Sam Reinhart's bridge deal and his long term outlook.

[nfreeman]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's not that he's earned a "fat" contract. It's that he's going to get way more next summer than he would have had Botterill extended him last. 1

It's the perils of a bridge contract. Botterill wanted to mitigate the risk by waiting. It might fall into the "good problem to have" category, but there's no doubt the price of that mitigation is a higher AAV than we could have had him at.

Possibly, but I think this will depend on the kind of year he has next season.  If it's another good-half-lousy-half situation, and he disappears again in crunch time, they may decide to move on from him rather than making a big commitment.

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Possibly, but I think this will depend on the kind of year he has next season.  If it's another good-half-lousy-half situation, and he disappears again in crunch time, they may decide to move on from him rather than making a big commitment.

The return on investment would be much better moving a guy making 5 million for the next 6 years, than that same guy, now an RFA, looking for 7-8.

And 7+ is what he'll undoubtedly command with another season just equaling this one.

He goes up another 15 points to 80....

Botterill only "wins" that bridge if Sam regresses next year. 

Assuming no regression, the question isn't whether the bridge was the wrong move. It was then, objectively. (Is there anyone here that wouldn't swap the current contract situation Reinhart for one locked up at 5-6 mil for the next 7 years?) It's just a matter of how much accountability one attributes to Botterill for it, which is certainly debatable. Wanting to mitigate risk was certainly a valid concern at the time. 

I won't say unequivocally that Reinhart's bridge was a "bad" deal, my main argument is that it certainly isn't a "good" one. Skinner's contract isn't going to be a "good" one either. How many "good" contracts has Botterill signed in 2+ years? 

Mark Scheifele is signed to a good contract. There's risk, but that's how you get those bargain deals, take a chance on that 5-6 mil deal on a player you believe in. If they had bridged him, he'd be making 10 mil now. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

 

Quote

...he said bravely.

I think it's pretty GD close, myself, and I certainly can't fault anyone who prefers Marner.

***

You may be right about Reino's inclination to sign a deal this year, but IMHO he hasn't earned a fat contract yet.  He had another season with one good half and one crappy half, and was again out to lunch when the season was lost.  That's not a guy you make a huge commitment to.

 

No bravado about Eichel: skill-wise even though Marner is very good at most of these things as well, Jack has more speed, more power, and a better shot. He is better at gaining the zone and carrying the puck. He passes it as well, though he is not as clever with it. Marner plays with a small man’s complex that has served him better in his maturation so far than Jack’s frustration that things aren’t coming more easily to him. Jack plays a more important position with inferior teammates against harder opponents.

***

Your goal post moving on Reinhart is starting to look like a greedy sales manager at bonus negotiation time. This time he had one great - not good - half (38 points) and one good - not crappy - half (27 points). His worst stretch (March) did not come when the going got tough, but after the season was already lost. 

You want to know what Sam’s peers did to “earn” fat, long-term contracts?

Nick Ehlers 64 points in his best season prior to signing

Dylan Larkin 63 points

William Nylander 61

Pastrnak 70

McKinnon 63

Barkov 59

Drouin 53

Monahan 63

Horvat 44

I can go on, but the point is pretty clear, he’s exactly the type many, many NHL GMs make commitments to. He is our second best forward and not signing him long-term last summer is probably going to cost the Sabres money they are going to regret as we watch the Leafs sell off their hyped young talent due to cap crunch while the Bruins and the Avs laugh about all their bargains.

Edited May 31, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

@dudacek great post. 

OCD compels me to a small nitpitck: I believe he had 40 points in the first 41 games, and 25 in the next 41. Still fits in the great-followed-by-good classification you laid out. 

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

@dudacek great post. 

OCD compels me to a small nitpitck: I believe he had 40 points in the first 41 games, and 25 in the next 41. Still fits in the great-followed-by-good classification you laid out. 

I don’t doubt your numbers. I used Jan. 1 as my halfway point.

And I have to follow up on @nfreeman’s idea of the Sabres “moving on” from Reinhart if he has another measly 65-point season.

