Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

No.

Trying to connect the dots from the players who have performed well statistically to our losing outcomes is a dicey proposition, at best, far from logical IMO, when there are a ton of variables unaccounted for, and plenty of presently negative variables, as well. 

This is more of a general comment - I don't really understand how this argument still comes up after trading ROR. "Couldn't win with him, so who cares". We never established in any sort of sound equation that ROR was ANY kind of detriment to winning - in fact it's clear based on what happened after that he is demonstrably very valuable in that pursuit. If the question you deemed logical allows for "should trade Eichel, too, then", I'm not much a fan of it. 

I'm looking at the open holes on the roster for answers to the questions, first, followed by taking issue with the players who performed poorly by statistics and the eye-test. I'm not sure what sort of analysis it would take for me to get to basically, "I guess the good players just don't have "it"". When we can't even define what IT is. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[Zamboni]

12 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

Well then we need to get rid of those soft players named Skinner, Eichel, and Olofsson because they definitely don’t clear the crease AND aren’t power forwards.

[I-90 W]

6 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Well then we need to get rid of those soft players named Skinner, Eichel, and Olofsson because they definitely don’t clear the crease AND aren’t power forwards.

Exactly, you’re proving my point; shouldn’t have 4 soft players in our top 6. Some sure, but not practically all. 

[Thorner]

Eichel and Skinner and certainly not soft players. Skinner is another guy that makes his bacon net-front. And they both draw a ton of penalties. They draw contact and benefit from it. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[I-90 W]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No.

Trying to connect the dots from the players who have performed well statistically to our losing outcomes is a dicey proposition, at best, far from logical IMO, when there are a ton of variables unaccounted for, and plenty of presently negative variables, as well. 

This is more of a general comment - I don't really understand how this argument still comes up after trading ROR. "Couldn't win with him, so who cares". We never established in any sort of sound equation that ROR was ANY kind of detriment to winning - in fact it's clear based on what happened after that he is demonstrably very valuable in that pursuit. If the question you deemed logical allows for "should trade Eichel, too, then", I'm not much a fan of it. 

I'm looking at the open holes on the roster for answers to the questions, first, followed by taking issue with the players who performed poorly by statistics and the eye-test. I'm not sure what sort of analysis it would take for me to get to basically, "I guess the good players just don't have "it"". When we can't even define what IT is. 

I’m not talking about trading Jack Eichel though, the context is not extending Sam as an RFA. You’re presenting a false dichotomy. 

Just now, Thorny said:

Eichel and Skinner and certainly not soft players. 

Yeah I agree with that, but not power forwards either. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I’m not talking about trading Jack Eichel though, the context is not extending Sam as an RFA. You’re presenting a false dichotomy. 

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You presented an argument, and I refuted it. 

29 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Your use of the plural of "players" implies it's a general sentiment. This is poor logic as a general rule. If you were referring specifically to Sam, it's also very poor logic, for the reasons I stated. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You presented an argument, and I refuted it. 

You refuted it with a logical fallacy. Surely you can refute my assertion on Sam’s merits alone without dragging Jack into it. I know you can, I’ve seen your posts. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

You refuted it with a logical fallacy. Surely you can refute my assertion on Sam’s merits alone without dragging Jack into it. I know you can, I’ve seen your posts. 

I don't think logical fallacy means what you think it means lol. 

YOU introduced the generality and the context into the argument, and I refuted it. If you'd like to walk back your statement to just apply it to Sam, do it, and I'll post again about how it's bad logic when applied specifically to Sam.

Your argument was that, at least in Sam's case, perhaps we should look at him as being part of the problem merely because we haven't won when he is here. I disagree with that sentiment on it's face, for the reasons I listed about there being too many other variables, many of which are more likely to be feeding into the negative results than the player who has statistically positive results. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[I-90 W]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don't think logical fallacy means what you think it means lol. 

YOU introduced the generality and the context into the argument, and I refuted it. If you'd like to walk back your statement to just apply it to Sam, do it, and I'll post again about how it's bad logic when applied specifically to Sam. 

I’m not going to quarrel with you. You were the one who insisted that what I’m saying about Sam, I must say about Jack.

False dichotomy, simple. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

You refuted it with a logical fallacy. Surely you can refute my assertion on Sam’s merits alone without dragging Jack into it. I know you can, I’ve seen your posts. 

