Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

[Kruppstahl]

16 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Agreed. Management overreacted to an end-of-year locker cleanout interview instead of remaining calm, at peace, and passive. 

Nearly all players are despondent at the end of a losing season; they care, they want to win. It's even worse if they're seen as the leader and best player on the team because it's on their shoulders. They need time to recharge. The offseason has a draft (hope future), free agency (hope now), and plenty of time (healing), and constantly revs up the hype engine. Maybe management makes a coaching change (not that particular offseason, but a possibility), or they bring in Skinner for Pu, or win the lottery (they did! Dahlin!). Give the players a chance to regroup and reset. ROR would have. And this franchise would be in a better spot with him on the roster the last 2 seasons (of course, minus Cozens most likely).

The whole ROR thing went way beyond a single locker clean out, but it was still horrifically handled by Botterill and the organization, and remains--probably--the single worst trade in Sabres franchise history.

Would a GM with much greater experience have retained ROR?  I like to think so.

Are we all much better off for Botterill's dismissal?  Yes, for sure.

Does it really matter who the GM of this organization is rolling forward?  

I don't think so.  Not near term.

 

 

 

[Eleven]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I personally think anointing Jack as the heir to the throne before he earned it is what helped do this franchise in and it created the ROR debacle. When they didn't name ROR captain, choosing instead to place hold it for Jack, making it Jack's team, that was the moment it all fell apart. 

I think it's certainly a part of it.

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay, but I reject your hypothesis because it places far too much blame on ROR for what was clearly a Management ***** up. 

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome.  The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.  

Edited August 22, 2020 by JohnC

[Curt]

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome.  The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.  

Maybe they did cool off then meet, but O’Reilly just wanted out.  We just don’t know what went down behind closed doors.

[dudacek]

40 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome.  The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.  

Is your hypothesis that trading O’Reilly was not being discussed prior to his comments?

How do you account for the considerable trade rumours Swirling around O’Reilly throughout the season, well before his locker room clean out comments?

There was considerable chatter that Botterill wanted to move one or more core pieces as his first team imploded around him.

[JohnC]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Is your hypothesis that trading O’Reilly was not being discussed prior to his comments?

How do you account for the considerable trade rumours Swirling around O’Reilly throughout the season, well before his locker room clean out comments?

There was considerable chatter that Botterill wanted to move one or more core pieces as his first team imploded around him.

The problem I had with the ROR saga is not that he got traded so much as the return. By a number of accounts this transaction was rushed because of the impending bonus time line. My sense is that the owner wanted him gone before the bonus came due. In my estimation if the organization was determined to trade him the smarter approach would have been to pay the bonus and then take the additional time to scan the market. There was a story that Carolina was willing to deal for him but weren't willing to do so if they had to pay the bonus. My criticism as much if not more so relates to the execution of the transaction than the particular transaction.

Paul Hamilton when with WGR stated after the deal that it was evident to him that ROR was behaving in ways that indicated that he didn't want to be with the club. He noted that the player who was known to be the last off the ice for practice was not exhibiting that same practice work ethic. So targeting him to be dealt in order to shake up the room is not a surprise. The criticism I am directing to the organization relates to when it was done, how it was done and the return. 

[JohnC]

47 minutes ago, Curt said:

Maybe they did cool off then meet, but O’Reilly just wanted out.  We just don’t know what went down behind closed doors.

There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!

Oh, I agree.  It definitely seems that they rushed things.

[7+6=13]

There were so many teams dying to trade for ROR - we just rushed it and missed out on a windfall return.  Yeah right.

[PerreaultForever]

17 hours ago, JohnC said:

I respectively but strenuously disagree with your post about Jack. It's is distorting a history that actually happened. The issue of anointing Jack over the veteran ROR as captain was an irrelevant issue in the ROR trade debacle. ROR simply got tired of the losing and didn't feel that at least in the immediate future that this team had a chance to be a serious team. He felt he was in a bad situation without much ability to alter the situation. That was the heart of his publicly and privately expressed frustration that got him dispatched. 

Jack is our established star player and the player that this team is centered around. Dahlin will soon become another player along with Jack who are irreplaceable and will be given the most consideration on how this team is directed. The scenario you postulated in your post does not reflect the realities that happened when ROR was with the team. 

