Player Discussion Sam Reinhart - Is he the real deal?

[joshjull]

“Sam bet on himself” is the Botterill Excuse equivalent of “Pegula forced a bonus deadline”.

Thats just lazy trying to hide behind that trade (that shall not be discussed outside its thread)

Logic would say Sam wasn’t getting offered what he thinks he should get for 8yrs. So he decides to take the bridge as camp is starting. The idea being he will go out and show that he’s worth what he wants.

The reality is neither you nor I have any idea what Sam’s camp was looking for per year on a 8yr deal. Until we do, its impossible to know if Botts stepping away was a good idea or a bad one. We also won’t have something to compare to whatever he does get on his next deal.


Btw I’m someone that wanted Sam signed to 8yrs last offseason (8x7 or so I thought worked) and was disappointed he was bridged.

 

[joshjull]

I didn't say that - 'Term was never reported, could have been 5 years could have been 8.' Anybody's guess as to how many years Reinhart was willing to commit for at $5.75M.

Fair enough you didn't say that. But the amount of years matter. I find it hard to believe an 8yr deal was being discussed when the 5.75mil from Sam and 4.5mil from the Sabres was coming out. A 6 year deal would make more sense in light of some other deals signed at the time. But keep in mind all this info was coming from Jeremy White's super secret Sabres source at the time.

 

[Jame]

Thats just lazy trying to hide behind that trade (that shall not be discussed outside its thread)

Logic would say Sam wasn’t getting offered what he thinks he should get for 8yrs. So he decides to take the bridge as camp is starting. The idea being he will go out and show that he’s worth what he wants.

Logic would say one the leagues worst GMs failed to come close to what Reinhart was worth long term.

“Sam bet on himself” is just another cover story for Botts

The reality is neither you nor I have any idea what Sam’s camp was looking for per year on a 8yr deal. Until we do, its impossible to know if Botts stepping away was a good idea or a bad one. We also won’t have something to compare to whatever he does get on his next deal.


Btw I’m someone that wanted Sam signed to 8yrs last offseason (8x7 or so I thought worked) and was disappointed he was bridged.

Right which is why you should stop inventing theories and stick with the facts. Botts didn’t get one of our top talents locked up long term... and instead allowed two years of growth in non contending year to grow the cost significantly.

Botts didn’t get Reinhart locked up long term. It’s a huge fail. There’s no logic needed.

 

[joshjull]

Logic would say one the leagues worst GMs failed to come close to what Reinhart was worth long term.

“Sam bet on himself” is just another cover story for Botts



Right which is why you should stop inventing theories and stick with the facts. Botts didn’t get one of our top talents locked up long term... and instead allowed two years of growth in non contending year to grow the cost significantly.

Botts didn’t get Reinhart locked up long term. It’s a huge fail. There’s no logic needed.

Oh facts, like the fact that Sam is under team control for several more years and isn't going anywhere any time soon. The fact that have plenty of time to get him locked up long term. That fact that even though it might cost a more per year by waiting. We will actually have him under team control longer in doing so. So getting bent out of shape he isn't sign long term yet is a somewhat pointless exercise.

This reminds of the your railing against Jack's deal.. Where you insisted a smart organization would never do this. We would all be shown how its done by the "smarter" Leafs management. They will keep Mathews/Marner deals below Jack's even if they have to go less than max term to do it. That's because they know how to manage the cap.

 

[Buffaloed]

Reinhart is 3 years younger and has produced more in the same number of years in the NHL. Karlsson had one outlier year and Vegas refused to pay him going forward on the basis of that one year. I think $7M if Sam has another good year is perfectly fine. On a slightly different note I would rather pay a guy we know with a history of consistency and steady development than throw money at other team's players when the team that had him won't.

Factor in the bucks saved on the bridge deal and $7M x 8 yrs looks good.
[(2)$3.65 + 8($7)]/10 = $6.33 AAV

 

[Jame]

Oh facts, like the fact that Sam is under team control for several more years and isn't going anywhere any time soon. We have plenty of time to get him locked up long term. So getting bent out of shape he isn't sign long term yet is a somewhat pointless exercise.

Pftttttttttyyyy

This reminds of the your railing against Jack's deal.. Where you insisted a smart organization would never do this. We would all be shown how its done by the "smarter" Leafs management. They will keep Mathews/Marner deals below Jack's even if they have to go less than max term to do it. That's because they know how to manage the cap.

Yea... where I railed against jack’s deal setting a terrible precedent and exasperating the culture problem.

Thanks for the pat on the back

 

[joshjull]

Pftttttttttyyyy



Yea... where I railed against jack’s deal setting a terrible precedent and exasperating the culture problem.

