Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

[PerreaultForever]

15 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Basically everyone thought Eichel would get that money. It was almost EXACTLY what we thought he would get and some thought as high as 11mil. 

This is entirely false. I totally remember the reaction at the time was that Buffalo was overpaying him both in money and term.  His consistency and desire at that time were still in question. That is the reaction of neutral observers like sportsnet, hnic etc, not biased Sabres fans. I am 100% sure of that memory. 

[PerreaultForever]

15 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

As for this, you logically flawed here. Hall will cost more than Reinhart in terms of dollars and dollars are cap. You may get more of a player but you get less in terms of money to spend so it somewhat offsets. Everything you do in hockey is a zero sum game, doing X cost Y and gives you Z so let's talk about your scenario further.

The Sabres have some cap room. Let's guess you can sign Reinhart for 6.75 and Hall is 8.75 (personally I think 9 is the number but whatever). So the question is, is hall worth 2mil more than Reinhart (yea probably) and what does that do to other aspects of your team because if I trade Reinhart now, I have to account in the trade for not having that extra 2mil on top of the return. So you could end up with "more" but only if you end up with less somewhere else. 

Finally, Reinhart is the ONLY top 6 RW on the team and there is only 1 possible middle 6 rw in the system (cozens is a center) so keep that in mind as well. 

But 1) I was referring to the money being discussed in the article saying Reinhart wants 8 mil so 2) imo there would be more value in signing Hall for that and then trading Reinhart for additional assets to fill out the roster rather than giving that money to Reinhart. That's all. 

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is entirely false. I totally remember the reaction at the time was that Buffalo was overpaying him both in money and term.  His consistency and desire at that time were still in question. That is the reaction of neutral observers like sportsnet, hnic etc, not biased Sabres fans. I am 100% sure of that memory. 

No way. You are remembering this wrong.

[PerreaultForever]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

No way. You are remembering this wrong.

I'm not. 

[SwampD]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not. 

Good for you.

[PerreaultForever]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Good for you.

I tried digging around the sportsnet archives but couldn't find anything. Buffalo's low on their priority list lol.   Doesn't matter anyway, the contract has turned out to be a good one so the argument doesn't matter. 

[Eleven]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is entirely false. I totally remember the reaction at the time was that Buffalo was overpaying him both in money and term.  His consistency and desire at that time were still in question. That is the reaction of neutral observers like sportsnet, hnic etc, not biased Sabres fans. I am 100% sure of that memory. 

This did not happen.  A couple of brainless fans might have reacted that way, but it is not the "reaction at the time" in Buffalo. Your post almost amounts to a lie.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Eleven

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

That is the reaction of neutral observers like sportsnet, hnic etc, not biased Sabres fans

 

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

This did not happen.  A couple of brainless fans might have reacted that way, but it is not the "reaction at the time" in Buffalo. Your post almost amounts to a lie.

Your comment about me lying is rather insulting. If you read the post carefully as bolded, I am talking about the reaction outside Buffalo. neutral observers/commentators not brainless fans. They were comparing his payday to others and at that time his numbers did not match the dollars by comparison and hence the reaction was along the lines of Buffalo had no choice but to overpay him and hope he lived up to it. Among them I think Burke said we'd regret the signing (he was wrong). 

Within Buffalo, of course it was different. it was thank you jesus we've locked up our superstar. But that's not what I'm talking about. 

I don't live in Buffalo, my news take on the Sabres comes from outside the Buffalo bubble. 

[LGR4GM]

Reaction from non buffalo sources

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2736735-jack-eichel-sabres-reportedly-close-to-8-year-contract-extension

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/jack-eichel-sabres-agree-year-extension-10m-aav/story?id=50267186

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2017/10/3/15886898/jack-eichel-contract-buffalo-sabres-cap-hit-terms

https://www.nhl.com/news/sabres-eichel-agrees-to-eight-year-80-million-contract-extension/c-291553136

 

I can find no mention of anyone questioning the amount and a couple call him a young superstar and make note he left money on the table to help the team. Reading these is sad because we have really let Eichel down up to this point as a franchise. 

