Reinhart, does he fit JBots mold?

[Scottysabres]

What moves made by the coach? Who he thinks should go to Rochester? Also you literally said metric with which to gauge... which is another way of saying judging.

 

 

 

This is what you said and what I responded too. That is absolutely not the metric (preseason lineup changes) to gauge the new coach.

 

Come now, let's not play the "I have no idea what you're talking about" game. I've watched you post. You know. But, if you persist, look at the last coach's player usage as an example. Edited June 7, 2017 by Lucky E

[LGR4GM]

Come now, let's not play the "I have no idea what you're talking about" game. I've watched you post. You know. But, if you persist, look at the last coach's player usage as an example.

I know what you are saying I am disagreeing. The lineup changes and the lines and that crap doesn't tell us much about a coach who will have limited knowledge of his players by that time (October). By January sure. Saying that start of the season, meaning first game lineup, will be a gauge of the new coach is IMPO not correct. Our coach at that stage might have had 2-3 preseason games with his full roster. All it will gauge is who the Gm and coach think is NHL ready and what the GM did to fix the team. The start of the season is not when you gauge the coach.

For example if on opening night he has Reinhart on Jack's wing I am not going to judge that the coach is right or wrong. Idk the new system, idk how players will work in it, idk if he will move lines often or not at all, idk if he wants the player to transition to another spot after learning the system. My point is I am not gauging the coach on anything for a bit. The first month of Bylsma I didn't think much of him but still had to give him a chance. Same goes for this. 

[Derrico]

And that's the rub. Nobody really knows how the Vegas draft will shake out. But I'd not be at all surprised if an Anaheim-type team that's close now & stands to lose a much more valuable asset than a team further away (such as the Sabres - does anybody really care who they lose other than Ullmark, and even he won't be universally be bemoaned if he's gone) ends up making a side deal to give up prospects to Vegas to keep an unprotected player protected.

 

That's the way past expansion drafts worked. Even if the league had a mechanism in place to prevent those deals, they'd be VERY hard to enforce. "We didn't want Vatannen, he's old & injured. Prove we took x ONLY because we also swapped pick y for prospects A&B."

 

Many here are hoping for the easy snag of a top D. I'd like to see that too, but don't have terribly high hopes for it unless the Sabres pay close to normal rate because the Sabres aren't the only team bidding for that/ those assets. And the top price will be better than the 2nd best offer by definition. (Well, duh. Thanks for that nugget Sherlock. :lol:)

 

Is there any reason to believe another team that wants Brodin (just as an example) will make so low an offer that the Sabres can scoop him up for a song? The price will likely be lower than a normal year, but it's doubtful it will truly be a buyer's market. (Again, hoping the Sabres can get the cheap upgrade. Just not expecting it.)

Oh no, I agree the asking and purchase price will be high. To me reinhart is a huge ask if he's the one to go. But I think guys that were not even close to available may be for a high price.

 

As for the Vegas side deals, what's Mcphee big incentive other than a second round pick. Why wouldn't he think about it and then say nope in a week or two. Why would Vegas take a second round pick and a lesser player than a great young d? Is he afraid Anaheim or Minnesota or whoever will unload those guys before the draft? The d the ducks are going to have to expose are going to be worth way more than a second rounder so why would he let them off the hook?

Edited June 7, 2017 by Derrico

[Taro T]

Oh no, I agree the asking and purchase price will be high. To me reinhart is a huge ask if he's the one to go. But I think guys that were not even close to available may be for a high price.

As for the Vegas side deals, what's Mcphee big incentive other than a second round pick. Why wouldn't he think about it and then say nope in a week or two. Why would Vegas take a second round pick and a lesser player than a great young d? Is he afraid Anaheim or Minnesota or whoever will unload those guys before the draft? The d the ducks are going to have to expose are going to be worth way more than a second rounder so why would he let them off the hook?

The big incentive would be to grab a blue chip prospect or 2 (no idea on who that would be, sorry) that will be coming into his/their own right about the time an expansion team is ready to stop playing like an expansion team.

 

It lets an Anaheim continue to play for the ST while realizing LV should be looking LT & @ setting up to be a powerhouse in more like 4 years down the road.

 

And all Anaheim or Minny lose in expansion in worst case is 1 D-man. They trade away a good one for a package of youth & then they end up losing 2 good D. Maybe the youth that Anaheim expects to be ready is worth losing 2 or Minny considers their playoff futility a call for a rebuild & losing 2 guys, but IMHO it isn't close to a given.

[Randall Flagg]

I think Reinhart is a keeper.    Not sure about a guy like Fasching or Girgensons tho... or Larsson... or Rodrigues.. 

Find some combo of those guys and picks and go get the unheralded defenseman that won't break out until after the trade happens. It's hard to do, but we're due for some pleasant surprises. 

