Suitors for Reinhart?

[LGR4GM]

22 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think Benning’s statements are more smoke than fire.

They aren’t moving EP, Quinn, or Horvat. Moving Boeser or Miller is hard because it creates new holes. No one else is worth a significant return.

As far as the Sabres are concerned, Reinhart for their 1st rounder or Miller or Boeser might have some sense from a value perspective, Im not sure it makes sense from a team-building perspective, from either side.

Risto for Schmidt maybe?

Just remember Reinhart is the only top 6 RW on the team and the only top 6 C on the team as well because Jack is injured and may get traded. 

[Thorny]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think Benning’s statements are more smoke than fire.

They aren’t moving EP, Quinn, or Horvat. Moving Boeser or Miller is hard because it creates new holes. No one else is worth a significant return.

As far as the Sabres are concerned, Reinhart for their 1st rounder or Miller or Boeser might have some sense from a value perspective, Im not sure it makes sense from a team-building perspective, from either side.

Risto for Schmidt maybe?

I actually think we'd make good partners for the reasons you alluded to - I think the GMs of the respective teams are after different things this offseason so there could be a potential match, like the deal you outlined and I bolded

Edited May 28, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I actually think we'd make good partners for the reasons you alluded to - I think the GMs of the respective teams are after different things this offseason so there could be a potential match, like the deal you outlined and I bolded

You want to trade Reinhart for a 1st round pick in the most unpredictable draft since 2012? 

[dudacek]

Reinhart for what is currently pick 9 only makes sense if there is no way you can sign him, and if there is no intention to try to make the playoffs next year.

 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You want to trade Reinhart for a 1st round pick in the most unpredictable draft since 2012? 

If I only posted about why ideas *I* like make sense from my perspective and didn't chime it at all on the ideas I think *they'd* like that make sense under the context of the mindset I am supposing THEM to be operating under, I wouldn't have like one 20th of the posts I have racked up on this website. Everyone's MMV on whether that's for the better or for the worse

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You want to trade Reinhart for a 1st round pick in the most unpredictable draft since 2012? 

He doesn’t want to, he believes Adams is pushing the reset button and wants to acquire futures for his best players who are 24 or older.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by dudacek

[Thorny]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You want to trade Reinhart for a 1st round pick in the most unpredictable draft since 2012? 

^ i'll speak in our meme dialect 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Reinhart for what is currently pick 9 only makes sense if there is no way you can sign him, and if there is no intention to try to make the playoffs next year.

 

And if you are bad at trading consistent 20g 50pt players who play 80 games every year. 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If I only posted about why ideas *I* like make sense from my perspective and didn't chime it at all on the ideas I think *they'd* like that make sense under the context of the mindset I am supposing THEM to be operating under, I wouldn't have like one 20th of the posts I have racked up on this website. Everyone's MMV on whether that's for the better or for the worse

For the record, I don’t see Adams embarking on a mini-tank, I think he’s on a cleanse.

I don’t think the business of the Buffalo Sabres can afford the extend-the-goalposts GM job protection scheme  you think is going on.

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And if you are bad at trading consistent 20g 50pt players who play 80 games every year. 

Let’s not slip into the propaganda that sometimes is preached here and minimize the player.

Over the past 3 years Sam is a 27-goal, 62-point scorer over 82 games who ranks just outside the top-10 best point producing RWs in the NHL.

 

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

For the record, I don’t see Adams embarking on a mini-tank, I think he’s on a cleanse.

I don’t think the business of the Buffalo Sabres can afford the extend-the-goalposts GM job protection scheme  you think is going on.

I'm definitely pushing the boundaries on the extent of things, admittedly. But A) the implausible depths to which this franchise has sunk the last odd-decade proves said extents are at least possible, and B) it makes for more interesting conversation to consider all possibilities. 

To me it's not so much that I think he's tanking, it's that the mere act of WINNING potentially not being *the* priority is honestly, to me, a really big deal and a really big mistake. 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Let’s not slip into the propaganda that sometimes is preached here and minimize the player.

Over the past 3 years Sam is a 27-goal, 62-point scorer over 82 games who ranks just outside the top-10 best point producing RWs in the NHL.

 

And he's fallen way down the Helmet Adjustment season leaders list, of late

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm definitely pushing the boundaries on the extent of things, admittedly. But A) the implausible depths to which this franchise has sunk the last odd-decade proves said extents are at least possible, and B) it makes for more interesting conversation to consider all possibilities. 

