Player Discussion Sam Reinhart: Part III

[OkimLom]

He spends his down time doing covert ops helping to overthrow non-democratic regimes. That, and making macrame plant hangers for elder-care facilities. Hence, no photos.

So he's the real life Michael Weston from Burn Notice?

 

[Aladyyn]

No we're talking about Reinhart getting $6 million for the 200+ games he has played and the potential of where he can go going forward. The 40 games is the hypberbolic number that some anti-Reinhart (let's be honest here) posters want to say he "produced" in one year, because apparently one year makes a contract.

It's funny because they use the other 40 games as their reasoning why he shouldn't get paid.

 

[Sabre Dance]

Did he graduate from USC? I thought I read that the picture of him at commencement was actually taken at his friend's graduation from USC. It would be pretty hard, I think, to get a degree in the off-season and in secret.

I don't know. I thought it was real. Yes it would be very hard to graduate in 3 years while also being a professional hockey player. Even harder to do it without anyone knowing.

Does anyone know the story behind this?

 

[Jim Bob]

I don't know. I thought it was real. Yes it would be very hard to graduate in 3 years while also being a professional hockey player. Even harder to do it without anyone knowing.

Does anyone know the story behind this?

He took online classes and used his time away from the rink to good use over playing Fortnite.

 

[Sabre the Win]

It's funny because they use the other 40 games as their reasoning why he shouldn't get paid.

I dont get why its so important that Reinhart gets paid? If he gets under 6 than thats a win for everyone. I don't see how paying Reinhart a large number helps the team at all going forward so why argue for it?

Hope he stays and try and get him on the lowest possible contract.

 

[Sabre Dance]

He took online classes and used his time away from the rink to good use over playing Fortnite.

It's very impressive.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

A thorough analysis of the bridge vs long term deal contract question for quality players coming off their ELCs with Reinhart used as an example. A lot of analytics mumbo jumbo that really isn't necessary, we have lots of examples and it's easy to see that it makes financial/cap sense to sign quality young players to long term deals rather than bridge them. The only reason to bridge is if you have low confidence in the player developing into a better player than he is today and they make the point that if that's what you think of the player then you probably should trade him now. There's no reason to think Reinhart won't improve, if you bridge him he is likely to increase his stats and cost considerably more. I don't see any downside risk to signing him to a long deal, IF he plateaus or even regressed a little he's still a tradable commodity.

I'd offer him 8 years $50M. If Reinhart and his agent think he's worth more than that then there's really nothing Botterill can do, bridge him and try again in a year or two.

Dear NHL Teams: Burn The Bridge Contract – AFP Analytics

 

[Satanphonehome]

Was Hogdson's contract a travesty? Think so. I am not saying Reinhart is Hodgson but I am saying he got a big payout for the same situation.

Never mind that health issues derailed his career, after his D4 season, Cody Hodgson had played 91 NHL games and put up 43 points. Sam Reinhart has played 249 games and scored 140 points.

 

[Reddawg]

I'd offer him 8 years $50M. If Reinhart and his agent think he's worth more than that then there's really nothing Botterill can do, bridge him and try again in a year or two.

He suddenly gets $500k more per season than he's even asking for? It's been reported that the player ask is $5.75m per, team is closer to $4.5m per.

 

[sabrebuild]

I dont get why its so important that Reinhart gets paid? If he gets under 6 than thats a win for everyone. I don't see how paying Reinhart a large number helps the team at all going forward so why argue for it?

Hope he stays and try and get him on the lowest possible contract.

This makes no sense. Nobody is saying they intrinsically want Reinhart to get payed a lot of money.

They simply understand the market and his place in it.

Your making this way to difficult.

 

[debaser66]

Sign him long term!

 

[sabrebuild]

He suddenly gets $500k more per season than he's even asking for? It's been reported that the player ask is $5.75m per, team is closer to $4.5m per.

Unfortunately you don’t know how many years those reports are based on. Big difference if the prices we hear are based on a 4-5 year deal or 8 years.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

He suddenly gets $500k more per season than he's even asking for? It's been reported that the player ask is $5.75m per, team is closer to $4.5m per.

I assumed those numbers are for a deal that includes no UFA years.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

 

[CatsforReinhart]

No we're talking about Reinhart getting $6 million for the 200+ games he has played and the potential of where he can go going forward. The 40 games is the hypberbolic number that some anti-Reinhart (let's be honest here) posters want to say he "produced" in one year, because apparently one year makes a contract.

