Keeping Hall Long-term?

[LabattBlue]

Unless there is a compliance buyout on the near horizon, which they could then use on Skinner, no way do I want to sign Hall to a long term deal, no matter what kind of season he has in 2021. 

Without the buyout, that would be 18 mil in cap hit, on two wingers who are both rapidly approaching 30, both on long term deals.

 

Thanks to Botts(and the Pegula's), the Skinner contract will be painful for many years to come.

 

[Taro T]

20 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He is speculating as is every one else is to the makeup of the lines. The first line that he believes the coach will very likely assemble (as I do) is not a declaration but an opinion.  His opinion is not a far fetched opinion but a reasonable opinion/assumption based on how the first line was assembled last year. I don't know why you are getting so irritated with an opinion given on a hockey forum which is a platform for giving opinions.  I also like to add that I'm not trying to stoke the flames here. 

Is this statement not declarative? "It's not me penciling him there it's RK."

My question was why GA puts him there.  Saying 'well, that's what Ralph is doing' doesn't really answer that when we still haven't heard Krueger's thoughts on the matter & we're still at least 2 weeks from seeing even the opening of training camp.

When Hall was 1st signed, several people had him driving the 2nd line rather than settling in on Eichel's wing because they didn't believe a single puck is enough for the both of them.  It's a reasonable take.  (My take was you don't bring in a guy that skilled and NOT try him with your best player.)  But, when Ralph came out and said Jack & Taylor will be linemates we had significantly fewer lineups proposed with Hall on Staal's wing.

I was curious WHY Reinhart should be on the top line and, should that be the plan, then WHY 2 goal scorers should be on the same line.  Saying, well that's how Ralph has pencilled them in, when that's opinion, doesn't help much with understanding IMHO.

Since he isn't forthcoming, maybe you'll be less reticent, why keep putting a 3rd playmaker on the 1st line with 2 goal scorers on the 2nd line?  TIA.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Taro T

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Is this statement not declarative? "It's not me penciling him there it's RK."

My question was why GA puts him there.  Saying 'well, that's what Ralph is doing' doesn't really answer that when we still haven't heard Krueger's thoughts on the matter & we're still at least 2 weeks from seeing even the opening of training camp.

When Hall was 1st signed, several people had him driving the 2nd line rather than settling in on Eichel's wing because they didn't believe a single puck is enough for the both of them.  It's a reasonable take.  (My take was you don't bring in a guy that skilled and NOT try him with your best player.)  But, when Ralph came out and said Jack & Taylor will be linemates we had significantly fewer lineups proposed with Hall on Staal's wing.

I was curious WHY Reinhart should be on the top line and, should that be the plan, then WHY 2 goal scorers should be on the same line.  Saying, well that's how Ralph has pencilled them in, when that's opinion, doesn't help much with understanding IMHO.

Since he isn't forthcoming, maybe you'll be less reticent, why keep putting a 3rd playmaker on the 1st line with 2 goal scorers on the 2nd line?  TIA.

This is my opinion but I believe that Reinhart will be on the first line because it is already known that he meshes with Jack and he has demonstrated an ability to have a net presence that would not only obstruct the goalie's sight line but be in a position for a rebound with two other shooters on the line. Last year, Krueger could have moved Reinhart to the second line in order to buttress the line Skinner was on. He didn't do that. And with the addition of Staal and other options for the wing he has enough talent to construct an effective Skinner/Staal second line. 

side note: What does TIA mean? 

[dudacek]

The best reason for putting Reinhart on the first line is that he is the Sabre most likely to maximize the talents of their two best players.

He has the mindset to anticipate and adjust to what Jack and Taylor need and the skillset to execute whatever the situation calls for. Basically it would be the Bruin strategy of loading up the first line so you are dominating the opposition for 20 minutes a game 90 percent of the games, no matter what matchup they select.

Personally, I prefer your way of a stronger second line, so we can dominate for 40 minutes a game 60 per cent of the games.

But the stack the top line argument has merit.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

This is my opinion but I believe that Reinhart will be on the first line because it is already known that he meshes with Jack and he has demonstrated an ability to have a net presence that would not only obstruct the goalie's sight line but be in a position for a rebound with two other shooters on the line. Last year, Krueger could have moved Reinhart to the second line in order to buttress the line Skinner was on. He didn't do that. And with the addition of Staal and other options for the wing he has enough talent to construct an effective Skinner/Staal second line. 

side note: What does TIA mean? 

Thanks In Advance.

🍺

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

The best reason for putting Reinhart on the first line is that he is the Sabre most likely to maximize the talents of their two best players.