The only guys I would trade Reinhart for are guys that those teams wouldn't give up. I would be able to stomach Reinhart for Hanifin but would probably try to add to get Slavin. 

 

Let's get wild - Reinhart & Ristolainen for Slavin & Aho. 

[LGR4GM]

Find some combo of those guys and picks and go get the unheralded defenseman that won't break out until after the trade happens. It's hard to do, but we're due for some pleasant surprises. 

The only guys I would trade Reinhart for are guys that those teams wouldn't give up. I would be able to stomach Reinhart for Hanifin but would probably try to add to get Slavin. 

 

Let's get wild - Reinhart & Ristolainen for Slavin & Aho. 

That trade makes me want to barf...  I was shown to be wrong so i barf on myself. 

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by LGR4GM

[TrueBlueGED]

Neither Reinhart nor Kane should be traded unless a definitive top-50 NHL defenseman is part of the return. And this is not very likely, even with the expansion draft complicating things.

 

Just think about what we sacrificed for each of these guys:

 

1. Reinhart: the entire 2013-14 tank season.

2. Kane: essentially 4 1st round picks, a high 2nd round pick, and Bogosian's awful contract.

 

Both have their flaws, but they are still major talents who have proven that they can produce at the pro level. Moreover, they are both very young and still have plenty of room to grow, especially with better coaching.

 

I'm inclined to keep talent rather than get rid of it. Enough with the stupid trade proposals.

I really hope Botterill isn't using what the previous GM did/paid to get players to determine whether he keeps them long term. The only thing that should matter is if we're better keeping them than moving them.

[LikeEich]

I think Sam will be fine. I wouldn't trade him to Chicago. I'd trade him to Anaheim for Fowler or to Carolina for Hanifin and a pick but that's about it.

I'm with you on Sam. Unreal anyone would be willing to ship hum for anything less them a absolute stud Dman. Trade anyone else but him and Eichel and Risto. Kid is going to be a damn good hockey player for years and years.

 

I'm usually impressed by your player evaluations but I think you're a tad too hard for Fowler. I mean he's sensational sure, however he's streaky and seems to only play hard nearing a new contract. Hanifin has significantly more value then Fowler IMO. A contract would help even it out a bit but still would much much rather hanifin

[Randall Flagg]

That trade makes me want to barf... 

 

Why? We get a defender who's clearly better (Seriously, I'm working on a project and watching a bunch of Canes games and he's utterly phenomenal) and Aho just put up a 49 point rookie season at 19, compared to Samson's 43 point rookie season and 47 point sophomore one.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[LGR4GM]

Convince me Slavin is better then Risto. 

 

As for Aho, I love him but I am not sold on selling out on Sam.

[LikeEich]

Why? We get a defender who's clearly better (Seriously, I'm working on a project and watching a bunch of Canes games and he's utterly phenomenal) and Aho just put up a 49 point rookie season at 19, compared to Samson's 43 point rookie season and 47 point sophomore one.

Let me know when the project is done. I'd like to see how Slavin is clearly better then Risto. I like Slavins game but Risto has all kinds of offensive potential

Convince me Slavin is better then Risto.

 

As for Aho, I love him but I am not sold on selling out on Sam.

Sorry my bad

[Scottysabres]

I know what you are saying I am disagreeing. The lineup changes and the lines and that crap doesn't tell us much about a coach who will have limited knowledge of his players by that time (October). By January sure. Saying that start of the season, meaning first game lineup, will be a gauge of the new coach is IMPO not correct. Our coach at that stage might have had 2-3 preseason games with his full roster. All it will gauge is who the Gm and coach think is NHL ready and what the GM did to fix the team. The start of the season is not when you gauge the coach.For example if on opening night he has Reinhart on Jack's wing I am not going to judge that the coach is right or wrong. Idk the new system, idk how players will work in it, idk if he will move lines often or not at all, idk if he wants the player to transition to another spot after learning the system. My point is I am not gauging the coach on anything for a bit. The first month of Bylsma I didn't think much of him but still had to give him a chance. Same goes for this.

 

If the new coach has "limited" as you put it it, knowledge of the assets he has to work with........he shouldn't be coach.

 

That dog don't hunt.

[LGR4GM]

Let me know when the project is done. I'd like to see how Slavin is clearly better then Risto. I like Slavins game but Risto has all kinds of offensive potential

 

Sorry my bad

?

 

If the new coach has "limited" as you put it it, knowledge of the assets he has to work with........he shouldn't be coach.

 

That dog don't hunt.

Sure it does. How much can a coach learn about his players who aren't in town until September if he gets the job at the en of June? He'll have some knowledge but he won't be able to figure out the chemistry of that team for a little. 

[Scottysabres]

?

 

 

Sure it does. How much can a coach learn about his players who aren't in town until September if he gets the job at the en of June? He'll have some knowledge but he won't be able to figure out the chemistry of that team for a little.

