensively.

It was also reported he wanted Girgs signed longer term (no idea if thats mid range 3-5 or a longer 6-8yrs, But I would guess mid range). This deal getting signed this late into the off season is most likely Girgs camp holding the line on a 1yr deal. That would be to have a stronger year and better leverage for a longer term deal (Something Jame correctly called early in the offseason). Girgs had little leverage this offseason. If Murray wanted him for 1yr all along, this deal would have happened awhile ago.

I don't see any indication that Murray is now changing his opinion on Girgs from the start of the offseason and now views him as expendable. At least not outside the normal way Murray views things (as in anyone could be moved ,outside a small handful, if it improves the team)

 

[Heraldic]

Thats Murray stating the obvious. That they (Murray, Disco and Girgs) need to figure out where he fits best (center or wing, defensive or offensive line). Murray has talked about this a few times early in the offseason. He also talked about being happy with Girgs overall game/development but wants to see more from him offensively.

It was also reported he wanted Girgs signed longer term (no idea if thats mid range 3-5 or a longer 6-8yrs, But I would guess mid range). This deal getting signed this late into the off season is most likely Girgs camp holding the line on a 1yr deal. That would be to have a stronger year and better leverage for a longer term deal (Something Jame correctly called early in the offseason). Girgs had little leverage this offseason. If Murray wanted him for 1yr all along, this deal would have happened awhile ago.

I don't see any indication that Murray is now changing his opinion on Girgs from the start of the offseason and now views him as expendable. At least not outside the normal way Murray views things (as in anyone could be moved ,outside a small handful, if it improves the team)

Pretty much this.

It's likely not a coincidence that out of our three one year extensions one was made pretty much right after the season and two dragged this long. It was a possibility to make Kyle Clifford and Calle Järnkrok type of deals. Both players had not that much incentive to sign those type of years (Foligno had pretty high QO and Girgs had production wise a down year, and he can easily better his numbers if he gets a regular top-6 role). And this was actually discussed on June with Jame..:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120450581&postcount=13

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120445327&postcount=995

***
And I don't exactly understand why so frequently someone is wanting to say that specifically Girgs is expendable. Of course he is, just like pretty much almost 20 players on our starting roster. But being expendable and being a trade bait are pretty different concepts. And outside of Ennis (and Kane), I really don't see that many players being actually trade baits. But I think Murray is willing to move many of our players outside of those if a right deal emerges.