UPDATE: Sam Reinhart signs 2-year extension -- $3.65MM per year

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I'm glad you agree with me. More people should try it! ? 

You're really setting yourself up for disappointment with Okposo, though. 

He predicted 80 points for Reinhart.  Pretty sure the disappointment won't be limited to Okposo.  (Nor, likely just Sam additionally for that matter.)

[LGR4GM]

Honestly if Reinhart gets 60pts I'll be happy. 

[SDS]

8 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Sure. But they have to be within 5 games played of each other, fair? 

And once again, Brayden will do it with a far tougher job on his plate ?

Why not just make it PPG with a minimum?

[SDS]

54 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Convenient to leave out that Reinhart has played 65 more games than Nylander and 99 more than Point. Career points per game: Reinhart - .56, Point - .71, Nylander - .73. I'd trade Reinhart for either of them without much of a second thought. I'd consider Guentzel or Arvidsson as well, but that's more of a fit argument than it is they're clearly better than Samson.

Reinhart is definitely underrated around here, but I think you put way too much stock on a half season stretch where he vastly outperformed his career averages.

Like in the financial markets, is there a 3-year moving average? Because why would we include the 1st year or two for the mere mortal players in determining their likely production? A player's career doesn't represent a top hat. At least not on the ends.

[Radar]

I agree with previous poster I would be happy with 60 points. I'm wondering if Rinehart tends to be a lazy player. He's smart and talented but is he motivated? Does he have the drive to win or is he settling to just be in the league?  Just wondering.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Radar

[TrueBlueGED]

20 minutes ago, SDS said:

Like in the financial markets, is there a 3-year moving average? Because why would we include the 1st year or two for the mere mortal players in determining their likely production? A player's career doesn't represent a top hat. At least not on the ends.

NHL reference has a 2-year moving average. Probably the better way to go about it would be to use Corsica and just apply their date filter to the last 3 years. I'm definitely okay dropping a player's first year or two when considering what they are and are likely to be, but I don't think that's necessarily a good idea when the players in question only have 2-3 full seasons under their belt. 

With respect to Samson in particular, given he had a season of two extremes, I definitely don't think anyone should be comfortable just projecting out the positive extreme going forward. It's possible that's what happens, but I don't think it's likely; or, at least not any more likely than he's really the negative extreme from this past season. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with 55-60 points this year, continuing the general upward trend in his career. Finishing with over 70, as he was pacing for in the second half of the season, however, would genuinely shock me. Samson taking that kind of a leap is certainly without the set of possible outcomes, as players taking a leap like that isn't unprecedented or anything. But I think expecting it is setting yourself up for disappointment, and betting on it with a contract would be quite the mistake. 

 

TLDR: I think projecting out an extreme is a bad idea, especially when that extreme lines up with your preconceived notions of a player.

Edited July 7, 2018 by TrueBlueGED

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

Why not just make it PPG with a minimum?

I can't say my brain was at its best last night, that's for sure.

41 games, points per game Swamp?

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Convenient to leave out that Reinhart has played 65 more games than Nylander and 99 more than Point. Career points per game: Reinhart - .56, Point - .71, Nylander - .73.

Reinhart is definitely underrated around here, but I think you put way too much stock on a half season stretch where he vastly outperformed his career averages.

But that’s sort of what you are doing with Point, is it not? He’s only played two seasons.

His D3 season was a wash with Sam’s. The second half of his D4 season he scored less than Sam.

Your position is entirely based on the first half of their D4 seasons where Point was well above his career average and Sam confoundingly low.

And I didn’t conveniently leave out the games played. It is to Sam’s credit that he was able to put up 42 points at 19, even if the other two effectively padded their PPG averages by not making the NHL that year.

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

 

TLDR: I think projecting out an extreme is a bad idea, especially when that extreme lines up with your preconceived notions of a player.

This is admittedly exactly what I am doing. It is how you get Alexander Barkov and Nathan Mackinnon contracts.

But also how you get stuck with Cody Hodgson.

Edited July 7, 2018 by dudacek

[Cheektorado]

With the uncertainty of which player Sam will become in the coming years, isn't a bridge deal the best way to go?

If that is reasonable, why is 3 year bridge not as advantageous as a 2 as some are saying?

I would think the longer 3 year deal would not cost much more than 2.

It's my 1st post after being a "lurker" some time.

[Randall Flagg]

Sam is the only forward left on the roster who has demonstrably shown to lift up others he plays with BOTH in tangible, result-based stats and underlying metrics. Jack can make anyone score but some players move to his line and get shelled a lot more than they do without him. 

But players score more goals and assists and also play better hockey in the meantime with Sam. 