The Sabres are about to give Jeff Skinner about $70 million for his 65-point season BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS! l’m sorry for yelling, but good players are hard to acquire. WHEN YOU GET GOOD PLAYERS YOU DONT JUST SHRUG AND MOVE ON!

(mike Schopp mode disengaged)

Edited May 31, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

And if they are going to move Reinhart because he doesn't fit in with their system (or some other weird reason), I salivate at the return a 65 point, 24 year old former 2nd overall pick would get, if he was locked up for 6 more years at 5.5 million dollars. 

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

And if they are going to move Reinhart because he doesn't fit in with their system (or some other weird reason), I salivate at the return a 65 point, 24 year old former 2nd overall pick would get, if he was locked up for 6 more years at 5.5 million dollars. 

Reinhart would be an idiot to have signed a 7 year 38.5 million deal. Unless he doesn't believe in himself. 

[LGR4GM]

I like the bridge deal. You have to earn a huge extension. 

It's not a mistake. 

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I like the bridge deal. You have to earn a huge extension. 

It's not a mistake. 

I agree. Sam will be worth it.

And I’m pretty sure I predicted 65 points.?

[Curt]

I’m fine with the bridge deal.  I wanted them to lock him up long term because I like him and believed he would continue to improve, but acknowledged that there were risks.

For all we know, it was more Reinhart’s decision than Botterill’s to go with the bridge.  He bet on himself.

[#freejame]

Nathan Mackinnon didn’t “earn” big bucks and Joe Sakic got him to sign a long term deal that’s now one of the best contracts in NHL history. In fact, he had very comparable numbers that Sam. What did Eichel do to get his monster extension? His stats and game didn’t scream $10m. Maybe they indicated that he would be worth it by the meat of the deal, but that argument can be made for Sam too. Why wasn’t that a bad deal at the time? There were lots of good comps out there for Sam, all of which he will surpass now. I’m not mad Sam is going to get paid, he deserves it. I’m just not going to pretend to it was the right call. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Nathan Mackinnon didn’t “earn” big bucks and Joe Sakic got him to sign a long term deal that’s now one of the best contracts in NHL history. In fact, he had very comparable numbers that Sam. What did Eichel do to get his monster extension? His stats and game didn’t scream $10m. Maybe they indicated that he would be worth it by the meat of the deal, but that argument can be made for Sam too. Why wasn’t that a bad deal at the time? There were lots of good comps out there for Sam, all of which he will surpass now. I’m not mad Sam is going to get paid, he deserves it. I’m just not going to pretend to it was the right call. 

And I'm not gonna pretend getting a bridge didn't help motivate sam or isn't what botterill and Sam both wanted. 

Mackinnon is a bad comparable considering his 4th year was almost a mirror of his 3rd at the end of which he got his deal. If Reinhart pulls a MacKinnon than awesome and I'll gladly give him eichel money. 

[Weave]

A bridge deal was a hedged bet.  Protection to better assure a positive outcome.  It's low risk, but low reward.  If Sam didn't improve, it didn't cost much (relatively) and it eliminates the possibility of a bad deal.  It's also low reward because if Sam did perform (which he did), his next contract is full market value.  No discount.

Sam's deal suggests to me that Jason Botteril is risk averse.  Explains his preference for college prospects too.  I'm  not sure that is a champion's trait, unfortunately.  But it is safe one.

[#freejame]

44 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And I'm not gonna pretend getting a bridge didn't help motivate sam or isn't what botterill and Sam both wanted. 

Mackinnon is a bad comparable considering his 4th year was almost a mirror of his 3rd at the end of which he got his deal. If Reinhart pulls a MacKinnon than awesome and I'll gladly give him eichel money. 

I don’t think Sam is going to be Nate Mackinnon. I don’t see why he can’t live in the 75-80 point range on a playoff Sabres team though. I’m hoping he’s on a long term contract before that happens because otherwise he’s going to get $9+

[Zamboni]

Sam will be the straw that stirs the drink thru a good portion of his career. He’ll get more points some years, less points in others... but overall I think he’ll be a 55-65 point player most seasons. 