He has the mindset to anticipate and adjust to what Jack and Taylor need and the skillset to execute whatever the situation calls for. Basically it would be the Bruin strategy of loading up the first line so you are dominating the opposition for 20 minutes a game 90 percent of the games, no matter what matchup they select.

Personally, I prefer your way of a stronger second line, so we can dominate for 40 minutes a game 60 per cent of the games.

But the stack the top line argument has merit.

I don't want to derail the topic but you bring up what can be an interesting debate. If our first line was made up with Hall/Jack/Samson how would it be rated compared to the other first lines in the league. Would it be a top 5 or 10 or 12 or16? If Hall can regain his form and this line can quickly mesh I believe that it can be in the top 8 first lines in the league. Am I being too wishful? 

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't want to derail the topic but you bring up what can be an interesting debate. If our first line was made up with Hall/Jack/Samson how would it be rated compared to the other first lines in the league. Would it be a top 5 or 10 or 12 or16? If Hall can regain his form and this line can quickly mesh I believe that it can be in the top 8 first lines in the league. Am I being too wishful? 

Top 5. 

But I think it would be top 10 with VO, and our 2nd line with Sam would be top 10 as well. 

If we load up line 1, we probably have closer to a mid-pack 2nd line.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Top 5. 

But I think it would be top 10 with VO, and our 2nd line with Sam would be top 10 as well. 

If we load up line 1, we probably have a mid-pack 2nd line.

 

Top 5? You know what that means? Exciting hockey to watch! Let's get this season started. 

As I stated before my preference is to load up the first line. However, those arguing to add to the second line at the expense of the first line are also making a compelling argument. Whatever side of the issue one is one the residual benefit for both positions is that the scoring should be higher. That should compensate for some of the deficiency at the goalie position.  

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Top 5? You know what that means? Exciting hockey to watch! Let's get this season started. 

As I stated before my preference is to load up the first line. However, those arguing to add to the second line at the expense of the first line are also making a compelling argument. Whatever side of the issue one is one the residual benefit for both positions is that the scoring should be higher. That should compensate for some of the deficiency at the goalie position.  

The fact that we are so close to not having to actively compensate for anything, yet will seemingly still have to, is the disappointing thing to me, at this time.

75% of the way towards a successful offseason and then sorta just...stopped. A bit odd to see so much work done to the top half of the roster only to basically run back the rest in totality.

Definitely a more optimistic situation than recently, but as things stand I'd say, in a year where playoffs of course are the expectation, the current roster on paper lends more to the idea qualifying for said will remain an uphill battle, rather than a likely proposition. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

The fact that we are so close to not having to actively compensate for anything, yet will seemingly still have to, is the disappointing thing to me, at this time.

75% of the way towards a successful offseason and then sorta just...stopped. A bit odd to see so much work done to the top half of the roster only to basically run back the rest in totality.

Definitely a more optimistic situation than recently, but as things stand I'd say, in a year where playoffs of course are the expectation, the current roster on paper lends more to the idea qualifying for said will remain an uphill battle, rather than a likely proposition. 

I have a more lenient assessment of how this front office handled the offseason than you do over what transpired this offseason. If you look at all the teams in the league, even the elite teams, few of them are complete in the sense that not all their units are considered finished products. In a cap system you make judgments in where to spend your resources to upgrade each unit on the team. You make tradeoffs. If you spend heavily to make your lineup more potent that could be at the expense of not spending at a level that will upgrade your goaltending unit. You make a calculation/judgment as to whether it is better to spend $8 M for an elite forward who should add a lot of firepower or not sign him and spread out the money to upgrade your goalie position. I believe that the GM made the right decision in signing Hall at the probable expense of adding another goalie. The hope is that Ullmark will be the primary goaltender who will play at an adequate level to allow this team to be competitive. And from an overview sense if the Sabres score more there will be a greater margin of error for the goaltending position to work within. 

[Brawndo]

An interesting stat, in 654 minutes of 5 v 5 play with Eichel this past year Olofsson had only six goals. Putting him on the second or third line isn’t the worst idea. 
 

I would play Reinhart down the lineup as well to better balance the forward grouping. The caveat is, if the Sabres have an OZ Start with less than 45 seconds left in the period or are trailing with ten minutes left in the third, I would put Hall-Eichel-Reinhart out there in those situations. 

[dudacek]

45 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

An interesting stat, in 654 minutes of 5 v 5 play with Eichel this past year Olofsson had only six goals. Putting him on the second or third line isn’t the worst idea. 

To me, Olofsson is perfectly fine anywhere in the top nine with two caveats:

• He shouldn’t play with Skinner
• He should play with someone who can get him the puck.