[Zamboni]

25 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Reaction from non buffalo sources

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2736735-jack-eichel-sabres-reportedly-close-to-8-year-contract-extension

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/jack-eichel-sabres-agree-year-extension-10m-aav/story?id=50267186

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2017/10/3/15886898/jack-eichel-contract-buffalo-sabres-cap-hit-terms

https://www.nhl.com/news/sabres-eichel-agrees-to-eight-year-80-million-contract-extension/c-291553136

 

I can find no mention of anyone questioning the amount and a couple call him a young superstar and make note he left money on the table to help the team. Reading these is sad because we have really let Eichel down up to this point as a franchise. 

But but but .... I think he’s really referring to guys at local bars after 12 beers. They really hated the contract at the time ?

[Eleven]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

Your comment about me lying is rather insulting. If you read the post carefully as bolded, I am talking about the reaction outside Buffalo. neutral observers/commentators not brainless fans. They were comparing his payday to others and at that time his numbers did not match the dollars by comparison and hence the reaction was along the lines of Buffalo had no choice but to overpay him and hope he lived up to it. Among them I think Burke said we'd regret the signing (he was wrong). 

Within Buffalo, of course it was different. it was thank you jesus we've locked up our superstar. But that's not what I'm talking about. 

I don't live in Buffalo, my news take on the Sabres comes from outside the Buffalo bubble. 

I did not mean to insult.  I may have misread your comment.  Seemed to me that you thought that Buffalo fans thought he was overpaid; the vast majority of us did not.

[Curt]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is entirely false. I totally remember the reaction at the time was that Buffalo was overpaying him both in money and term.  His consistency and desire at that time were still in question. That is the reaction of neutral observers like sportsnet, hnic etc, not biased Sabres fans. I am 100% sure of that memory. 

No.  When Eichel signed that contract there were questions from some places (not all) about the $$$, that maybe it was a bit much, but definitely not the term.

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I did not mean to insult.  I may have misread your comment.  Seemed to me that you thought that Buffalo fans thought he was overpaid; the vast majority of us did not.

And I don’t live in Buffalo either and have no recollection of anyone thinking he was overpaid. Everyone thought it was a pretty decent deal. Not good or bad for either side.

[Randall Flagg]

The day he signed that was one of the happier days I've had as a sabre fan 

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

Your comment about me lying is rather insulting. If you read the post carefully as bolded, I am talking about the reaction outside Buffalo. neutral observers/commentators not brainless fans. They were comparing his payday to others and at that time his numbers did not match the dollars by comparison and hence the reaction was along the lines of Buffalo had no choice but to overpay him and hope he lived up to it. Among them I think Burke said we'd regret the signing (he was wrong). 

Within Buffalo, of course it was different. it was thank you jesus we've locked up our superstar. But that's not what I'm talking about. 

I don't live in Buffalo, my news take on the Sabres comes from outside the Buffalo bubble. 

It's not very difficult to find conflicting views on any transaction. Unanimity on any issue is simply unattainable. With the Eichel contract extension the overwhelming consensus within and outside the Buffalo market was that it was a terrific deal for the organization and it demonstrated a commitment by the player to the organization. Because of the steady increase in salaries most people who follow the sport recognized that Jack left long-term money on the table in order to anchor himself to the organization. 

Your discussion on this topic brings up another important issue relating to Jack and the organization. That is does the organization have a responsibility to the player to do whatever is necessary to make this a relevant team while he is approaching or already is in his prime? I, and most others, would say yes. It's not too difficult to imagine that if this organization doesn't act with urgency it will have a "Jack" problem just as it had a "ROR" problem that had devastating results. 

[PerreaultForever]

16 hours ago, JohnC said:

Your discussion on this topic brings up another important issue relating to Jack and the organization. That is does the organization have a responsibility to the player to do whatever is necessary to make this a relevant team while he is approaching or already is in his prime? I, and most others, would say yes. It's not too difficult to imagine that if this organization doesn't act with urgency it will have a "Jack" problem just as it had a "ROR" problem that had devastating results. 

