Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

[Stoner]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

Yep.  It made the tank even more frustrating than it was set up to be.  Rather than tanking for MacKinnon or McEichel; Regier decided to tank in the year that no "generational" forwards were supposed to be available unlike each year surrounding the tank.

Treading old ground here, it can't be said with certainty that Darcy decided to tank and to tank that grandiosely. Darcy said on WGR in the spring of 2013 that the extent of the rebuild would be up to Terry. In the same interview, he cited the Minnesota Wild as team that was rebuilding "the right way." I know you believe Darcy was let go in the fall because he had done too good a job tearing things down, and the hockey was brutal, but a more plausible theory is that the decision was made above Darcy's head and he wasn't up for seeing it through, and I think the same theory holds for why Pat LaFontaine did the Homer Simpson walk in-walk out.

[Weave]

38 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Treading old ground here, it can't be said with certainty that Darcy decided to tank and to tank that grandiosely. Darcy said on WGR in the spring of 2013 that the extent of the rebuild would be up to Terry. In the same interview, he cited the Minnesota Wild as team that was rebuilding "the right way." I know you believe Darcy was let go in the fall because he had done too good a job tearing things down, and the hockey was brutal, but a more plausible theory is that the decision was made above Darcy's head and he wasn't up for seeing it through, and I think the same theory holds for why Pat LaFontaine did the Homer Simpson walk in-walk out.

I hadn't really considered that Darcy wasn't all in for a full burn down, but I think you make a good case for it.

[SwampD]

51 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Treading old ground here, it can't be said with certainty that Darcy decided to tank and to tank that grandiosely. Darcy said on WGR in the spring of 2013 that the extent of the rebuild would be up to Terry. In the same interview, he cited the Minnesota Wild as team that was rebuilding "the right way." I know you believe Darcy was let go in the fall because he had done too good a job tearing things down, and the hockey was brutal, but a more plausible theory is that the decision was made above Darcy's head and he wasn't up for seeing it through, and I think the same theory holds for why Pat LaFontaine did the Homer Simpson walk in-walk out.

Interesting.

 

.. but I think it was Grandpa Simpson.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Treading old ground here, it can't be said with certainty that Darcy decided to tank and to tank that grandiosely. Darcy said on WGR in the spring of 2013 that the extent of the rebuild would be up to Terry. In the same interview, he cited the Minnesota Wild as team that was rebuilding "the right way." I know you believe Darcy was let go in the fall because he had done too good a job tearing things down, and the hockey was brutal, but a more plausible theory is that the decision was made above Darcy's head and he wasn't up for seeing it through, and I think the same theory holds for why Pat LaFontaine did the Homer Simpson walk in-walk out.

The impetus for the tank could've been any of either Pegula, Black, Patrick. Sawyer Regier, or that other flunky that Drane couldn't stand. 

With all those potential sources, the odds say it likely wasn't the yes man Regier that came up with the idea, but he ENTHUSIASTICALLY enacted it.  What, coaching could undermine the tank?  Well then, we won't bother interviewing anybody but the interim head coach during the "coaching search."

Too much leadership on the team could tank the tank?  Let's dump Leopold and Pominville, and not say boo when Hecht walks away.

And for good measure, we'll dump Sekera and Vanek for even more futures (and Moulson).

Regier did EXACTLY what management asked of him from the moment he was hired by Quinn until he was canned by Pegula/Black.  You want to try to get rid of the Adams Award winning head coach without firing him?  OK, we'll offer him a 1 year "prove it" contract extension.  You don't want to have to pay really good offensive players what they'd be worth after a rookie deal?  OK, we'll only draft D and guys like Rasmussen in the 1st round.  You won't pay Peca what he's worth?  OK, let's give him a low ball offer that's even further from his real value than his ask is.  You don't want to have to pay somebody else what Peca is worth?  OK, we can get cold feet and scuttle the Iginla deal.  You wish everybody was on a 1 day deal?  OK, we won't offer anybody (including Briere and McKee) anything more than a 1 year deal coming out of the lockout.  And you want a self inflicted cap so we can't fit Spacek under our self inflicted cap?  OK, we won't sign him even though he wants to be here; defensive depth couldn't possibly come back to bite us in the spring.  Our scouting department is too expensive?  OK, we'll Institute video scouting.  Even though we got Drury to agree to a 5 year extension, you want to sit on it for a few weeks because you hate long term deals?  OK, there won't be any issues caused by that.

