Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sweetlou

Reinhart, sign him or trade him?

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Taro T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...