Thanks for the pat on the back

True to form you changed the subject when your wrong. Jack's deal is right where it belongs relative to the other young guys getting huge deals off ELCs. You're off base on the culture problem but I'm not getting into that on here.

Much like worrying about Sam on a bridge is pointless. Whatever he gets on his next deal he will be worth it and we will have had him for 2 years (maybe longer) than we would have otherwise had he signed long term last year.​

 

[Jame]

Factor in the bucks saved on the bridge deal and $7M x 8 yrs looks good.
[(2)$3.65 + 8($7)]/10 = $6.33 AAV

You’re buying 6 years of UFA with that deal... those cost 9 million per now. Even if you can get the 2 remaining RFA years at 6.5... that’s an average of ~8.375 over 8 years.... and that’s probably the low end.

 

[Jame]

True to form you changed the subject when your wrong. Jack's deal is right where it belongs relative to the other young guys getting huge deals off ELCs. You're off base on the culture problem but I'm not getting into that on here.​

Actually, you changed the subject to Eichel... and I corrected your misplaced context.

Much like worrying about Sam on a bridge is pointless. Whatever he gets on his next deal he will be worth it and we will have had him for 2 years (maybe longer) than we would have otherwise had he signed long term last year.

​

Oh right, the bridge is going to benefit us by having him under contract for big dollars in his early 30s... how did I forget

 

[joshjull]

Actually, you changed the subject to Eichel... and I corrected your misplaced context.

​

Oh right, the bridge is going to benefit us by having him under contract for big dollars in his early 30s... how did I forget

There was no misplaced context. You were simply wrong about Mathews contract and soon Marners’. Spinning fables about culture doesn’t change that.

As for Sam, we didn’t sign him to the ideal long term cheap deal. I get being frustrated by that because I was. But we have a wide open cap situation going forward. If Sam is making 6mil or 9mil per going forward after next season we will be fine (Barring a lot of young talent breaking out at once, which is a good problem to have).

Its certainly not going to make or break our chances at building a winning team. Its not prefect but its more than workable. Its not a defense of how his situation was handled but expressing how little I’m worried about Sam getting a big deal going forward. He’ll be worth whatever it is and we will still have cap flexibility.

 

[MayDayMayDay]

*reads thread title

*clicks on thread

*clicks in reply box

Yes. Yes he is.

*exits thread

 

[Buffaloed]

This seemed to have got lost in Botterill's comments:
Time to 'sell' the Sabres: What they have, what they need...

First off, Botterill made it clear Saturday that Reinhart is a right winger and not an ideal candidate to move to center.
“You have to be open to it, and we’ll see how things go with Ralph with that discussion, but I also think over the last year or so, he’s excelled on the wing, and I think he’s in a position where he can drive a line from the wing,” Botterill said. “You’ve seen that a lot in the National Hockey League. There’s certainly a focus on center, but some of the higher-end skill players are driving lines from the wing.”

 

[Samsonite23]

One of the only benefits of the Sabres struggling was that they could sign Sam to a long term contract at cheaper than it should be. We somehow even ruined that.

He was always going to improve year over year. That’s the type of player he is. And he’ll keep doing it.

 

[OkimLom]

One of the only benefits of the Sabres struggling was that they could sign Sam to a long term contract at cheaper than it should be. We somehow even ruined that.

He was always going to improve year over year. That’s the type of player he is. And he’ll keep doing it.

Continued to improve with coaching that got worse each year...Hopefully this is the start of having quality coaching. I can just imagine what Reinhart can do when put into position to utilize his strengths.

 

[Dubi Doo]

This seemed to have got lost in Botterill's comments:
Time to 'sell' the Sabres: What they have, what they need...

I'm really getting tired of Big Head's narrow minded view. Try him at center. The kid has all the attributes you'd like to see in a center.

 

[Chainshot]

I'm really getting tired of Big Head's narrow minded view. Try him at center. The kid has all the attributes you'd like to see in a center.

Botts seems to operate in an old school, conservative fashion. I doubt he changes now.

 

[dasaybz]

Logic would say one the leagues worst GMs failed to come close to what Reinhart was worth long term.

“Sam bet on himself” is just another cover story for Botts



Right which is why you should stop inventing theories and stick with the facts. Botts didn’t get one of our top talents locked up long term... and instead allowed two years of growth in non contending year to grow the cost significantly.

Botts didn’t get Reinhart locked up long term. It’s a huge fail. There’s no logic needed.

Maybe Reinhart wanted a bridge deal and not a 5 mil per year deal? Not that hard to fathom.