Yes, the tank, that he enthusiastically embraced with the worst hockey team we've ever seen, was the bridge he'd stopped at.  Those Rolston led games in '13-'14 were absolutely unwatchable.  And way worse than anything that has come since.  Sorry, calling BS on that theory of yours PA.  (Though will agree Darcy MAY not have originated the idea for the tank.  But he definitely ran with it.)

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Taro T

[Stoner]

I think you mean Pegula, Black, Sawyer, even Battista. Patrick came in with Murray.

I could call your theory BS, too, but it's not even a complete theory. Darcy did so great a job for his owner that his owner had to fire him? Remember there was plenty of tank-prepping still to do,  most notably what to do with Ryan Miller.

[Taro T]

31 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I think you mean Pegula, Black, Sawyer, even Battista. Patrick came in with Murray.

I could call your theory BS, too, but it's not even a complete theory. Darcy did so great a job for his owner that his owner had to fire him? Remember there was plenty of tank-prepping still to do,  most notably what to do with Ryan Miller.

Yes, Sawyer, not Patrick.  Thanks for the catch.

And yes, Regier did such a good job at icing a ####show that he had to get canned.  If you ice an unwatchable product, you kill your fan base.  It took them about 7 years to get the waiting list history simply via the tank and the misdeployed rebuild.  Regier would've had it gone before Eichel ever was selected.  That '13-'14 team was on par with the expansion Caps and Snarks and the 2nd season Jets.  Even with improving after Nolan was brought in they finished 14 points behind the 29th place Panthers.

They had to cut Regier because the fan base was ready to openly revolt.  And a team that would've finished with less than 40 points with Miller on it would've been able to trade the remaining few assets for futures with or without Regier.  (Proof of that was Murray being able to do it while just BARELY being the worst in the league.  Murray didn't need to shoot for 40 points, mid-50's in a year WITH competition was bad enough and got the job done.)

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Yes, Sawyer, not Patrick.  Thanks for the catch.

And yes, Regier did such a good job at icing a ####show that he had to get canned.  If you ice an unwatchable product, you kill your fan base.  It took them about 7 years to get the waiting list history simply via the tank and the misdeployed rebuild.  Regier would've had it gone before Eichel ever was selected.  That '13-'14 team was on par with the expansion Caps and Snarks and the 2nd season Jets.  Even with improving after Nolan was brought in they finished 14 points behind the 29th place Panthers.

They had to cut Regier because the fan base was ready to openly revolt.  And a team that would've finished with less than 40 points with Miller on it would've been able to trade the remaining few assets for futures with or without Regier.  (Proof of that was Murray being able to do it while just BARELY being the worst in the league.  Murray didn't need to shoot for 40 points, mid-50's in a year WITH competition was bad enough and got the job done.)

This seems to be revisionist history.  I don’t think the GM has such fine control over the results that they can control exactly how close to the next team they finish.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

This seems to be revisionist history.  I don’t think the GM has such fine control over the results that they can control exactly how close to the next team they finish.

Call it what you'd like.  Regier was icing arguably the worst team in at least 35 years in no small part by having a junior developmental coach trying to coach in the NHL and by having downgraded about 1/2 of the legit NHLers that had been on the roster prior to jettison in Leopold by the time he'd been canned.

Had Regier stayed in charge, that '13-'14 squad would've been at least 20 points worse than anybody else and considering they could legitimately have ended up mid-30's they might have been outdone by 30 points or possibly even have had their full season output doubled by the Swamp Cats (who finished in 29th with 66 points).

[GASabresIUFAN]

Trade him.  

Edited December 1, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[GoPuckYourself]

I don't understand this thinking, is Reinhart not a 60+ point player? Why would we give up a 60+ point player for any reasoning? If anything you just split Sam and Jack, I'm not really understanding the logic. I got why we would trade Ristolainen for a 2nd line Center at the beginning of the season but trading Sam for a guy who most definitely isn't going to bring us 60+ points and another draft pick seems like a terrible idea to me.

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said:

I don't understand this thinking, is Reinhart not a 60+ point player? Why would we give up a 60+ point player for any reasoning? If anything you just split Sam and Jack, I'm not really understanding the logic. I got why we would trade Ristolainen for a 2nd line Center at the beginning of the season but trading Sam for a guy who most definitely isn't going to bring us 60+ points and another draft pick seems like a terrible idea to me.

That's because it is. 

[Stoner]

Marry.

[Thorner]

On 11/29/2019 at 9:10 PM, Taro T said:

Yep.  It made the tank even more frustrating than it was set up to be.  Rather than tanking for MacKinnon or McEichel; Regier decided to tank in the year that no "generational" forwards were supposed to be available unlike each year surrounding the tank.