To me it's not so much that I think he's tanking, it's that the mere act of WINNING potentially not being *the* priority is honestly, to me, a really big deal and a really big mistake. 

How can we possibly be priorizing winning, when we are about to dump our leader and best player?

Because our leader and best player isn’t helping us win; let’s replace him with people who can, both from inside and outside the organization.

Not saying I agree, but it’s the path I think Adams has chosen.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, dudacek said:

How can we possibly be priorizing winning, when we are about to dump our leader and best player?

Because our leader and best player isn’t helping us win; let’s replace him with people who can, both from inside and outside the organization.

Not saying I agree, but it’s the path I think Adams has chosen.

Which makes no logical sense. The top 2 players on the team we haven't won with... so let's get bits and pieces for them so we can then win! 

We can't win because we've never developed the depth to do it and we keep doing dumb things like jettison useful players for peanuts because the owner is unhappy with how they interview. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

How can we possibly be priorizing winning, when we are about to dump our leader and best player?

Because our leader and best player isn’t helping us win; let’s replace him with people who can, both from inside and outside the organization.

Not saying I agree, but it’s the path I think Adams has chosen.

Pretty much. That's why I talk about dealing Reinhart for a top 10 pick - under the context of what Adams might be planning - dealing him for futures as a concept makes sense if we are dealing Jack.

Of course, that scenario, where we "can't" prioritize winning, just like you said is a chosen path. 

[Scottysabres]

54 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Reinhart for what is currently pick 9 only makes sense if there is no way you can sign him, and if there is no intention to try to make the playoffs next year.

 

I'm not sold on this line of thought. The reasoning, the kids (Mitts, Cozens and others) really showed a compete level under Granato. Yes, Reinhart was a part of that, but I don't believe he's re-signing here. If we are going to move him, now is the time, and I still believe even with Jack, Sam and Risto gone, this team will compete next season.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which makes no logical sense. The top 2 players on the team we haven't won with... so let's get bits and pieces for them so we can then win! 

We can't win because we've never developed the depth to do it and we keep doing dumb things like jettison useful players for peanuts because the owner is unhappy with how they interview. 

Please don’t take this as arguing your point, just elaborating on what might be Adams POV. Remember what went on prior to June has nothing to do with him.

Jack Eichel has huge amount of presence and influence in the room

Jack Eichel is down on the organization and complains a lot

Jack Eichel is a bit of a prima Donna constantly making situations about him

Jack Eichel is prone to riding an emotional roller coaster in games and that reflects in his play

Jack Eichel has a sharp tongue that inhibits the younger players from stepping up

Jack Eichel is not buying in to what Adams is preaching

In short, Jack is presenting himself as an obstacle to building the persistence, togetherness and buy-in Adams has frequently cited as necessary.

Then you unexpectedly remove Jack from the equation, and all of a sudden Reinhart, Dahlin and Mittelstadt and others start to blossom into what you think they should be.

And maybe it cements your opinion that the team might be better off with other parts that fit your vision than it is with Jack Eichel. Not the best players, but the right ones.

Im not saying any of this is, in fact, what is going on, but I am saying it does match the way Adams is behaving.

 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

I'm not sold on this line of thought. The reasoning, the kids (Mitts, Cozens and others) really showed a compete level under Granato. Yes, Reinhart was a part of that, but I don't believe he's re-signing here. If we are going to move him, now is the time, and I still believe even with Jack, Sam and Risto gone, this team will compete next season.

My post was not about trading Sam, it’s about trading him for an asset that is three years away from helping.

[nfreeman]

To me the question of trading Eichel and Reino comes down to whether it’s possible to win with 2 very important guys who don’t want to be here (which I believe to be the case at this point in time).

KA needs to factor in the likelihood of Eichel and Reino changing their minds and buying in and weigh it against the likelihood of the lack of buy-in torpedoing yet another season and further setting the franchise back.

In a sense Reino will make KA’s decision easier in that if Reino isn’t interested in a long-term deal, KA can safely assume that Reino isn’t going to buy in and KA will know that he needs to trade him.  Of course, KA needs to actually offer a long-term deal to Reino to learn whether Reino is interested, but I’m sure KA knows that.

Eichel is a trickier matter, as he is a more precious asset and under team control AND has the huge uncertainty of his injury complicating matters.  So while Reino will kinda make KA’s decision for him, it’s quite possible that even if Eichel pushes to be traded, no one makes an acceptable offer for him because of the injury.

Best case scenario is that Reino signs a long term deal, the Sabres bring in a credible coach and goalie and make a few other credible moves, Jack recovers, likes the Sabres’ moves and returns determined to lift the team, and the youngsters continue to improve.

