Reinhart vs RoR: Who do you value more?

[WildCard]

I did not vote in this poll, as the entire question of value brings up the specter of "Who should we keep/who could we trade".  Unless it can be proven that one of them is the dark force that is eroding positive attitudes in the locker room, keep 'em both.  I have no doubt that as the players around them play better, their performance will also rise.  :thumbsup:

Fine then let's just say for the sake of it that Gary Bettman says you have to release one guy because I'm Gary Bettman and this is the NHL

[Taro T]

What if you think about the question this way:  Team X offers a really good package for either Reino or ROR, with the Sabres choosing whom to part with?  Which one do you keep?

 

I'd keep ROR, but it's not a slam dunk.

If you are getting offered the same package TODAY and the price is either O'Reilly + X or Reinhart + X it isn't even a question. Reinhart is shipped out.

 

Now, in 3 years could they're respective values change? Yes. But by that time you'll have gotten 3 years of value out of each, & it is very hard to see how you won't have received more value from O'Reilly than Reinhart barring injuries.

 

 

Or, to look at it another way, would you give Reinhart the same contract for the 5 years left on O'Reilly's deal? (IIRC, he's getting a $7.5MM cap hit annually.) Does anybody give that to Reinhart TODAY? My guess is, no.

[Drunkard]

At this point I'd keep ROR's fixed salary (which as Flagg points out becomes relatively more reasonable vs. the salary cap each year) and near elite performance with a game not predicated on speed, assuming a normal decline over time of his skills as he heads toward 30 and past it, vs. Reinhart's untapped potential and pending RFA status. 

 

If Reinhart can be signed to a very team friendly deal (like 4.5M for 4 years or something like that) it would start to swing my preference more his way. But I expect he'll get more like 5.5M for 2 years bridge deal which is less appealing.  

 

ROR's beard is impressive but Samson has superior flow, so from a hirsute perspective it's a draw. 

 

$4.5 million x 4 would be horrible for the team because it would allow him to become a UFA as quickly as possible. They would need to either give him an 8 year deal (likely for more money) so they buy up as many UFA years as possible or bridge him with a 2-3 year deal that keeps him as an RFA at the end of it.

[GASabresIUFAN]

$4.5 million x 4 would be horrible for the team because it would allow him to become a UFA as quickly as possible. They would need to either give him an 8 year deal (likely for more money) so they buy up as many UFA years as possible or bridge him with a 2-3 year deal that keeps him as an RFA at the end of it.

Good point.

[TheAud]

$4.5 million x 4 would be horrible for the team because it would allow him to become a UFA as quickly as possible. They would need to either give him an 8 year deal (likely for more money) so they buy up as many UFA years as possible or bridge him with a 2-3 year deal that keeps him as an RFA at the end of it.

I thought about the timeframe for UFA vs. RFA and should have looked that up and included it but I was lazy. Thanks for pointing it out. 

 

That said, I don't really agree that $4.5M for 4 years is all that horrible for the team. It all depends on which risks they want to live with and which they want to hedge against. 

-If Reino ends up as a consistent 65+ point stud scorer this contract has the risk that they can't resign him at the end of 4 years. It has the benefit of getting tremendous value vs. the salary cap for 4 years. 

-If Reino stays at that sort of 45-50 pt guy with a lot of it on the PP, they have him at a fair market value or better for 4 years and can deal with resigning him or not in 4 years.

-If Reino regresses (unlikely at his age) or becomes injury prone (no evidence of this) then they regret this contract. This risk is low. 

 

So if we're convinced he's going to end up as a premier scorer, then this would be a bad deal after 4 years (and a great one before that). In the other scenarios it's not a bad deal at all. 

At least that's how I view it. I agree they probably still prefer a bridge deal. 

[Doohickie]

Or, to look at it another way, would you give Reinhart the same contract for the 5 years left on O'Reilly's deal? (IIRC, he's getting a $7.5MM cap hit annually.) Does anybody give that to Reinhart TODAY? My guess is, no.