First off, I did say it was my own personal view so I thought that would make it clear I can't "prove" it as LGR4GM likes to demand when he disagrees with an opinion. So fair enough, it's just an opinion, like many others. I truly think in sports and the media one has to be wary of what is spoken publicly and one cannot assume it is factual either. What exactly did sick of losing mean and how did he get there? It's a good way to force a trade for sure and Jack has laid the groundwork for that as well should he decide he finally wants out. It's also likely that JBot can't totally be faulted on the trade because 1) he had no choice if in fact ROR demanded out privately which we'll never know and 2) it's likely the Pegulas demanded he not pay out the bonus so he took what he could get by the deadline he had and hoped for the best. 

ROR likes being the star and he responds to that role well. I'm not all the sure he likes being the other guy, the #2 center and so forth. 

When it comes to this idea of our star and centering the team around him this is perhaps where I see things very differently. You can do that, but many times where organizations do that they are not as successful as organizations who don't. Team first and no one above is a better winning approach. A team like Boston never puts the individual first and they have perennial success. They had Kessel, they had Seguin, they had Hamilton, but when they didn't fully buy in, boom they were gone. Did they win all those trades? No, but they kept winning, and the culture and the team got stronger.

So back to the C, ROR hard worker, 2 way player, leader by example, embodiment of what you want a captain to be. You make him captain, you take all the pressure of that off Jack and let him be the kid he was at the time, let him focus on scoring and emulating that leadership idea. I probably do not articulate this idea properly, but if you even get a hint of what I'm trying to say you might have some pause for thought. We are often a team of individuals not a unit working together and we frequently have some of the individuals letting others do all the hard work and to me, it's all a reflection of the culture and approach the team has used. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PerreaultForever]

17 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Also you aren't going to comment on the fact there is no evidence of ppl saying Jack's contract at the time of signing was bad/overpaid/too much?

All from television at the time, all outside Buffalo. People like Burke. Couldn't find any archived material, which I did briefly look for since I knew somebody would demand proof which I can't deliver cause it was from things like Off The Record, That's Hockey, Tim and Sid type stuff. Broadcasted material not tweets or blogs. Sorry, but it was discussed that way outside Buffalo and I believe someone did comment that they remembered some of it as well but as I also said, doesn't matter.

[PerreaultForever]

8 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

There were so many teams dying to trade for ROR - we just rushed it and missed out on a windfall return.  Yeah right.

Yes, teams did not want to pay the bonus. 

[inkman]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, teams did not want to pay the bonus. 

Shouldn't this be:

No, because teams didn't want to pay the bonus. 

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

All from television at the time, all outside Buffalo. People like Burke. Couldn't find any archived material, which I did briefly look for since I knew somebody would demand proof which I can't deliver cause it was from things like Off The Record, That's Hockey, Tim and Sid type stuff. Broadcasted material not tweets or blogs. Sorry, but it was discussed that way outside Buffalo and I believe someone did comment that they remembered some of it as well but as I also said, doesn't matter.

I didn't live in Buffalo when that contract was signed, I don't recall anyone thinking it was bad or eichel wouldn't live up to it. 

I'll take your word some ppl thought that but it was clearly a minority opinion. 

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

First off, I did say it was my own personal view so I thought that would make it clear I can't "prove" it as LGR4GM likes to demand when he disagrees with an opinion. So fair enough, it's just an opinion, like many others. I truly think in sports and the media one has to be wary of what is spoken publicly and one cannot assume it is factual either. What exactly did sick of losing mean and how did he get there? It's a good way to force a trade for sure and Jack has laid the groundwork for that as well should he decide he finally wants out. It's also likely that JBot can't totally be faulted on the trade because 1) he had no choice if in fact ROR demanded out privately which we'll never know and 2) it's likely the Pegulas demanded he not pay out the bonus so he took what he could get by the deadline he had and hoped for the best. 

ROR likes being the star and he responds to that role well. I'm not all the sure he likes being the other guy, the #2 center and so forth. 

When it comes to this idea of our star and centering the team around him this is perhaps where I see things very differently. You can do that, but many times where organizations do that they are not as successful as organizations who don't. Team first and no one above is a better winning approach. A team like Boston never puts the individual first and they have perennial success. They had Kessel, they had Seguin, they had Hamilton, but when they didn't fully buy in, boom they were gone. Did they win all those trades? No, but they kept winning, and the culture and the team got stronger.