And another thing, why would I refute your argument with data you already said you take note of/agree with? YOUR argument was that Sam should maybe be moved IN SPITE of these things, if I had brought up that data you'd have just said "I know, but I'm thinking maybe we should move him for these other stated reasons". Namely, because he's been here when we were losing, and because he is apparently a "soft" player - which I also made a post about. 

[Curt]

41 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

Sure, you should think that about the bad players.  Otherwise you could say the same thing about Eichel.

I understand points about Sam not being a physical player.  He isn’t really, although I wouldn’t call him soft.  He isn’t afraid of physical play, will stand in front and take a beating, and as he has gotten physically stronger over the past few years, his play along the boards has gotten quite good.  Even so, it’s possible that he does not really fit the style of play that the Sabres are going for.

To me, the question is, does Sam bring other, unique elements to the team so that it makes sense to have him as an “exception” to the desired player type?

Edited October 19, 2020 by Curt

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I’m not going to quarrel with you. You were the one who insisted that what I’m saying about Sam, I must say about Jack.

False dichotomy, simple. 

This is madness/Sparta. 

Just go back to the beginning - you made a point that maybe we should look to Sam being an issue cause we didn't win when he was here. That's bad logic. There, done lol. 

I was merely trying to illustrate my viewpoint by using other examples of that logic backfiring. 

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

Sure, you should think that about the bad players.  Otherwise you could say the same thing about Eichel.

I understand points about Sam not being a physical player.  He isn’t really, although he isn’t afraid of physical play, but will stand in front and take a beating, and as he has gotten physically stronger over the past few years, his play along the boards has gotten quite good.  Even so, it’s possible that he does not really fit the style of play that the Sabres are going for.

To me, the question is, does Sam bring other, unique elements to the team so that it makes sense to have him as an “exception” to the desired player type?

FALSE DICHOTOMY 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Sure, you should think that about the bad players.  Otherwise you could say the same thing about Eichel.

I understand points about Sam not being a physical player.  He isn’t really, although he isn’t afraid of physical play, but will stand in front and take a beating, and as he has gotten physically stronger over the past few years, his play along the boards has gotten quite good.  Even so, it’s possible that he does not really fit the style of play that the Sabres are going for.

To me, the question is, does Sam bring other, unique elements to the team so that it makes sense to have him as an “exception” to the desired player type?

I agree he’s great with junk goals up front, it’s been nice seeing him grow into that through the years. We just can’t have a top six filled with guys who will allow our goalie to be screened. I get that we’re all attached to Sam but I’m a bit surprised at the pushback by some. 
 

I acknowledge that Sam is a good player, just not sure he fits going forward. Good point in him not being the desired player type possibly. 

[Getpucksdeep]

23 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

Samson "i'm more of a composed guy". Murray "it's the emotional package you bring will be the difference between very good and great."

GMTM nailed it. I don't' see emotion on the ice w/ Reinhart, and yup thus far he's a good not great NHL player.  Hope he stays, but if not, adios.

 

[Thorner]

Every team that adheres to a "style" has notable, talent based exceptions on their roster - they never have all one type of player. The 2012 Kings were famous for having a style, one we tried to emulate, even. One of their top scorers that playoffs was Justin Williams (6'1, 184) who has a rep as a clutch scorer, not as a physical, hard-hitting player like is often associated with the Kings. Gaborik also excelled there. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

16 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I agree he’s great with junk goals up front, it’s been nice seeing him grow into that through the years. We just can’t have a top six filled with guys who will allow our goalie to be screened. I get that we’re all attached to Sam but I’m a bit surprised at the pushback by some. 
 

I acknowledge that Sam is a good player, just not sure he fits going forward. Good point in him not being the desired player type possibly. 

I think he was great at those junk goals from the start, but has gradually expanded his game to more dangerous is other positions.  To the point where he even buried a couple nice one timers last season.  Something I never thought I’d see with how weak his shot was his first couple years.

He is a player who has shown consistent improvement, particularly in his areas of weakness (strength, skating, shot.....), year over year.  For this reason, to me, if you do move Reinhart, you must be very careful to get excellent value for him.  A couple years from now, you don’t want to be looking at a top line, 70-80 point player on another team, thinking “what the F did I do???”.