 

No, that's not really the same question.  Reinhart, most will agree, is a lower performing player than ROR, at least for now.  But he's also less expensive and even on his new contract he won't be making ROR money.  The fact that Reino is taking up less cap space than ROR is part of the question.  It's not simply who is the better player, but who is the best player for the money?  At a lower cap hit, Reino may very well be the one with the higher value to the team.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Doohickie

[Thorny]

If you are getting offered the same package TODAY and the price is either O'Reilly + X or Reinhart + X it isn't even a question. Reinhart is shipped out.

Now, in 3 years could they're respective values change? Yes. But by that time you'll have gotten 3 years of value out of each, & it is very hard to see how you won't have received more value from O'Reilly than Reinhart barring injuries.

Or, to look at it another way, would you give Reinhart the same contract for the 5 years left on O'Reilly's deal? (IIRC, he's getting a $7.5MM cap hit annually.) Does anybody give that to Reinhart TODAY? My guess is, no.

I think this is a great way to sum it up. If you would not pay Reinhart, for the coming 5 years, what you’d be agreeable to paying ROR, you are valuing ROR more, including in regards to what you expect over the sum duration of the deal.

 

Doohickie, Reinhart may sign a deal resulting in him being better value relative to his contract than ROR, but the comparison is value between the two players relative to each other (contract can still factor in to that.)

Edited June 13, 2018 by Thorny

[Taro T]

No, that's not really the same question.  Reinhart, most will agree, is a lower performing player than ROR, at least for now.  But he's also less expensive and even on his new contract he won't be making ROR money.  The fact that Reino is taking up less cap space than ROR is part of the question.  It's not simply who is the better player, but who is the best player for the money?  At a lower cap hit, Reino may very well be the one with the higher value to the team.

 

 

No.

 

 

I think this is a great way to sum it up. If you would not pay Reinhart, for the coming 5 years, what you’d be agreeable to paying ROR, you are valuing ROR more, including in regards to what you expect over the sum duration of the deal.

 

Doohickie, Reinhart may sign a deal resulting in him being better value relative to his contract[/] than ROR, but the comparison is value between the two players relative to each other (contract can still factor in to that.)

What he said. ;)

 

:beer:

[Doohickie]

I disagree but I think we're at the level of semantics so arguing further won't convince anyone.  I'd much rather :beer:

[Taro T]

I disagree but I think we're at the level of semantics so arguing further won't convince anyone.  I'd much rather :beer:

Fair enough. :beer:

[Trettioåtta]

Always the promise of the potential future

 

There is no argument that Reinhart is better than ROR that doesnt begin with the word if

 

Even if Reinhart is a 70 point player, ROR is a 60 point player and much better defensively, takes the tougher minutes and lead the league in faceoffs. Those three things make up that 10 point difference

[sweetlou]

I think Reinhart's ceiling could be higher as far as points, but I agree that ROR plays tougher minutes and is better defensively.  If you believe that the Sabres are 3-5 years from contending you move ROR for a 22-24 year old who is still RFA eligible, who will be here in 3-5 years.  If you think you can win in the next three years you keep ROR to bolster your center position.

 

Also has anyone discussed the how Jack would react if they were to trade Reinhart.

 

If the right pieces were coming back I would even trade both in different trades.

 

Hearing Reinhart to Calgary for Dougie Hamilton??

 

Could then turn around and trade Risto for young winger and draft pick,  example to Detroit or Vancouver...

 

Could you then move ROR to say Carolina for Skinner and Rask...

[dudacek]

Really curious who Botterill is going to pull in at centre if he flips ROR.

 

Can’t see Eichel, Larsson or Mittelstadt becoming the go-to guy against the Stamkos and the Matthews of the division.

[IKnowPhysics]

Really curious who Botterill is going to pull in at centre if he flips ROR.

 

Can’t see Eichel, Larsson or Mittelstadt becoming the go-to guy against the Stamkos and the Matthews of the division.

 

One of the many reasons that trading ROR is nutty.  Sabres have been literally screaming for a ROR-like center for decades.  He comes in, plays hard, leads team statistical categories, is a finalist for Lady Byng, and a straight-talk post season soundbite gets overblown and spins up the league-wide media to run him out of town.