So back to the C, ROR hard worker, 2 way player, leader by example, embodiment of what you want a captain to be. You make him captain, you take all the pressure of that off Jack and let him be the kid he was at the time, let him focus on scoring and emulating that leadership idea. I probably do not articulate this idea properly, but if you even get a hint of what I'm trying to say you might have some pause for thought. We are often a team of individuals not a unit working together and we frequently have some of the individuals letting others do all the hard work and to me, it's all a reflection of the culture and approach the team has used. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed response. I'll only respond to a couple of the main points. With respect to who to blame for the damaging trade I don't solely blame the GM. It's my belief (opinion) that the owner required the GM to deal him before the the bonus was due. That's the core of my complaint about the deal that has had such a lingering bad effect. There is nothing unusual about players being disgruntled. That's an inevitable part of the landscape in a business composed of talented people with strong personalities. I'm aware that I am judging this transaction in hindsight, and that is easy to do. But there is no way that even with foresight that this was going to be a good deal for us. The return for one of the best two way players in the league was in my estimation grossly inadequate. We all recognize how difficult it is to come up with a credible 2C trade scenario and what it would take to accomplish it. Why did this happen? The reason why it happened as it did because it was a rushed deal. Reacting to the impending bonus due didn't allow for a fuller exploration of the market. As I said before the best way to have handled this disgruntled player was to have a cooling off period and then a forthright discussion between the conflicting parties. I'm placing the onus more on the organization than the unhappy player. 

With respect to your point how ROR should have been handled with captaincy and in general my response is very indelicate. I'm not worried about his sensitivities and whether he should be the top dog or supporting dog. My muscular response to him is: shut up and play! If you are feeling sad and blue about your status and the team you are my response is: tough shiit!  The forcing of the issue should have been on a timetable that allowed the organization to get the best return on their asset if an irreversible decision was made to move him. 

You cite Boston as an example to follow. I totally agree. What Boston has demonstrated is that when you have a well rounded roster you have more options. If a transaction turns out bad you can easily absorb that mistake.  What Buffalo has demonstrated is that when you have a thin and imbalanced roster your options are limited. When a transaction such as the ROR deal goes bad your limited roster has less ability to absorb that mistake. The moral of the story: talent prevails.   

[7+6=13]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, teams did not want to pay the bonus. 

Well they must be cheap and stupid like the Pegula's.  Look at the can't miss center they all could have had.

[inkman]

1 hour ago, 7+6=13 said:

Well they must be cheap and stupid like the Pegula's.  Look at the can't miss center they all could have had.

Most people are cheap and stupid.  I'm only half that.  

[Doohickie]

I'm sorry... isn't this a Reinhart thread?  He isn't mentioned on this whole page....

[7+6=13]

41 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I'm sorry... isn't this a Reinhart thread?  He isn't mentioned on this whole page....

37 pages of just Reinhart would be pure torture.

[Marvin]

36 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

37 pages of just Reinhart would be pure torture.

We can talk about Paul Reinhart...?

[Thorny]

On 8/20/2020 at 1:17 AM, PerreaultForever said:

For me to be impressed the deal has to be LESS than what Kyle Connor got (ava 7.14m) because he's not as good as Kyle Connor. 

But he's better than Skinner. So he needs to get more than Skinner. So.....

My head blew up

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

We can talk about Paul Reinhart...?

Or Lili?

[7+6=13]

6 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

We can talk about Paul Reinhart...?

How dare you get off topic.

[PerreaultForever]

19 hours ago, inkman said:

Shouldn't this be:

No, because teams didn't want to pay the bonus. 

No, the way he wrote his sentence the answer was yes, and then the reason. 

[PerreaultForever]

17 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I didn't live in Buffalo when that contract was signed, I don't recall anyone thinking it was bad or eichel wouldn't live up to it. 

I'll take your word some ppl thought that but it was clearly a minority opinion. 

It came up on one of those extended all day things they run with "free agent frenzy" for one. I know Burke thought it was an awful deal and as I said, he was dead wrong (as he often is). Anyway, doesn't matter as it's not a bad contract and he has delivered on it. many games last year he was the only one earning his cheque.