[I-90 W]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

I think he was great at those junk goals from the start, but has gradually expanded his game to more dangerous is other positions.  To the point where he even buried a couple nice one timers last season.  Something I never thought I’d see with how weak his shot was his first couple years.

He is a player who has shown consistent improvement, particularly in his areas of weakness (strength, skating, shot.....), year over year.  For this reason, to me, if you do move Reinhart, you must be very careful to get excellent value for him.  A couple years from now, you don’t want to be looking at a top line, 70-80 point player on another team, thinking “what the F did I do???”.

Agreed that we should definitely get something of value for him. He’s a valuable player. 

[nfreeman]

It all comes down to the cost to keep Reino, who is a good player, vs the available alternatives.

It will probably cost somewhere in the $6MM - $6.75MM range per year to keep Reino on a long-term deal.  He's not going to accept $5MM and the Sabres aren't going to give him $8MM (and no team would do so).

If Hall is healthy and back to his pre-injury form, he's a substantially better player than Reino.  If that version of Hall is willing to sign with the Sabres for, say, $9MM per year, the Sabres will almost certainly say yes (as every other NHL team would), even though it probably means not keeping Reino.

If Hall doesn't return to that level, or if he and the Sabres can't agree on terms, then the likelihood of bringing in a better forward than Reino between now and the start of the 2021-2022 season decrease significantly.

The 2 sides are reportedly in talks on an extension.  I would love to know what the Sabres are offering.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

It all comes down to the cost to keep Reino, who is a good player, vs the available alternatives.

It will probably cost somewhere in the $6MM - $6.75MM range per year to keep Reino on a long-term deal.  He's not going to accept $5MM and the Sabres aren't going to give him $8MM (and no team would do so).

If Hall is healthy and back to his pre-injury form, he's a substantially better player than Reino.  If that version of Hall is willing to sign with the Sabres for, say, $9MM per year, the Sabres will almost certainly say yes (as every other NHL team would), even though it probably means not keeping Reino.

If Hall doesn't return to that level, or if he and the Sabres can't agree on terms, then the likelihood of bringing in a better forward than Reino between now and the start of the 2021-2022 season decrease significantly.

The 2 sides are reportedly in talks on an extension.  I would love to know what the Sabres are offering.

Problem is, if Reinhart is sitting one year away from UFA, arbitration eligible....well the possibility of losing both offensive stars is there, and it's not a possibility I'd like to revisit, for a second time.

Don't lock up Reinhart, and we have the theoretical ability to keep our choice of the two, but also the real possibility of losing both. Veeeeeery interesting. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

At forward, aside from Eichel, but I agree with the sentiment - he's a player I'd like to keep. Even if I also disagree with the way you spell his name. 

When it comes to spelling I'm incorrigible. 🤡

[nfreeman]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Problem is, if Reinhart is sitting one year away from UFA, arbitration eligible....well the possibility of losing both offensive stars is there, and it's not a possibility I'd like to revisit, for a second time.

Don't lock up Reinhart, and we have the theoretical ability to keep our choice of the two, but also the real possibility of losing both. Veeeeeery interesting. 

Yes indeed.  This is very real and adds quite a bit of pressure to the situation.

[Thorner]

50 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Yes indeed.  This is very real and adds quite a bit of pressure to the situation.

We certainly need to make the most of this year, maximize the chance we have now - these things will be easier to figure out the more goodwill there is overall, too. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, I-90 W said:

I don’t dislike Sam nor am I anti-Sam. I’m just as emotionally attached to him as anyone.

But logically at some point shouldn’t we conclude that the same players who were with us during this awful stretch might just be part of the problem?

If/when we make it to the playoffs we will need forwards who can clear the crease. I’m not into analytics as much as some on here (though I appreciate their work and insight) but this much I do know just from watching. 

So are you trading him or just not qualifying him?

I don't agree with what you're saying.

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, I-90 W said:

Agreed that we should definitely get something of value for him. He’s a valuable player. 

Something. Define something

[sweetlou]

Given the circumstances of this off season, KA should tell Sam we are going to give you one year at $5.5 AAV.  See where he fits in when the team has other talented players. 

Either trade him next off season or sign him to a longer contract.