[TrueBlueGED]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

But that’s sort of what you are doing with Point, is it not? He’s only played two seasons.

His D3 season was a wash with Sam’s. The second half of his D4 season he scored less than Sam.

Your position is entirely based on the first half of their D4 seasons where Point was well above his career average and Sam confoundingly low.

And I didn’t conveniently leave out the games played. It is to Sam’s credit that he was able to put up 42 points at 19, even if the other two effectively padded their PPG averages by not making the NHL that year.

This is admittedly exactly what I am doing. It is how you get Alexander Barkov and Nathan Mackinnon contracts.

But also how you get stuck with Cody Hodgson.

No, my position is based on the whole of their NHL careers to date. That Reinhart made the NHL a year sooner and produced is to his credit, but I'm not sure that speaks to his projection so much as it does to where his development was at the time. Being NHL ready sooner doesn't mean he's NHL better now and in the future. The past two NHL seasons have seen Nylander be better both years, and Point better one of the two. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by TrueBlueGED

[SwampD]

9 minutes ago, Cheektorado said:

With the uncertainty of which player Sam will become in the coming years, isn't a bridge deal the best way to go?

If that is reasonable, why is 3 year bridge not as advantageous as a 2 as some are saying?

I would think the longer 3 year deal would not cost much more than 2.

It's my 1st post after being a "lurker" some time.

Welcome, and great name.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

22 minutes ago, Cheektorado said:

With the uncertainty of which player Sam will become in the coming years, isn't a bridge deal the best way to go?

If that is reasonable, why is 3 year bridge not as advantageous as a 2 as some are saying?

I would think the longer 3 year deal would not cost much more than 2.

It's my 1st post after being a "lurker" some time.

Welcome!!

Someone more knowledgeable will be able to supply the details, but the 2 year bridge has advantages when it comes to Samson's upcoming UFA status.

Paging anyone that can explain all that junk.

[Cheektorado]

3 minutes ago, N S said:

Welcome!!

Someone more knowledgeable will be able to supply the details, but the 2 year bridge has advantages when it comes to Samson's upcoming UFA status.

Paging anyone that can explain all that junk.

Thanks.  It really is hard to understand all the "nuances" of the NHL contracts.  I've "googled" around but it seems you only get a bit here and a bit

there. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Hey,

Isn't our very own bio in Colorado (not sure of Springs, though).

My dear bio, please say it's not so.

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I agree with Blue, the question is, is Reinhart the 2nd half or the first. I want him with Mittelstadt not jack. I think Casey is a better fit because he'll open more room with his lateral movement and his playing style meshes better with Reinhart. That leaves Eichel with a revitalized Okposo which I think will work great with Sheary.

 

Sheary - Eichel - Okposo 

Rod - Mittelstadt - Reinhart

 

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Honestly if Reinhart gets 60pts I'll be happy. 

Bingo. The reason I took so much positive from Reinhart's second half, is that I wouldn't even say he needs points-per-game numbers like he had in that stretch to be a very good player for us, and even one that "justifies" his draft status (for the record, I do not believe he has to live up to some arbitrary level befitting of a 2 overall to remain a valuable and key component for our team, same for any player - in many ways where a player was drafted becomes irrelevant after the fact).

Reinhart was performing at a 73 point pace, MORE that what should be generally expected of a legit first-liner in the NHL. If that's the real Sam, it's gravy. If he settles in around a 60 point pace, things are looking pretty darn good where he is concerned. Add in the fact that he could reasonably improve further given his age, and there aren't too many players I'm more optimistic about than Sam right now.

Yes, it's based on how he performed over one half-season stretch, but 44 games is still sizable, relative to his career thus far as a whole, and his pedigree makes it feel like it's not fool's gold. 

Another huge, probably underrated aspect of Sam Reinhart is his apparent durability. The kid always plays. That is massively valuable. 

 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Cheektorado said:

With the uncertainty of which player Sam will become in the coming years, isn't a bridge deal the best way to go?

If that is reasonable, why is 3 year bridge not as advantageous as a 2 as some are saying?

I would think the longer 3 year deal would not cost much more than 2.

It's my 1st post after being a "lurker" some time.

For my part, the advantage of giving Sam Reinhart a 2 year bridge rather than a 3 year lies mainly in the fact that a 3 year bridge results in the contracts of Sam, Casey and Rasmus D all expiring at the same time, and thus all starting their next (higher cost) contracts at the same time. 

Maybe that wouldn't matter to Botterill, in which case I would think a 3 year bridge makes the most sense of all possible deals. 