For what he brings to a line and with his further development in the coming years ... I can see him getting a longer contract valued around 6.5-7.5 per. And it’s worth it. He’s developed and developing nicely. 

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

I’m a huge fan of bridge deals. Risto should have gotten one also.  Pay them when they earn it.

[Huckleberry]

I think Samson is sneakily being the best player on the team, He drives possession on any line.     Jack is worser without him, he is the same without Jack.

[inkman]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I’m a huge fan of bridge deals. Risto should have gotten one also.  Pay them when they earn it.

But you'll rarely get a player at a discount. If you are ok paying full value for every player, then you'll have to live with it. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

26 minutes ago, inkman said:

But you'll rarely get a player at a discount. If you are ok paying full value for every player, then you'll have to live with it. 

We just got 2 years of Sam at a discount.  I'm not sure what you mean.  Had we signed Sam to a 5 year deal for 5 per year (assuming he would have signed that contract) we'd have overpaid for two years and then maybe got a discount in years 4 and 5.  Maybe.  We tried this with Risto and although the offense was there the defense wasn't.  We have therefore overpaid for that contract so far.  

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We just got 2 years of Sam at a discount.  I'm not sure what you mean.  Had we signed Sam to a 5 year deal for 5 per year (assuming he would have signed that contract) we'd have overpaid for two years and then maybe got a discount in years 4 and 5.  Maybe.  We tried this with Risto and although the offense was there the defense wasn't.  We have therefore overpaid for that contract so far.  

Imagine if he is still producing in year 7 of the new deal. That will be a discount at that point because of the cap going up. We are getting sam for a total of 10 years instead of 8 right now if his new deal is for 8 years. 

[#freejame]

14 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We just got 2 years of Sam at a discount.  I'm not sure what you mean.  Had we signed Sam to a 5 year deal for 5 per year (assuming he would have signed that contract) we'd have overpaid for two years and then maybe got a discount in years 4 and 5.  Maybe.  We tried this with Risto and although the offense was there the defense wasn't.  We have therefore overpaid for that contract so far.  

You don’t think Sam was a $5m player last season? Or that he won’t be this year? That’s ridiculous. If Sam got a long term contract similar to his peers last offseason he would have lived up to the value this year (2018-19) and eclipsed it the next. 

[LGR4GM]

25 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We just got 2 years of Sam at a discount.  I'm not sure what you mean.  Had we signed Sam to a 5 year deal for 5 per year (assuming he would have signed that contract) we'd have overpaid for two years and then maybe got a discount in years 4 and 5.  Maybe.  We tried this with Risto and although the offense was there the defense wasn't.  We have therefore overpaid for that contract so far.  

I don't believe he would have signed that contract. 

[#freejame]

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't believe he would have signed that contract. 

I would imagine his side would have been looking for 6-6.75 last off-season. I’m hoping he’s between 7-7.5 now, but that may end up being low depending on when he signs and the contracts signed this off-season.

Edited May 31, 2019 by #freejame
No way he signs for that low last year though

[nfreeman]

13 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

No bravado about Eichel: skill-wise even though Marner is very good at most of these things as well, Jack has more speed, more power, and a better shot. He is better at gaining the zone and carrying the puck. He passes it as well, though he is not as clever with it. Marner plays with a small man’s complex that has served him better in his maturation so far than Jack’s frustration that things aren’t coming more easily to him. Jack plays a more important position with inferior teammates against harder opponents.

***

Your goal post moving on Reinhart is starting to look like a greedy sales manager at bonus negotiation time. This time he had one great - not good - half (38 points) and one good - not crappy - half (27 points). His worst stretch (March) did not come when the going got tough, but after the season was already lost. 

You want to know what Sam’s peers did to “earn” fat, long-term contracts?