 

[Chainshot]

Maybe Reinhart wanted a bridge deal and not a 5 mil per year deal? Not that hard to fathom.

Very possible. Given how contracts have gone, I'm sure he wasn't operating in a vacuum with the decision. His agent and the PA will possit for as much money as possible. The gamble is on himself, and it seems that he's cocksure enough to take that bet.

 

[dasaybz]

Very possible. Given how contracts have gone, I'm sure he wasn't operating in a vacuum with the decision. His agent and the PA will possit for as much money as possible. The gamble is on himself, and it seems that he's cocksure enough to take that bet.

If I was Sam, I wouldn't sign a long term deal last year either. Every year salaries just keep going up and up, and he would have been foolish to sign long term last year. Blaming Botts for not signing him to a long term deal is pushing it. Sam has just as much leverage as Botts, maybe even more.

 

[Chainshot]

If I was Sam, I wouldn't sign a long term deal last year either. Every year salaries just keep going up and up, and he would have been foolish to sign long term last year. Blaming Botts for not signing him to a long term deal is pushing it. Sam has just as much leverage as Botts, maybe even more.

Yeah, it's how well can they strike a balance between what Reinhart could be paid and what is true economy. That requires soft skills and organizational goodwill from both the sides, especially from management. It would have been nice to see Reinhart on a quality long-term deal that would now offer economy. Hopefully that is still possible with his next deal.

 

[Jame]

Maybe Reinhart wanted a bridge deal and not a 5 mil per year deal? Not that hard to fathom.

It's not hard to fathom Botts moronically holding to 5 million per on a long term deal... I agree.

 

[Jame]

Yeah, it's how well can they strike a balance between what Reinhart could be paid and what is true economy. That requires soft skills and organizational goodwill from both the sides, especially from management. It would have been nice to see Reinhart on a quality long-term deal that would now offer economy. Hopefully that is still possible with his next deal.

He should've been offering 6 years / 6.5 per.... and Reinhart would've been locked in through his prime at a bargain....

Let's say the bridge deal was more appealing to Reinhart because he felt they could get to 8 per after the bridge. In that case a 6 year / 6.5 deal gets him to the same place. And then he has the opportunity to earn significantly more as a free agent at 28 years old.....

The reality is Botts incompetence forced Reinhart to bet on himself, because Botts was too stupid to place the bet himself.

Year	Age	Salary 1	Salary 2
1	23	3.85	6.5
2	24	3.85	6.5
3	25	8	6.5
4	26	8	6.5
5	27	8	6.5
6	28	8	6.5
	6 year gross	39.7	39
7	29	8	UFA
8	30	8
9	31	8
10	32	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[EichHart]

He should've been offering 6 years / 6.5 per.... and Reinhart would've been locked in through his prime at a bargain....

Let's say the bridge deal was more appealing to Reinhart because he felt they could get to 8 per after the bridge. In that case a 6 year / 6.5 deal gets him to the same place. And then he has the opportunity to earn significantly more as a free agent at 28 years old.....

The reality is Botts incompetence forced Reinhart to bet on himself, because Botts was too stupid to place the bet himself.

Year	Age	Salary 1	Salary 2
1	23	3.85	6.5
2	24	3.85	6.5
3	25	8	6.5
4	26	8	6.5
5	27	8	6.5
6	28	8	6.5
	6 year gross	39.7	39
7	29	8	UFA
8	30	8
9	31	8
10	32	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Reinhart didn't want that. He wanted a short prove it to me deal as he under performed early on.

 

[Jame]

Reinhart didn't want that. He wanted a short prove it to me deal as he under performed early on.

As the table lays out... he gets the best of both worlds... he gets the same amount of money over 6 years, with the 'prove it' factor creating an even bigger potential windfall as a UFA at 28 years old.

 

[dasaybz]

He should've been offering 6 years / 6.5 per.... and Reinhart would've been locked in through his prime at a bargain....

Let's say the bridge deal was more appealing to Reinhart because he felt they could get to 8 per after the bridge. In that case a 6 year / 6.5 deal gets him to the same place. And then he has the opportunity to earn significantly more as a free agent at 28 years old.....

The reality is Botts incompetence forced Reinhart to bet on himself, because Botts was too stupid to place the bet himself.

Year	Age	Salary 1	Salary 2
1	23	3.85	6.5
2	24	3.85	6.5
3	25	8	6.5
4	26	8	6.5
5	27	8	6.5
6	28	8	6.5
	6 year gross	39.7	39
7	29	8	UFA
8	30	8
9	31	8
10	32	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So the Sabres should have offered him a 6.5x6 deal after coming off a 42, 47, and 50 point season?