 

Babcock says hi

[LGR4GM]

Babcock says hi

I do not expect any coach to walk in on day 1 and know all the stuff about his team, so I can't judge him on day one which is the original context of this conversation. Babcock sure as hell took some time. His record in October... 2-7... so my point still stands. November 8-6. Babcock still took a month to figure his team out. So "the start of the season line up will be a metric with which to gauge the new coach" is still IMPO wrong. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Scottysabres]

Your stipulating day 1.

I stipulated month 1.

Lets at least try and stay on subject.

[Randall Flagg]

Convince me Slavin is better then Risto. 

 

As for Aho, I love him but I am not sold on selling out on Sam.

 

Let me know when the project is done. I'd like to see how Slavin is clearly better then Risto. I like Slavins game but Risto has all kinds of offensive potential

 

Sorry my bad

I totally get the reluctance to believe it, because who tf has heard anything about Slavin, right? I did not finish the season believing this even though I have a well-documented, perhaps undeserved crush on the way that franchise is set up and in particular is coaching their players. 

 

The "project" is simply doing the transition play decisions that I counted for the Sabres this year for the Hurricanes, who were the subject of my big system analysis which I used to illustrate why I didn't like Bylsma's system. I was bored so I decided to finish gathering statistics and see what they say about the situation. I was going to ask Sabrespace when I was done if it was desired that I shared the results, because now that Dan is gone it's not like I'm actually lobbying for anything. But it still could be fun to look at.

 

But anyway, I was watching them in particular because they were a team that is low on talent yet curiously posting very good possession metrics, and I wondered why a team with like 2 guys who scored 20 goals last year compared to our 6 or 7 could play that way. It was immediately obvious in the way they built up their transition game. It's exactly what you want to see in today's NHL, and I made the contention that if the Sabres had spent the past two years working to build chemistry in a system like that they'd be a force.

 

The driving force of this system was the defenseman making the correct decisions with ample forward support and options. And to my surprise, Justin Faulk was not the guy that drove it. It all went through number 74. He has Samson's brain on the back end. Defensively, he has to work on those minor details like taking the body at the right time and stuff, but his decision making, stickwork, and gap control were as good as Risto's. He is quicker and has better edgework. Risto's edge defensively is his ability to play the body. I will have the supporting videos for his skill set if I end up posting the finishing results of my season-long analysis of Carolina's system. 

 

We'll look at two more facets of their game - first, their play in the o-zone and scoring. Risto put up 11 more points than Jaccob did, but Slavin outscored him 26 points to 19 at even strength. Risto averaged 3:11 of power play time per game while Slavin averaged 0:55. Risto is 1.) probably a better PPQB and 2.) on the best power play in the league. This is not to take anything away from Rasmus. And getting Rasmus into an activated system like Carolina's will likely require us nightly changes of our pants. But Slavin is great on the point is well, and I saw a couple mind-blowing fake shot slap passes directly for one timer goals that were very high skill plays. Overall, I'll still give the offensive edge to Risto because in the end, points are points and I think Risto has the potential to be a regular 55-60 point d-man in a real system.

 

Most importantly for me, it's the transition play. Slavin is the single best defenseman under the age of 24 I've seen in the NHL at making the correct pass on the tape to leave the zone every single goddamn time. He's a machine. I sincerely struggle to name 5 defensemen in the NHL who do it better. You'll see what I mean when I post examples. His decision-making is sublime and his insistence on keeping possession at all costs is a dream come true. And he is a very solid skater, so can lug it up the ice himself. Before this project I thought, by name recognition, that Faulk was going to be the machine. But Faulk actually deviates from what they try to do a lot. He skates it himself, forces everyone to stop, and fires it around the boards as much as he'll give the puck to someone else. Slavin actively does everything he can to eliminate plays which don't result in clear possession in space for his team. Risto's transition game cannot possibly be fairly evaluated at this point because of the system he was put in, which was the point of the whole thing I did in the first place. But in a vacuum he looks a lot worse at that aspect because of that, and until he proves he can be as effficient as what I'm watching 74 do in Carolina I'm going to assume he can't, because there are not many defensemen in the world that can do what I see him doing. 

 

TLDR: Slavin transitions the puck the way the ideal modern defenseman does, and the point differential between the two isn't enough to elevate that above Slavin's skills for me, especially because he doesn't get PP time and outproduces Risto noticeably at even strength. 

And I funking love Risto - I think he's in a group of 4 elite defensemen in his age group (which I'll call under 24) - Slavin, Risto, Jones, and Ekblad. With guys like Werenski and Provorov soon to jump in.

[LGR4GM]

Your stipulating day 1.

I stipulated month 1.

Lets at least try and stay on subject.

Really? I should stay on subject... let's quote your first post to which I simply asked to give the coach more time...

