Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

[Brawndo]

Hamilton’s Comments stem for a game against Detroit where Samson had been stuck on the ice for 1:45 shift which ended when Dylan Larkin scored on breakaway. Larkin took off at full speed, Sam took a couple of strides after him and realized there is no way he was catching him and he slowed down. 
 

In the post game scrum, Hammy asked Him Why he gave up on the play?  Samson looked at Him with a WTF Stare and refused to answer the question.  Since then Hamilton has said Samson has an attitude.  Hamilton has an agenda and he’s not wavering from it. 
 

[JohnC]

59 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Hamilton also went on a tangent about how ROR wasn’t the leader he thought he was so I have no idea what has been going on with him and his views on players.

His observations about ROR that he wasn't invested in the team and showed it was correct. ROR apparently felt that he was trapped in a situation that he wanted out of. His negative demeanor was abundantly evident to everyone including the owner and the GM. The problem wasn't so much that he was dealt as it was the return was not close to being equitable. As I and others have said if he was going to be dealt it should have happened only after a better deal was arranged. And it should be noted that it appears that the GM and owner were determined to get rid of him before his bonus kicked in.  

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

His observations about ROR that he wasn't invested in the team and showed it was correct. ROR apparently felt that he was trapped in a situation that he wanted out of. His negative demeanor was abundantly evident to everyone including the owner and the GM. The problem wasn't so much that he was dealt as it was the return was not close to being equitable. As I and others have said if he was going to be dealt it should have happened only after a better deal was arranged. And it should be noted that it appears that the GM and owner were determined to get rid of him before his bonus kicked in.  

Hahaha lol. Saying ROR wasn't invested is hilarious revisionist history. 

[LGR4GM]

The problem was he was dealt. Full stop. You were never ever getting the equivalent of ROR, playoff mvp, back in a trade. It was stupid and all the made up reasons don't make it better. 

[JohnC]

43 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hahaha lol. Saying ROR wasn't invested is hilarious revisionist history. 

How so? 

 

[PerreaultForever]

10 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/pham1717/status/1316566150189404167
 

Paul Hamilton stating Reinhart has a bad attitude.  It is Hamilton though.

Kind of like in current politics the pro and con lines are drawn and nobody and nothing is likely to change anybody's mind. I believe it because I see signs of it in games and I've always said I don't see him breaking a sweat enough. People accept the critique of Mitts as someone who had it easy and excelled easily and came in with no work hard attitude but I've always seen Reinhart the same way, he's just better than Mitts so he still doesn't have to break a sweat to be an NHL player. But he quits on plays and he makes his linemates do the heavy lifting. I don't like him and I'm still hopeful they trade him for player(s) who work.  

The argument's pointless because the minds are made up but I will also not forgive him quitting on that play in Detroit. Never seen that before that I can remember. Certainly never from a so called leader. Unforgivable. 

I truly believe if the guy actually gave a damn and worked Boston style, he'd have better numbers and more impact than Marchand does for them, but he doesn't he won't and I doubt he ever will. 

[Andrew Amerk]

I wish this team would start winning so that I can stop hearing about ROR. 

He didn’t want to be here, and we shipped him out for a bag of pucks. What more is there to rehash about it? It was like 3 years ago already. We let Drury and Briere go. We traded Hasek for a gym bag. So what. Move on. 

[aristocrat]

If we trade him I want a nice package back for him obviously.  But he’s a consistent goal scorer and responsible in his own end. I’d go 6.5 for 8 years. 

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

How so? 

You are trying to claim that a player that played in 81 games the season he was traded, scored 61 points, lead the team in faceoff wins, was almost leading the team in TOI, was an assistant captain, held extra practices to help ppl, and was signed for multiple years at a nice salary wasn't invested because in one interview he spoke and noted his frustration with how his teams season went so he HAD to be traded... 

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

You are trying to claim that a player that played in 81 games the season he was traded, scored 61 points, lead the team in faceoff wins, was almost leading the team in TOI, was an assistant captain, held extra practices to help ppl, and was signed for multiple years at a nice salary wasn't invested because in one interview he spoke and noted his frustration with how his teams season went so he HAD to be traded... 

