Jump to content

Reinhart contract extension


sweetlou

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Isn't that just a case of congratulating him for having a roster so bad we didn't have enough players to protect? We've joined the ranks of basically every other team, likely to lose a reasonably good player to expansion rather than William Carrier. 

Not really.  He could've had guys like Asplund and Olofsson over in Ra-cha-cha a year earlier than they were and now he would've had to protect them this off-season.  Neither of those 2, nor Mittelstadt, nor Dahlin, nor Pilut would've been exposed. 

Because Seattle delayed 1-1/2 years before the original schedule, all those guys have to be protected or exposed after plans were already in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Taro T said:

Not really.  He could've had guys like Asplund and Olofsson over in Ra-cha-cha a year earlier than they were and now he would've had to protect them this off-season.  Neither of those 2, nor Mittelstadt, nor Dahlin, nor Pilut would've been exposed. 

Because Seattle delayed 1-1/2 years before the original schedule, all those guys have to be protected or exposed after plans were already in motion.

Would coming over a year earlier to Rochester been the better course for development? I feel like Botterill would have weighted that utmost when determining where they'd play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

His foresight was suffering a bit of blockage then when he inked Sam. 

I disagree.

He put the signing off to the future when he could afford it, so he could afford veteran reinforcements for a young team that needed some, while getting an extended look at whether Sam was worthy of a long-term investment. And if he was, he may have gained two extra years of “good” Sam in a Sabre uniform in the process.

We don’t know what Sam would have signed long-term for two years ago, or what he may sign for come next summer: maybe $6.5 and $8 respectively?

So, Sam until 29 for $45.5  million, or Sam until 31 at $63 million? Have you really endured long-term pain for short-term gain? I’d rather be forced to make a decision on a 31-year-old UFA than one at 29.

Whether you agree or not, he made a well-considered decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I disagree.

He put the signing off to the future when he could afford it, so he could afford veteran reinforcements for a young team that needed some, while getting an extended look at whether Sam was worthy of a long-term investment. And if he was, he may have gained two extra years of “good” Sam in a Sabre uniform in the process.

We don’t know what Sam would have signed long-term for two years ago, or what he may sign for come next summer: maybe $6.5 and $8 respectively?

So, Sam until 29 for $45.5  million, or Sam until 31 at $63 million? Have you really endured long-term pain for short-term gain? I’d rather be forced to make a decision on a 31-year-old UFA than one at 29.

Whether you agree or not, he made a well-considered decision.

Yup, I definitely disagree with it. We also weren't talking 6.5 before. Establishing himself gets him a difference of 1.5 mil? Come on now. Could have afforded to sign Sam to the extra 2 million it would have took to lock him up. If he's as much of a savant as you say he is, with every single move working perfectly towards this incredible canvas of cap brilliance, he could have found a spot to make room for 2 mil over 2 years considering it would have saved us about 2-3 mil a year going forward over the next 6. 

But he didn't. Because the reason he didn't do it was because he wasn't sure about Sam, it's obvious. I can even accept the view that it was the appropriate strategy, to mitigate risk, sooner than I'll be fed the idea that he wanted to willingly pay more later over a longer period so he could pay a little bit less now for a shorter time frame. 

And even if would have cost us a vet, I'd take one less vet reinforcement now (hey how much does Vesey make?) if it meant we could add one or two later when we are actually competing for a cup. 

Would you rather have a Reinhart locked in at 5.5, and an extra 3rd, or Reinhart for 3.6 this year and last, probably 7.5-8 going forward, and Jimmy Vesey this year?

- - - 

I can see staunch arguments on both sides of the Eichel or Reinhart situations, and these are the moves we must point to as his best, cap wise. I don't know why it's a wonder I simply wanted to give him an "incomplete" grade on cap management. 

I want to leave this one here lest I be known as the "you said Botterill sux at the cap Guy". Eager to see how he manages the roster now that we are past the easier navigating. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Would coming over a year earlier to Rochester been the better course for development? I feel like Botterill would have weighted that utmost when determining where they'd play. 

To the bolded, no data. 

Botterill has shown a huge reluctance to give assets away for nothing (Murray's big 3 trade targets not withstanding).  I'd be very surprised if both concerns weren't considered when developing the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

IDo we still want to move on from Sobotka's 3.5 mil? Sheary's 3? Larsson and Girgensons combined 3+? In addition, they are now pending UFA.