Nick Ehlers 64 points in his best season prior to signing

Dylan Larkin 63 points

William Nylander 61

Pastrnak 70

McKinnon 63

Barkov 59

Drouin 53

Monahan 63

Horvat 44

I can go on, but the point is pretty clear, he’s exactly the type many, many NHL GMs make commitments to. He is our second best forward and not signing him long-term last summer is probably going to cost the Sabres money they are going to regret as we watch the Leafs sell off their hyped young talent due to cap crunch while the Bruins and the Avs laugh about all their bargains.

Your comparison of Eichel and Marner is acute, as always.  I think though that Marner is as good as Eichel in gaining the zone and carrying the puck.  Marner is also more relentless, although Toronto's depth probably helps there.

As for Reino, I will agree that his 1st half last season was better than good and close to great, but I will stand by "crappy" for his 2nd half (and was ready to do so before @Thornystepped up with the fact-checking).  Look at his game log:  http://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/3114722/sam-reinhart

He had 3 points in true garbage time, i.e. the last 2 games of the season.  So he had 22 pts in the 1st 39 games of the 2nd half -- a 46-pt pace.  More importantly, as I've posted previously, there was a 19-game stretch from early Jan to late Feb in which the Sabres went from 3-4 games over DeLuca .500 to 3-4 games under -- and in that stretch, which was when the season was lost he was meh, with 1 or 2 shots on goal in 11 of those games, 1 goal in an 8-game stretch and 2 goals in an 11-game stretch. 

Was Reino as bad in the 2nd half last season as he was in the 1st half of the previous season (which, I'm sure you'll recall, was, similarly, when that season was lost at the same time Reino went on leave)?  No.  But he wasn't good, he wasn't a leader, notwithstanding his throwing of his goalies under the bus, and he sho-nuff didn't deliver what an allegedly (and incorrectly described, as Skinner is better) 2nd-best forward on a team is supposed to deliver.

As for your list of comparables:  if we're using the "25 GMs" metric, Pastrnak, Monahan, McKinnon, Barkov, Ehlers and probably Nylander are all clearly better than Reino -- and they all demonstrated it earlier in their careers.

 

13 hours ago, dudacek said:

And I have to follow up on @nfreeman’s idea of the Sabres “moving on” from Reinhart if he has another measly 65-point season.

The Sabres are about to give Jeff Skinner about $70 million for his 65-point season BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS! l’m sorry for yelling, but good players are hard to acquire. WHEN YOU GET GOOD PLAYERS YOU DONT JUST SHRUG AND MOVE ON!

Well, you're kinda ignoring the key point here, which is how much it will cost to keep him.  I certainly don't want to "move on" from Reino just because I'm annoyed with his inconsistency, his lousy skating, his lack of leadership and the fact that he isn't as good as Draisaitl.  Even with those drawbacks, he's still a good, young, improving player with plenty of potential on a cost-controlled contract.  But the decision isn't made in a vacuum. 

I don't want to make a long-term commitment to Reino unless and until he proves that he's part of the solution to the terminal suckitude that the Sabres have stupidly immersed themselves in.  I think when guys get fat contracts that they don't deserve, it affects the mental state of the rest of the team.  This is what happened with Roy and Stafford, and I don't want to repeat it.

As I said last summer, I think Reino needs the motivation that a bridge deal provides.  He improved last year over the prior year and I expect him to do the same this year.  If he does, and puts together a consistent season in which he plays a big role in the team re-establishing itself as a non-joke franchise, he'll have earned the contract that many here are ready to give him -- and of course we'll never know whether he would've done so if he'd already had the contract in his pocket.

YMMV, of course.

 

13 hours ago, Thorny said:

And if they are going to move Reinhart because he doesn't fit in with their system (or some other weird reason), I salivate at the return a 65 point, 24 year old former 2nd overall pick would get, if he was locked up for 6 more years at 5.5 million dollars. 

Fair point, although as I note above, it's impossible to know whether he would've become a 65-point guy without the motivation of a bridge deal.

[dudacek]

@nfreeman Barkov and MacKinnon are clearly on another level.

But why do you think Ehlers and Nylander are clearly better?

They were all drafted in the same year. Reinhart has more career points than either (considerably more than Nylander) and a better career high than either as well.

Edited May 31, 2019 by dudacek