He looked fine with Kahun and Johansson and I’m sure he’d look fine with Staal and Cozens, or with Eakin and Reinhart, or with Hall and anyone.

Isn’t there anyone who thinks Olofsson might be better this year? He was a rookie. Sometimes they improve.

On that note, if Cozens or Thompson or both can contribute this year at a similar level that Olofsson did last year, it will bring a huge lift to our depth and flexibility.

Edited December 4, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I have a more lenient assessment of how this front office handled the offseason than you do over what transpired this offseason. If you look at all the teams in the league, even the elite teams, few of them are complete in the sense that not all their units are considered finished products. In a cap system you make judgments in where to spend your resources to upgrade each unit on the team. You make tradeoffs. If you spend heavily to make your lineup more potent that could be at the expense of not spending at a level that will upgrade your goaltending unit. You make a calculation/judgment as to whether it is better to spend $8 M for an elite forward who should add a lot of firepower or not sign him and spread out the money to upgrade your goalie position. I believe that the GM made the right decision in signing Hall at the probable expense of adding another goalie. The hope is that Ullmark will be the primary goaltender who will play at an adequate level to allow this team to be competitive. And from an overview sense if the Sabres score more there will be a greater margin of error for the goaltending position to work within. 

Cap 101 jargon aside, with the bold you are assuming it to be an "either/or" proposition and we don't have the data to assume that at all.  

Edited December 4, 2020 by Thorny

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

Jumping in late on this convo, but I don't see anyone considering the impact an increase in player escrow contributions and/or a flat cap for 3+ years will do to contracts.  We shouldn't expect the same year-over-year increases that we've seen over the last 4-5 years and that could have multiple impacts:

1) players may be more inclined to sign 1-2 year contracts than long-term deals, especially younger players.  High potential and/or impact players will still command a decent salary, but everyone else will see salaries go down

2) older players looking for longer term contracts may have to settle for less money, shorter term, or be willing to play for a bad team with available cap space

3) players may select to play in the US vs Canada, or even specific states to reduce the amount of income tax they have to pay so teams like Tampa Bay and the Panthers could be stacked vs NY and CA based teams. 

4) There could be a player strike; and I think that likelyhood increases if escrow goes over 20%

I think Hall fits into #2 and would be ok signing another 1-2 year deal.  He seems like he values flexibility, opportunity, and quality of life as much as salary so it really depends on how year 1 goes in Buf and what the NHL landscape (financial and roster-wise) will look like for the '21-22 season.  I could see him signing for $7-8MM if all goes well, but I think Reino gets the shaft again and won't see the payday he expected.

Edited December 4, 2020 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, Brawndo said:

An interesting stat, in 654 minutes of 5 v 5 play with Eichel this past year Olofsson had only six goals. Putting him on the second or third line isn’t the worst idea. 
 

I would play Reinhart down the lineup as well to better balance the forward grouping. The caveat is, if the Sabres have an OZ Start with less than 45 seconds left in the period or are trailing with ten minutes left in the third, I would put Hall-Eichel-Reinhart out there in those situations. 

Because, and I keep trying to tell ppl this, he is not a top line forward. 

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, Thorny said:

Cap 101 jargon aside, with the bold you are assuming it to be an "either/or" proposition and we don't have the data to assume that at all.  

Good players on teams are often dealt or let go because of the cap squeeze. It happens all the time. Rosters are constructed differently with different emphasizes in the units. You and others understandably advocated to upgrade our goaltending this offseason. Most people would agree with you that there were visible deficiencies. Why didn't it happen? You don't think that cap considerations played a part in continuing with the status quo at that position? The Cap issue isn't a jargon issue. It's a reality that forces decisions relating to one's priorities and one's vision as to how to construct a roster. Certainly, one strives to have a complete well-rounded roster. It usually doesn't happen no matter what analytics you want to rely on. In the real world you live with limitations. 

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, Brawndo said:

An interesting stat, in 654 minutes of 5 v 5 play with Eichel this past year Olofsson had only six goals. Putting him on the second or third line isn’t the worst idea. 
 

I would play Reinhart down the lineup as well to better balance the forward grouping. The caveat is, if the Sabres have an OZ Start with less than 45 seconds left in the period or are trailing with ten minutes left in the third, I would put Hall-Eichel-Reinhart out there in those situations. 