What about Scandella's 4 million? That was seen as a sure fire avenue right there, but perhaps his play this year had changed that. 

Bogosian's 5+ still seems likely to be moved on from. 

A great GM would consult with his HC and realize all the players above are replaceable. Move on and replace them with other low-cost role players. While all don’t need to be thrown out with the bath water, we have a developing pipeline of players that should be able to take their place. A team should have a core of must-have players. Beyond that handful, you need to be judicious with your money and look for value elsewhere.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yup, I definitely disagree with it. We also weren't talking 6.5 before. Establishing himself gets him a difference of 1.5 mil? Come on now. Could have afforded to sign Sam to the extra 2 million it would have took to lock him up. If he's as much of a savant as you say he is, with every single move working perfectly towards this incredible canvas of cap brilliance, he could have found a spot to make room for 2 mil over 2 years considering it would have saved us about 2-3 mil a year going forward over the next 6. 

But he didn't. Because the reason he didn't do it was because he wasn't sure about Sam, it's obvious. I can even accept the view that it was the appropriate strategy, to mitigate risk, sooner than I'll be fed the idea that he wanted to willingly pay more later over a longer period so he could pay a little bit less now for a shorter time frame. 

And even if would have cost us a vet, I'd take one less vet reinforcement now (hey how much does Vesey make?) if it meant we could add one or two later when we are actually competing for a cup. 

Would you rather have a Reinhart locked in at 5.5, and an extra 3rd, or Reinhart for 3.6 this year and last, probably 7.5-8 going forward, and Jimmy Vesey this year?

- - - 

I can see staunch arguments on both sides of the Eichel or Reinhart situations, and these are the moves we must point to as his best, cap wise. I don't know why it's a wonder I simply wanted to give him an "incomplete" grade on cap management. 

I want to leave this one here lest I be known as the "you said Botterill sux at the cap Guy". Eager to see how he manages the roster now that we are past the easier navigating. 

Come on, I never said he was a savant, I said he had rationally defensible position, the bulk of which was the low-risk part of the bridge. If he could have signed Sam for seven years at $5.5 he should have. Can’t see it, given what guys like Drouin and Horvat signed for the year before, and what Nylander eventually signed for. I wouldn’t have signed that if I was Sam. We’ll likely never know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Come on, I never said he was a savant, I said he had rationally defensible position, the bulk of which was the low-risk part of the bridge. If he could have signed Sam for seven years at $5.5 he should have. Can’t see it, given what guys like Drouin and Horvat signed for the year before, and what Nylander eventually signed for. I wouldn’t have signed that if I was Sam. We’ll likely never know.

 

Well, Drouin was coming off 53 points, Sam had 50..Drouin signed for 5.5. Very similar situation with Horvat. An extra year inflation though so maybe 6 for Sam? Don't think it would have been more than that. We're still looking at probably at least a 2 million difference over the next 6 years, at the sacrifice of a Vesey this year. You are right, we can't know if Sam would have signed for 5.5, or 6, or what have you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

If the team keeps winning and these players play solid roles he will attempt to resign any and all of them. Maybe with the exception of Bogo who i think may be done as a Sabre.

having said that though, no one on that list is unreplaceable and/or essential and if they want more than their UFA competition around the league they will be let go. Nobody on that list is going to get a substantial raise.

....or Scandella, or Sobotka, or Vesey, or Sheary and probably not Rodrigues.  But other than that, yeah, all of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

....or Scandella, or Sobotka, or Vesey, or Sheary and probably not Rodrigues.  But other than that, yeah, all of them.  

JBOT likes Sheary so I can see him trying to keep him around.  The others you mention I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vesey and Sheary are up in the air for me...they fill in well on third line and can add depth scoring...as long as they score.  I can see Thompson taking over on 2nd line RW for Sobotka next year.  

One year contracts keep players motivated.  Going to be an interesting off season.  We need to keep a couple veterans around for the next couple of years until younger players develop.  I am in no rush to bring young guys up because then we would have to expose them in Seattle expansion draft.

Players won't like it if they think they are ready.  Best scenario is Sabres keep winning with this group and let guys like Asplund, Thompson, Pilut, and UPL dominate in AHL.

I also don't want to see Cozens here until 21-22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

It's worth noting that said flexibility only exists if the players we expect to be moved on from at season's end, are indeed moved on from. Botterill hasn't exactly shown a willingness to let players go, has he? (Poor Pominville). 