Perhaps, but the start of the season line up will be a metric with which to gauge the new coach, whomever that may be.

The start of the season is day 1. You keep changing the goal posts. I think that this idea is incorrect that the new coach should be judged on his start of the season (day 1) lineup. 

I feel like we are going in circles lol. Let's see who the coach is and then see what they do. 

 

 

 

 

Well Randall I am not going to lie that is a really convincing argument. I have to take back my barf joke now  :lol:

Edited June 8, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Randall Flagg]

Really? I should stay on subject... let's quote your first post to which I simply asked to give the coach more time...

The start of the season is day 1. You keep changing the goal posts. I think that this idea is incorrect that the new coach should be judged on his start of the season (day 1) lineup. 

Well Randall I am not going to lie that is a really convincing argument. I have to take back my barf joke now  :lol:

If Carolina was Chicago and not the team most likely to be relocated next, we'd all have known all of that by now. He's like the best kept secret in the NHL. I think they'd move any defenseman on their team before him.

 

A sidenote - if a Reinhart-Hanifin trade did really happen, it'd sting like hell to lose Samson, but Hanifin is worthy. I think the value, plus a small add from one team or the other, is pretty much dead on. Ultimately I'd like to look elsewhere and keep Samson but that's one trade I wouldn't die from. 

[Scottysabres]

Really? I should stay on subject... let's quote your first post to which I simply asked to give the coach more time...

 

The start of the season is day 1. You keep changing the goal posts. I think that this idea is incorrect that the new coach should be judged on his start of the season (day 1) lineup. 

I feel like we are going in circles lol. Let's see who the coach is and then see what they do. 

 

 

 

 

Well Randall I am not going to lie that is a really convincing argument. I have to take back my barf joke now  :lol:

Yes, stay on subject. October was my original post. You know it. No reason to throw a hissy fit over my analysis.

The coach is the pivot point. If Bylsma taught you nothing, that isn't my fault.

 

The origins of my response to you was you stating you thought Reinhart nets 60+, I said we shall see and then went on to explain my reasoning behind that comment.

 

You disagreed, I countered with my analysis on my comment. You persisted, I snarked to piss you off to prove My point. I coached the conversation at a certain point, coaching can achieve its desired effect, and to think, it took me less than a day.....and I'm just an average Joe. What do you think a hockey coach worth their grain of salt can achieve? Especially with the forward talent this team has?

 

Neither here nor there, I was having a bit of fun at a certain point, the over laying conversation opinion I had originally still stands, and I stand on solid evidence, re: Bylsma.

[LGR4GM]

Yes, stay on subject. October was my original post. You know it. No reason to throw a hissy fit over my analysis.

The coach is the pivot point. If Bylsma taught you nothing, that isn't my fault.

 

The origins of my response to you was you stating you thought Reinhart nets 60+, I said we shall see and then went on to explain my reasoning behind that comment.

 

You disagreed, I countered with my analysis on my comment. You persisted, I snarked to piss you off to prove My point. I coached the conversation at a certain point, coaching can achieve its desired effect, and to think, it took me less than a day.....and I'm just an average Joe. What do you think a hockey coach worth their grain of salt can achieve? Especially with the forward talent this team has?

 

Neither here nor there, I was having a bit of fun at a certain point, the over laying conversation opinion I had originally still stands, and I stand on solid evidence, re: Bylsma.

Okay, you win. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by LGR4GM

[LikeEich]

?

 

Sure it does. How much can a coach learn about his players who aren't in town until September if he gets the job at the en of June? He'll have some knowledge but he won't be able to figure out the chemistry of that team for a little.

Didn't see you reply when I posted, seemed like I copied what you said

[Thorner]

So if Reinhart is in the long term plans, should/will Botterill attempt to extend him this summer? I still think he's getting traded, but an extension would be music to my ears.

[spndnchz]

I'm calling 60pts for Reinhart this season

In buffalo?

[dudacek]

Samson would be better off signing next summer after his 60 point season

 

Samson comparables coming off their entry deals:

Huberdeau spent his post-draft year in JR, then put up 31*, 28, and 54 point seasons

He signed a two-year bridge deal at $3.25 per (*was the lockout season)

 

Seguin signed for 6 years at $5.75 after 22, 67, 32*

Johansen 3@4 (JR, 21,12*, 63)

Nugent-Hopkins 7@6 (52, 24*, 56)

Landeskog 7@5.6 (52,17*,65)

Galchenyuk 2@2.8 (27*,31,46)

Yakupov 3@3.75 (31*,24,33)

Barkov 6@5.9 (24,36,59)

Drouin RFA (JR, 32,10,53)

Lindholm 2@2.7 (21,39,39)

Monahan 7@6.3 (34,62,63)

Bennett RFA (1,36,26)

Draisaitl RFA (9,51,77)

Reinhart (JR,42,47)