 

If you think that it was a single interview where he expressed his loss of love for the game was the reason why the GM and most notably the owner to get his arse out of the locker room you are wrong. It was evident to the staff and others that he wanted out. My criticism of the organization is not that they dealt him. I have no problem with that. The problem was with the return. If they couldn't get the right compensation for him they should have dealt him at a later time when a better deal could have been made. The GM and owner allowed the impending bonus to make a deal sooner than was necessary. 

[7+6=13]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If you think that it was a single interview where he expressed his loss of love for the game was the reason why the GM and most notably the owner to get his arse out of the locker room you are wrong. It was evident to the staff and others that he wanted out. My criticism of the organization is not that they dealt him. I have no problem with that. The problem was with the return. If they couldn't get the right compensation for him they should have dealt him at a later time when a better deal could have been made. The GM and owner allowed the impending bonus to make a deal sooner than was necessary. 

There's no possible way you could know that. 

[Curt]

23 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

There's no possible way you could know that. 

Coincidence that the trade was made hours before the bonus was due to be paid?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

18 minutes ago, Curt said:

Coincidence that the trade was made hours before the bonus was due to be paid?

Also, coincidence that other deals required the payment of said bonus be paid by Sabres.

So I agree.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

If you think that it was a single interview where he expressed his loss of love for the game was the reason why the GM and most notably the owner to get his arse out of the locker room you are wrong. It was evident to the staff and others that he wanted out. My criticism of the organization is not that they dealt him. I have no problem with that. The problem was with the return. If they couldn't get the right compensation for him they should have dealt him at a later time when a better deal could have been made. The GM and owner allowed the impending bonus to make a deal sooner than was necessary. 

The Owner and Gm were wrong about all of it. Instead of letting a player vent and trying to get him back into the fold and supporting him they panicked and bailed like a bunch of idiots. They compounded the mistake by not only trading him but trading him for trash. They saved almost no money in the end when you look at the deals they brought in. It was an epic failure that never had to occur, they should have kept ROR and built around him and Jack as opposed to spending 2 years wandering in the wilderness while ROR went on to win a Selke and Cup. 

[Brawndo]

28 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Also, coincidence that other deals required the payment of said bonus be paid by Sabres.

So I agree.

There was another deal on the table involving Montreal.

At the draft Botterill asked for 2017 3OA for ROR and was told no

Later in the week Montreal proposed a deal of Philip Danault, Ryan Poehling and a 2nd for ROR. Botterill wanted more and Bergy told him to take a hike.

Danault was a step back from ROR, but is actually a bonafide 2C and The Sabres would not have had a giant black hole at that position  had they accepted the deal.
 

Montreal would have paid the bonus 
 

Then there is the infamous Lindholm, Skinner and a pick  offer from Carolina, if the bonus was paid.

[JohnC]

35 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The Owner and Gm were wrong about all of it. Instead of letting a player vent and trying to get him back into the fold and supporting him they panicked and bailed like a bunch of idiots. They compounded the mistake by not only trading him but trading him for trash. They saved almost no money in the end when you look at the deals they brought in. It was an epic failure that never had to occur, they should have kept ROR and built around him and Jack as opposed to spending 2 years wandering in the wilderness while ROR went on to win a Selke and Cup. 

We disagree on whether ROR should have been traded. I'm more sympathetic as to why the organization wanted to move him. However, where we are in agreement is that the return for him was ridiculously paltry. As @Brawndo noted there was a reasonable offer from Montreal and it was reported there was a decent (not commensurate) offer from Carolina who was willing to trade for him on the condition that the Sabres paid the upcoming bonus. The Sabres refused. Whether one is using hindsight or even foresight at the time of the trade it was clear that the organization bungled this affair. The GM and the owner were determined to trade the disgruntled player.  Clearly, the ROR transaction set this franchise back. That's obvious.  But what made the transaction even more damaging is the glaringly unequal return when there were reported opportunities to get more back in a trade.  

[Shootica]

45 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

There was another deal on the table involving Montreal.

At the draft Botterill asked for 2017 3OA for ROR and was told no

Later in the week Montreal proposed a deal of Philip Danault, Ryan Poehling and a 2nd for ROR. Botterill wanted more and Bergy told him to take a hike.

Danault was a step back from ROR, but is actually a bonafide 2C and The Sabres would not have had a giant black hole at that position  had they accepted the deal.
 

Montreal would have paid the bonus 
 

Then there is the infamous Lindholm, Skinner and a pick  offer from Carolina, if the bonus was paid.