[Weave]

 If you believe that the Sabres are 3-5 years from contending you move ROR for a 22-24 year old who is still RFA eligible, who will be here in 3-5 years.  If you think you can win in the next three years you keep ROR to bolster your center position.

 

 

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.

[Doohickie]

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.

 

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

[Thorny]

One of the many reasons that trading ROR is nutty. Sabres have been literally screaming for a ROR-like center for decades. He comes in, plays hard, leads team statistical categories, is a finalist for Lady Byng, and a straight-talk post season soundbite gets overblown and spins up the league-wide media to run him out of town.

But I’d like to think Botterill is too smart to be shipping ROR out due to league wide media. If Botterill is not, he shouldn’t be here. I’d assume there were other, more substantial reasons Botterill felt compelled to move him, if he indeed does.

 

He’s too good of a player to move, if not.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic. It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years. Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies. You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy. You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop. You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet. The team needs to learn the things ROR does. The role still needs to be filled.

I'm sure the team can find someone to be mopy after losses.

 

I'm obviously joking, but I don't doubt there are many who really do believe this to be what ROR is teaching the youngins.

But I’d like to think Botterill is too smart to be shipping ROR out due to league wide media. If Botterill is not, he shouldn’t be here. I’d assume there were other, more substantial reasons Botterill felt compelled to move him, if he indeed does.

 

He’s too good of a player to move, if not.

I definitely don't think Botterill moves O'Reilly *because of* the Canadian media, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he independently believes much of the same stuff (locker room, attitude etc.).

 

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.

[dudacek]

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.

My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.

Edited June 16, 2018 by dudacek

[Thorny]

My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.

Me too.

 

It’s looking like it’s going to be tough for Botterill to garner much of a positive reaction among Sabres fans for that trade, should it indeed come to pass.

[sweetlou]

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.

Yes but in 3-5 years you have Eichel and Mittelstadt anchoring your top two line, ala Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin, and you put your 3-4 center as defensive guys.  Also in 3-5 years you hope Eichel and Mittelstadt have matured and grown in the defensive game. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by sweetlou

[IKnowPhysics]

Also in 3-5 years you hope Eichel and Mittelstadt have matured and grown in the defensive game. 

 

Eichel: What are you trying to tell me, that I can play defensively?

 

Botterill: No, Jack.  I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

 

[nfreeman]

I'm sure the team can find someone to be mopy after losses.

 

I'm obviously joking, but I don't doubt there are many who really do believe this to be what ROR is teaching the youngins.

 

I definitely don't think Botterill moves O'Reilly *because of* the Canadian media, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he independently believes much of the same stuff (locker room, attitude etc.).

 

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.

 

My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.

 

I agree that the agent probably is stoking the fires, but still:  if he's stoking the fires, that means it's fairly likely that ROR has requested a trade.

 

And if ROR requested a trade, and if the Hammy speculation about Eichel not liking ROR is true -- then there are 2 strong factors contributing to the likelihood that JBott decides that it would be best for the team to trade him.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree that the agent probably is stoking the fires, but still: if he's stoking the fires, that means it's fairly likely that ROR has requested a trade.

 

And if ROR requested a trade, and if the Hammy speculation about Eichel not liking ROR is true -- then there are 2 strong factors contributing to the likelihood that JBott decides that it would be best for the team to trade him.

Do you think the Cavs benefitted from trading Kyrie? Or would they have been better off ignoring his request?

 

Until it shows up in his on-ice game, I firmly believe the Sabres would be better off ignoring the trade request. That's barring a bonkers return, obviously.

Edited June 16, 2018 by TrueBlueGED

[nfreeman]

Do you think the Cavs benefitted from trading Kyrie? Or would they have been better off ignoring his request?

 

Until it shows up in his on-ice game, I firmly believe the Sabres would be better off ignoring the trade request. That's barring a bonkers return, obviously.

 

I'm not disagreeing that they would be better off ignoring his request.  I'm simply pointing out that if those 2 items are true, the likelihood of a trade has increased, and perhaps above 50%.