Do we still want to move on from Sobotka's 3.5 mil? Sheary's 3? Larsson and Girgensons combined 3+? In addition, they are now pending UFA.

What about Scandella's 4 million? That was seen as a sure fire avenue right there, but perhaps his play this year had changed that. 

Bogosian's 5+ still seems likely to be moved on from. 

Lots of big RFA deals on the horizon, as well. It seems a little counter-intuitive, but the better we play this season, the less flexible that cap situation appears to be. 

There's no way Botterill should have anything other than a "TBD" in the space for grading cap management. His work is yet to come, and it'll be fascinating to see what he does. (Good early returns so far on things like drafting, though, and perhaps even team construction if early results this season continue). 

On the first bolded -- not sure what this means -- Pommer wasn't re-signed and isn't going to be.

I don't think any of the other bolded guys will be re-signed, with the possible exception of another cheapo one-year deal for one of Larsson and Zemgus.

As to the broader question of JB's cap management performance, while I agree that it's still too early to tell, I think there has been a consistent series of competent, logical moves, plus a few excellent moves like the MoJo contract and the Reino bridge deal (understanding that YMMV on that one), and an absence of GMTM-like blunders.  So the early returns, while incomplete, are still good IMHO.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sweetlou said:

Vesey and Sheary are up in the air for me...they fill in well on third line and can add depth scoring...as long as they score.  I can see Thompson taking over on 2nd line RW for Sobotka next year.  

One year contracts keep players motivated.  Going to be an interesting off season.  We need to keep a couple veterans around for the next couple of years until younger players develop.  I am in no rush to bring young guys up because then we would have to expose them in Seattle expansion draft.

Players won't like it if they think they are ready.  Best scenario is Sabres keep winning with this group and let guys like Asplund, Thompson, Pilut, and UPL dominate in AHL.

I also don't want to see Cozens here until 21-22.

UPL is the only one of these players that is exempt from the expansion draft unfortunately 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetlou said:

Vesey and Sheary are up in the air for me...they fill in well on third line and can add depth scoring...as long as they score.  I can see Thompson taking over on 2nd line RW for Sobotka next year.  

One year contracts keep players motivated.  Going to be an interesting off season.  We need to keep a couple veterans around for the next couple of years until younger players develop. I am in no rush to bring young guys up because then we would have to expose them in Seattle expansion draft.

Players won't like it if they think they are ready.  Best scenario is Sabres keep winning with this group and let guys like Asplund, Thompson, Pilut, and UPL dominate in AHL.

I also don't want to see Cozens here until 21-22.

Time in Ra-cha-cha counts as service the same as time in the NHL as far as the Seattle draft is concerned.  Everybody that was full time in the AHL or NHL last year needs to be on the protected list or Seattle can grab them.  (So Luukkonnen won't have to be protected to stay unselectable but just about everybody else in Ra-cha-cha will need to be protected.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

On the first bolded -- not sure what this means -- Pommer wasn't re-signed and isn't going to be.

I don't think any of the other bolded guys will be re-signed, with the possible exception of another cheapo one-year deal for one of Larsson and Zemgus.

As to the broader question of JB's cap management performance, while I agree that it's still too early to tell, I think there has been a consistent series of competent, logical moves, plus a few excellent moves like the MoJo contract and the Reino bridge deal (understanding that YMMV on that one), and an absence of GMTM-like blunders.  So the early returns, while incomplete, are still good IMHO.

My point was that Pominville was pretty much the only guy Botterill let go this past offseason, so it's too early to say exactly who Botterill might next summer. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, nfreeman said:

On the first bolded -- not sure what this means -- Pommer wasn't re-signed and isn't going to be.

I don't think any of the other bolded guys will be re-signed, with the possible exception of another cheapo one-year deal for one of Larsson and Zemgus.

As to the broader question of JB's cap management performance, while I agree that it's still too early to tell, I think there has been a consistent series of competent, logical moves, plus a few excellent moves like the MoJo contract and the Reino bridge deal (understanding that YMMV on that one), and an absence of GMTM-like blunders.  So the early returns, while incomplete, are still good IMHO.

Which is basically what I said, obviously disagreeing on Reinhart. But @dudacek had to go all "Thorny" on me, to borrow his turn of phrase. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...