That’s a lot of fairly unlikely dominoes falling the Sabres’ way.  

[Thorny]

10 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

To me the question of trading Eichel and Reino comes down to whether it’s possible to win with 2 very important guys who don’t want to be here (which I believe to be the case at this point in time).

KA needs to factor in the likelihood of Eichel and Reino changing their minds and buying in and weigh it against the likelihood of the lack of buy-in torpedoing yet another season and further setting the franchise back.

In a sense Reino will make KA’s decision easier in that if Reino isn’t interested in a long-term deal, KA can safely assume that Reino isn’t going to buy in and KA will know that he needs to trade him.  Of course, KA needs to actually offer a long-term deal to Reino to learn whether Reino is interested, but I’m sure KA knows that.

Eichel is a trickier matter, as he is a more precious asset and under team control AND has the huge uncertainty of his injury complicating matters.  So while Reino will kinda make KA’s decision for him, it’s quite possible that even if Eichel pushes to be traded, no one makes an acceptable offer for him because of the injury.

Best case scenario is that Reino signs a long term deal, the Sabres bring in a credible coach and goalie and make a few other credible moves, Jack recovers, likes the Sabres’ moves and returns determined to lift the team, and the youngsters continue to improve.

That’s a lot of fairly unlikely dominoes falling the Sabres’ way.  

Re: the bold - I think in this case, where there's a will there's definitely a way. 

I agree Eichel's is the trickiest to navigate but Reinhart's decision is the thing definitely most outside their control. It's funny how that developed for reasons really nothing to do with the "not wanna be here" thing. Just a decision making process over multiple off seasons and multiple GMs. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Thorny

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

To me the question of trading Eichel and Reino comes down to whether it’s possible to win with 2 very important guys who don’t want to be here (which I believe to be the case at this point in time).

KA needs to factor in the likelihood of Eichel and Reino changing their minds and buying in and weigh it against the likelihood of the lack of buy-in torpedoing yet another season and further setting the franchise back.

In a sense Reino will make KA’s decision easier in that if Reino isn’t interested in a long-term deal, KA can safely assume that Reino isn’t going to buy in and KA will know that he needs to trade him.  Of course, KA needs to actually offer a long-term deal to Reino to learn whether Reino is interested, but I’m sure KA knows that.

Eichel is a trickier matter, as he is a more precious asset and under team control AND has the huge uncertainty of his injury complicating matters.  So while Reino will kinda make KA’s decision for him, it’s quite possible that even if Eichel pushes to be traded, no one makes an acceptable offer for him because of the injury.

Best case scenario is that Reino signs a long term deal, the Sabres bring in a credible coach and goalie and make a few other credible moves, Jack recovers, likes the Sabres’ moves and returns determined to lift the team, and the youngsters continue to improve.

That’s a lot of fairly unlikely dominoes falling the Sabres’ way.  

Reinhart showed this season that he is going to be a pro on the ice regardless of circumstance.  He arguably played the best hockey of his career on a team going no where, at a new position, with a new HC mid season, without Jack and shepherding a bunch of kids.  I've said many times that I'm ok with moving one of Jack or Sam, but not both, but I think both is a distinct possibility.  I'm also not sure which of the two to keep if I had a choice.  Jack is easier to keep because he has a contract and no leverage but his future NMC and bad attitude.  Sam has significant leverage because he can play out his final year and be a UFA.  KA can also try to bring both back and see how things go.  If they go poorly again, both can still be moved at the deadline.  

After reading @dudacek and others thoughts I'm leaning toward trading Jack if we can get a buy in from Sam.  I maybe in the minority but I liked the spine of Sam, Mitts and Cozens and think they'll even be better next season.  I'm offering Sam 7year and 50 mill with a limited NMC after two years and the C, if he turns in down, trade him and tell Jack he's staying put and to grow up. 

[Brawndo]

This trade would ***** suck for the Sabres 

 

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

This trade would ***** suck for the Sabres 

 

That would be hella dumb. 

[Scottysabres]

27 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

This trade would ***** suck for the Sabres 

 

Well, the Pegula's have already nose dived the franchise in to the ground, may as well start shoveling the dirt on it.

[nfreeman]

54 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

This trade would ***** suck for the Sabres 

 

Jeez.  When a guy like Friedman, who’s got a fair amount of credibility, puts something like that out there, it really shows IMHO that a high percentage of all of this theorizing by hockey writers is just hot air.