Again, a lot of that ice time came when he was in the "only scores on the pp," "rushed back from injury injury, probably shouldn't be playing much less playing top line," and "the next goal is worth a ton of $$$'s gripping the stick too tight" phases.  Prior to getting injured, he was playing well at 5v5 and actually getting points.  Too small a sample to make a compelling argument for, but he was playing very well in that stretch.  My gut says that's the Olofsson we'll get should he be 1RW.

[Zamboni]

Yea, on a deep or well stocked team, Olofsson is a middle six winger. On a team with depth issues, he slides up.

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Again, a lot of that ice time came when he was in the "only scores on the pp," "rushed back from injury injury, probably shouldn't be playing much less playing top line," and "the next goal is worth a ton of $$$'s gripping the stick too tight" phases.  Prior to getting injured, he was playing well at 5v5 and actually getting points.  Too small a sample to make a compelling argument for, but he was playing very well in that stretch.  My gut says that's the Olofsson we'll get should he be 1RW.

So for most of the time he was bad at 5v5. That is what this tells me. 

Sam Reinhart had a stretch where he scored I think 11points in 14 games, Jack was injured I think. He should be top line RW due to that stretch. 

[Taro T]

42 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So for most of the time he was bad at 5v5. That is what this tells me. 

Sam Reinhart had a stretch where he scored I think 11points in 14 games, Jack was injured I think. He should be top line RW due to that stretch. 

No.  When he wasn't finishing he was still useful except when he was rushed back from injury.

And, here's a newsflash, most goal scorers tend to be streaky.  Olofsson is no different in that regard.  😉

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No.  When he wasn't finishing he was still useful except when he was rushed back from injury.

And, here's a newsflash, most goal scorers tend to be streaky.  Olofsson is no different in that regard.  😉

But what else is he bringing? His passing is just okay. His defensive game is fine but nothing great. He isn't a force down low in the offensive zone. Outside of goal scoring what is he bringing to that line at 5v5?

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But what else is he bringing? His passing is just okay. His defensive game is fine but nothing great. He isn't a force down low in the offensive zone. Outside of goal scoring what is he bringing to that line at 5v5?

If he scores 30 goals without holding Hall and Eichel back elsewhere, that's enough.

Aside from Reinhart, are there any better options on this team for that spot?

And how would you deploy your middle six with a loaded first line?

[LGR4GM]

Just now, dudacek said:

If he scores 30 goals without holding Hall and Eichel back elsewhere, that's enough.

Aside from Reinhart, are there any better options on this team for that spot?

And how would you deploy your middle six with a loaded first line?

He won't score 30 goals at 5v5. We are talking about maybe 10 goals 5v5 and 20 on the pp. What good is he at 5v5? Why is he there if he is only getting 10 5v5 goals? 

Cozens is honestly a better option but I personally think is should be Reinhart. 

Hall - Eichel - Reinhart

Skinner - Staal - Cozens

Olofsson - Eakin - Tage

Zemgus - Lazar - Okposo. 

 

Actually I would rather Okposo be in the Reinhart slot over Olofsson. At least Okposo has a solid 2 way game and can dig pucks out of the corner. 

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

He won't score 30 goals at 5v5. We are talking about maybe 10 goals 5v5 and 20 on the pp. What good is he at 5v5? Why is he there if he is only getting 10 5v5 goals? 

Cozens is honestly a better option but I personally think is should be Reinhart. 

Hall - Eichel - Reinhart

Skinner - Staal - Cozens

Olofsson - Eakin - Tage

Zemgus - Lazar - Okposo. 

 

Actually I would rather Okposo be in the Reinhart slot over Olofsson. At least Okposo has a solid 2 way game and can dig pucks out of the corner. 

Looks a lot like how it was set up last year, with major upgrades at @1L, 2C, 3C, 3L and 2R. Lost a bit on the 4th line, but upgraded the other three.

I can live with that. Really, that's what I'm noticing with our new forward group: every lineup looks better than last year.

 

Also, the idea of moving Okposo off the 4th line isn't discussed enough. They guy produced OK numbers 5-on-5 with Larsson as his centre; he has more to give.

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Looks a lot like how it was set up last year, with major upgrades at @1L, 2C, 3C, 3L and 2R. Lost a bit on the 4th line, but upgraded the other three.

I can live with that. Really, that's what I'm noticing with our new forward group: every lineup looks better than last year.

 

Also, the idea of moving Okposo off the 4th line isn't discussed enough. They guy produced OK numbers 5-on-5 with Larsson as his centre; he has more to give.

I think Okposo is highly underrated on this team. 

Hall - Eichel - Okposo

Skiner - Staal - Cozens

Olofsson - Eakin - Reinhart

Zemgus - Lazar/Rustolainen - Tage

It is really weird having so many line options.