I personally think anointing Jack as the heir to the throne before he earned it is what helped do this franchise in and it created the ROR debacle. When they didn't name ROR captain, choosing instead to place hold it for Jack, making it Jack's team, that was the moment it all fell apart. 

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I personally think anointing Jack as the heir to the throne before he earned it is what helped do this franchise in and it created the ROR debacle. When they didn't name ROR captain, choosing instead to place hold it for Jack, making it Jack's team, that was the moment it all fell apart. 

I don't agree. 

[JohnC]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I personally think anointing Jack as the heir to the throne before he earned it is what helped do this franchise in and it created the ROR debacle. When they didn't name ROR captain, choosing instead to place hold it for Jack, making it Jack's team, that was the moment it all fell apart. 

I respectively but strenuously disagree with your post about Jack. It's is distorting a history that actually happened. The issue of anointing Jack over the veteran ROR as captain was an irrelevant issue in the ROR trade debacle. ROR simply got tired of the losing and didn't feel that at least in the immediate future that this team had a chance to be a serious team. He felt he was in a bad situation without much ability to alter the situation. That was the heart of his publicly and privately expressed frustration that got him dispatched. 

Jack is our established star player and the player that this team is centered around. Dahlin will soon become another player along with Jack who are irreplaceable and will be given the most consideration on how this team is directed. The scenario you postulated in your post does not reflect the realities that happened when ROR was with the team. 

Edited August 22, 2020 by JohnC

[LGR4GM]

17 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I respectively but strenuously disagree with your post about Jack. It's is distorting a history that actually happened. The issue of anointing Jack over the veteran ROR as captain was an irrelevant issue in the ROR trade debacle. ROR simply got tired of the losing and didn't feel that at least in the immediate future that this team had a chance to be a serious team. He felt he was in a bad situation without much ability to alter the situation. That was the heart of his publicly and privately expressed frustration that got him dispatched. 

Jack is our established star player and the player that this team is centered around. Dahlin will soon become another player along with Jack who are irreplaceable and will be given the most consideration on how this team is directed. The scenario you postulated in your post does not reflect the realities that happened when ROR was with the team. 

I will require proof of this. 

ROR said what he said and Pegula overreacted and traded him hurting this team further. 

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I personally think anointing Jack as the heir to the throne before he earned it is what helped do this franchise in and it created the ROR debacle. When they didn't name ROR captain, choosing instead to place hold it for Jack, making it Jack's team, that was the moment it all fell apart. 

Also you aren't going to comment on the fact there is no evidence of ppl saying Jack's contract at the time of signing was bad/overpaid/too much?

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I will require proof of this. 

ROR said what he said and Pegula overreacted and traded him hurting this team further. 

 

What are you disagreeing with? 

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What are you disagreeing with? 

All the immediate future, serious team, bad situation stuff and that he specifically felt that way. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

All the immediate future, serious team, bad situation stuff and that he specifically felt that way. 

Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue. 

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue. 

Okay, but I reject your hypothesis because it places far too much blame on ROR for what was clearly a Management ***** up. 

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay, but I reject your hypothesis because it places far too much blame on ROR for what was clearly a Management ***** up. 

Agreed. Management overreacted to an end-of-year locker cleanout interview instead of remaining calm, at peace, and passive. 

Nearly all players are despondent at the end of a losing season; they care, they want to win. It's even worse if they're seen as the leader and best player on the team because it's on their shoulders. They need time to recharge. The offseason has a draft (hope future), free agency (hope now), and plenty of time (healing), and constantly revs up the hype engine. Maybe management makes a coaching change (not that particular offseason, but a possibility), or they bring in Skinner for Pu, or win the lottery (they did! Dahlin!). Give the players a chance to regroup and reset. ROR would have. And this franchise would be in a better spot with him on the roster the last 2 seasons (of course, minus Cozens most likely).

[dudacek]

I believe the decision to trade O’Reilly was made long before his locker room speech.