[nfreeman]

3 hours ago, Cheektorado said:

With the uncertainty of which player Sam will become in the coming years, isn't a bridge deal the best way to go?

If that is reasonable, why is 3 year bridge not as advantageous as a 2 as some are saying?

I would think the longer 3 year deal would not cost much more than 2.

It's my 1st post after being a "lurker" some time.

 

Welcome!

 

Reino getting 60 points would be an excellent outcome for him this year, as long as they don’t come in the 2nd half of the season with the Sabres already 20 games out of the playoffs.  

[sweetlou]

I would personally go with a two year bridge.  Would put him at five years in the league and a large enough sample size for a young player to see what you really have.

People are suggesting he could be a 60-70 pt guy and should get between 5-6 million a year.  That is based on projection from the last 40 games of the year.

With more offensive guys coming into the mix does it take away from some of the points or time he gets, or does it add to it by playing with better line mates.

 

The reason I like the two year time frame is that Pommers, Bogo, and Sobatka, Sheary, Scandella, and Hunwicks contracts will be off the books. 

 

So I say 2 years at 4 million a year.

If he proves that he can score 60+ the next two years then I have no problem giving him 6-7 million on a longer contract.

 

If Botts signs him now to a longer contract I only want it at 5 Million AAV where it won't hurt the Sabres if he ends up only being a 50 point guy, but could be a bargain if he hits 60+pts.

 

[Drunkard]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

For my part, the advantage of giving Sam Reinhart a 2 year bridge rather than a 3 year lies mainly in the fact that a 3 year bridge results in the contracts of Sam, Casey and Rasmus D all expiring at the same time, and thus all starting their next (higher cost) contracts at the same time. 

Maybe that wouldn't matter to Botterill, in which case I would think a 3 year bridge makes the most sense of all possible deals. 

Mittelstadt burned the first year of his ELC when he signed last year though so whether Reinhart signs to a 2 or 3 year bridge it will end up either when Mittelstadt is an RFA (2020) or when Dahlin is (2021).

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, Alkoholist said:

Mittelstadt burned the first year of his ELC when he signed last year though so whether Reinhart signs to a 2 or 3 year bridge it will end up either when Mittelstadt is an RFA (2020) or when Dahlin is (2021).

Damn, that's right, too. Good call. My memory is shot lately. 

[erickompositör72]

12 hours ago, Alkoholist said:

Mittelstadt burned the first year of his ELC when he signed last year though so whether Reinhart signs to a 2 or 3 year bridge it will end up either when Mittelstadt is an RFA (2020) or when Dahlin is (2021).

It's time for us to get lucky on another contract. Sign Reinhart to a long-term deal and use the first half of last season to leverage the best deal we can.

We're due to hit on one of these. Karma or something. After suffering through Moulson, let's get a bargain deal on an elite player.

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, erickompositör72 said:

It's time for us to get lucky on another contract. Sign Reinhart to a long-term deal and use the first half of last season to leverage the best deal we can.

We're due to hit on one of these. Karma or something. After suffering through Moulson, let's get a bargain deal on an elite player.

I like this idea. I really think that Samson's December was the outlier, and not his February and March. Those were just his natural progression.

[Huckleberry]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:39 PM, Randall Flagg said:

Sam is the only forward left on the roster who has demonstrably shown to lift up others he plays with BOTH in tangible, result-based stats and underlying metrics. Jack can make anyone score but some players move to his line and get shelled a lot more than they do without him. 

But players score more goals and assists and also play better hockey in the meantime with Sam. 

Its why I wish we had some decent wingers for him and Jack.

[LGR4GM]

On 7/7/2018 at 5:57 PM, sweetlou said:

I would personally go with a two year bridge.  Would put him at five years in the league and a large enough sample size for a young player to see what you really have.

People are suggesting he could be a 60-70 pt guy and should get between 5-6 million a year.  That is based on projection from the last 40 games of the year.

With more offensive guys coming into the mix does it take away from some of the points or time he gets, or does it add to it by playing with better line mates.

 

The reason I like the two year time frame is that Pommers, Bogo, and Sobatka, Sheary, Scandella, and Hunwicks contracts will be off the books. 

 

So I say 2 years at 4 million a year.

If he proves that he can score 60+ the next two years then I have no problem giving him 6-7 million on a longer contract.

 

If Botts signs him now to a longer contract I only want it at 5 Million AAV where it won't hurt the Sabres if he ends up only being a 50 point guy, but could be a bargain if he hits 60+pts.

 

If he's scoring 60+ in the next 2 years you are paying him more than 7million at the end of it. The cap will be around 85million. If he's having 60pt seasons he's in the top 4 in team scoring. All of that adds up.