Where was all of this reported?

[Curt]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Also, coincidence that other deals required the payment of said bonus be paid by Sabres.

So I agree.

Don’t know what you are referring to.

[thewookie1]

50 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

There was another deal on the table involving Montreal.

At the draft Botterill asked for 2017 3OA for ROR and was told no

Later in the week Montreal proposed a deal of Philip Danault, Ryan Poehling and a 2nd for ROR. Botterill wanted more and Bergy told him to take a hike.

Danault was a step back from ROR, but is actually a bonafide 2C and The Sabres would not have had a giant black hole at that position  had they accepted the deal.
 

Montreal would have paid the bonus 
 

Then there is the infamous Lindholm, Skinner and a pick  offer from Carolina, if the bonus was paid.

 

What he actually got was awful but this isn't exactly good either.

Danault would lessened the blow of losing ROR but otherwise it would been a complete waste as all we'd be doing is getting a downgrade at 2C, a mediocre winger prospect and a 2nd. Plus handing a divisional rival a 1C.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Don’t know what you are referring to.

Just adding to your claims.

You: hours before payment of bonus the trade is made.

Me: other deal(s) such as Carolina required Sabres pay bonus.

Both lend to the assumption that paying (or not) was a factor.

 

[7+6=13]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

Coincidence that the trade was made hours before the bonus was due to be paid?

Oh that definitely proves they walked away from significantly better trades just to not pay the bonus.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

If we have learned anything from the ROR trade we have learned the following.

1) Teams trading the better player almost always lose the deal

2) If you trade a star, you better have a viable plan B in the organization or an acquisition to replace the departed player in the works (trade/FA).

3) Never make such a deal in desperation because the return will suck (See the Edm Taylor Hall deal and this deal so far).

4) Have a legitimate hockey purpose for the deal, such as rebuilding team needs young assets (Vanek trade) or need a top pairing D and have a top line forward depth to acquire one (Seth Jones deal).  

So now back to topic.  We aren't trading Reinhart. There is also no need to trade him. 

A) We have the cap to afford his contract. 

B) Our RW depth is lacking for the next season and losing Reinhart would create a hole that can't readily be repaired. Our RW depth chart beyond Reinhart is suspect. Thompson, KO and Rieder aren't anywhere close to Sam's level as players.  Cozens and Quinn maybe viable alternatives in a year or two but they aren't now.  Only Hoffman could be a substitute  of the remaining UFAs, but do we really want to replace 24 year old Samson with 30 year old Hoffman on a long-term deal? 

C) Our roster holes or a need for cap space/lower payroll can be accomplished in other ways starting with moving one or more of our RHDs.  One of Risto (5.4), Miller (3.875) and Montour (3.85) or Jokiharju (.925) will be moved to their off side next season.  Montour struggled last season with such a move and I doubt Miller would fair any better.  IMHO (and most other peoples), KA needs to trade at least one of these guys to help upgrade Davidson as the 3rd LHD and/or upgrade Hutton.

 

On 10/16/2020 at 12:11 PM, 7+6=13 said:

Oh that definitely proves they walked away from significantly better trades just to not pay the bonus.  

May not be definitive proof, but it does create a very very strong inference.  Wasn't the trade made minutes before the Sabres were required to pay the bonus.  

Edited October 19, 2020 by GASabresIUFAN

[Radar]

How do we know about these other offers? We don't really. We're accepting reports by third or fourth parties who are getting their information by " credible " sources. Only thing I'm sure of is I didn't like the trade they made.

[Curt]

24 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

Oh that definitely proves they walked away from significantly better trades just to not pay the bonus.  

Didn’t say it was definitive proof.  Call it strong supporting evidence if you will.

[LTS]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You are trying to claim that a player that played in 81 games the season he was traded, scored 61 points, lead the team in faceoff wins, was almost leading the team in TOI, was an assistant captain, held extra practices to help ppl, and was signed for multiple years at a nice salary wasn't invested because in one interview he spoke and noted his frustration with how his teams season went so he HAD to be traded... 

 

 

I think it is a bad practice to equate his play on the ice with his off-ice interactions with his teammates and the remainder of the Sabres organization. He was a professional on the ice, doing what he needed to do. 

As I have said in the past, the information provided to me by someone with intimate knowledge of his off-ice interactions definitely suggested there were issues large enough to not be overlooked.