Well wait hold on, the "main tank" was always for McEichel. I think 2014 was basically preparation for that. The tank was so scorched earth it was multiple seasons. But I think upon conception the endgame was always 2015. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Thorny

[sweetlou]

Revisiting topic. I think Sam is a top 6 talent who has benefited from playing with Jack pretty much his entire career.  Last year he had a career year by picking up lots of assist by having 40 goal scorer Skinner on the opposite wing.  Sam has never scored more than 25 goals in a year.

In terms of keeping him I would be ok with a six year deal for between 6-7 million AAV.  Any more than that and you have to think of trading him.  He is a very similar player to William Nylander in Toronto and people thought he was overpaid at $6.9 million AAV. 

I could see a potential holdout with Reinhart if he feels he is worth $8-9 million.

 

[Pimlach]

He he could be packaged for the right 2C then yes, trade him.  
 

Not that I trust JBot to get it right, I don’t. 

[inkman]

38 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

He he could be packaged for the right 2C then yes, trade him.  
 

Not that I trust JBot to get it right, I don’t. 

He should be the 2C but that's a different topic. 

[Hank]

47 minutes ago, inkman said:

He should be the 2C but that's a different topic. 

I'd like to try him there again and see if it could work. Maybe twenty games with Skinner and Johansson. 

[Zamboni]

Six year/6.5mil get it done. Takes him to 30. 

[Stoner]

On 12/2/2019 at 11:22 PM, Thorny said:

Well wait hold on, the "main tank" was always for McEichel. I think 2014 was basically preparation for that. The tank was so scorched earth it was multiple seasons. But I think upon conception the endgame was always 2015. 

Is it safe to say it was always a play for McDavid? See also the OHL game in Buffalo.

[GASabresIUFAN]

They have to re-sign him as top 6 forwards are hard to find.  Unfortunately he is mostly a passenger and isn’t fast enough to be a truly dominate player in today’s NHL.

[steveoath]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

I'd like to try him there again and see if it could work. Maybe twenty games with Skinner and Johansson. 

This has the potential to be a really good 2nd line imo. If Jack and Victor got another good winger (Sheary ATM?) that's two lines that would be a handful for any team.

[Doohicksie]

3 minutes ago, steveoath said:

(Sheary ATM?)

I think Sheary is a better player than many give him credit for.  The problem he has is that he tries to do too much.  I like that he presses the play, but I think when he's trying to stickhandle through defenders he finds his hands simply can't keep up with the play (he's not McDavid after all).  I think with the right linemates that can follow the play with him, that could be minimized or possibly even eliminate the need for him to press the play.  He spent time on Crosby's line when he was in Pittsburgh and I think knows how to complement a strong center.  His two-way play is usually pretty good too.  His biggest weakness is lack of physicality but I think Jack and Olofsson are pretty good in that regard.

That said, I think this would only be a temporary solution since I think Sheary is better suited to a middle six role.  But I've got no problem with putting him on Jack's line for such an experiment.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

They have to re-sign him as top 6 forwards are hard to find.  Unfortunately he is mostly a passenger and isn’t fast enough to be a truly dominate player in today’s NHL.

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

???? What does his carry in rate have anything to do with him being a passenger.  From my watch him, I don’t think he drives offense.  Mostly he is working off what Jack creates.  This maybe because of his he is being used, but I don’t think so.  If he could be the primary driver of offense he’d have his own line.

Edited January 13, 2020 by GASabresIUFAN

[apuszczalowski]

On 12/2/2019 at 1:10 PM, GoPuckYourself said:

I don't understand this thinking, is Reinhart not a 60+ point player? Why would we give up a 60+ point player for any reasoning? If anything you just split Sam and Jack, I'm not really understanding the logic. I got why we would trade Ristolainen for a 2nd line Center at the beginning of the season but trading Sam for a guy who most definitely isn't going to bring us 60+ points and another draft pick seems like a terrible idea to me.

I don't think anyone is saying to move him for the sake of moving him, but you have to give something up of value to get something of value back. Out of the current roster guys the Sabres have, Sam might be the the most expendable that could return something that can help now. I haven't seen anyone saying to get rid of him for whatever you can get. But if he can return a 2nd line Centre, a top 4 defencemen', or a solid upgrade in net, I would consider moving him. If it's for some draft picks or lower prospects, I would hold on to him. Also some of the talk about moving him may be because it would free up cap space for moves that may help now, and if they don't think they can resign him under the cap......