No, you responded to me pointing out Reinhart getting paid 6m for 40 games.

He was invisible for the first 40 games. Again if you respond to my post when I am making the point then try to keep on on when you introduced yourself to my post.

 

[Sabre the Win]

This makes no sense. Nobody is saying they intrinsically want Reinhart to get payed a lot of money.

They simply understand the market and his place in it.

Your making this way to difficult.

Not at all, Aarvidson a year ago took 4.25 and has posted better production. Just because Detroit's contract for Larkin paid him 6.1 this year doesnt make you and others understand the market.

Reinhart is always going to be a roleplayer, not a core player. Larkin is a center and their core player, different situations.

The only way I see Reinhart being core is if he takes over as the defacto 2C.

 

[Aladyyn]

Is this where I have to remind everyone that Reinhart played well during the first 40 games of the season?

 

[sabrebuild]

Not at all, Aarvidson a year ago took 4.25 and has posted better production. Just because Detroit's contract for Larkin paid him 6.1 this year doesnt make you and others understand the market.

Reinhart is always going to be a roleplayer, not a core player. Larkin is a center and their core player, different situations.

The only way I see Reinhart being core is if he takes over as the defacto 2C.

Arvidsson had a nothing post draft year, like Reinhart. Then Arvidsson had 16 points in his first full season of 56 games. That is less points than Reinhart had goals as a rookie. And then he had a big jump, on the first line of a cup contending team.

And then his team took the proactive step, to say hey we think this kid is on that level. But because he only did it once, in a great situation, let’s leverage a long term deal that gives him good money, but we gamble he keeps it up. He gets locked into a deal that at the time would likely underpay him, but his risk is limited.

If we were discussing a Reinhart deal like this last year, I think that could have been a possible range.

But we are not in that situation. Reinhart has 3 productive years in a row. You know exactly what his baseline is. So because of the known quantity you pay more.

For instance if Arvidsson was looking for a new deal this summer, after another successful campaign, he would be getting a crap ton more money than his current deal.

Risk/reward. Vs wait to see exactly what I have and pay more for it.

Do you see how the situations are functionally different?

 

[Jame]

Not at all, Aarvidson a year ago took 4.25 and has posted better production. Just because Detroit's contract for Larkin paid him 6.1 this year doesnt make you and others understand the market.

Reinhart is always going to be a roleplayer, not a core player. Larkin is a center and their core player, different situations.

The only way I see Reinhart being core is if he takes over as the defacto 2C.

142 games / 77 points

240 games / 139 points

Kinda funny to see the “4o games” crowd use a single season argument.

Seasons (plural) matter at the negotiating table.

 

[Sabre the Win]

142 games / 77 points

240 games / 139 points

Kinda funny to see the “4o games” crowd use a single season argument.

Seasons (plural) matter at the negotiating table.

I really don't think they do other than looking at a players trajectory and if that's the case. Reinhart in 3 years hasnt really elevated his game a whole much offensively. It's almost like he came into the NHL already playing at his peak.

How much do past seasons really matter? They do somewhat but Larkin wasn't the greatest til his contract season and if they took into account previous seasons he wouldnt be getting 6.1

If a player has a 60 point season under their belt and 2 bad ones before that, the organization is gonna be like ok we know he's capable of putting up 60, he really broke out this season perhaps he can do it again and put up more.

How many times has a player gone into a contract year and broke out and everyone on the board says man hes gonna get paid, even if he's been non existent up until that point and then they get paid.

Reinharts trajectory hasnt really moved the needle to think he can be anything more 50-55 point player. I personally hope he can be a 65-70 point player but thats because I always hope for the best from our players and its probably not very likely he is that calibre of a player.

 

[Aladyyn]

I really don't think they do other than looking at a players trajectory and if that's the case. Reinhart in 3 years hasnt really elevated his game a whole much offensively. It's almost like he came into the NHL already playing at his peak.

Are we watching the same player? 2015 Reinhart and 2018 Reinhart are like night and day.

 

[sabrebuild]

I really don't think they do other than looking at a players trajectory and if that's the case. Reinhart in 3 years hasnt really elevated his game a whole much offensively. It's almost like he came into the NHL already playing at his peak.

How much do past seasons really matter? They do somewhat but Larkin wasn't the greatest til his contract season and if they took into account previous seasons he wouldnt be getting 6.1

If a player has a 60 point season under their belt and 2 bad ones before that, the organization is gonna be like ok we know he's capable of putting up 60, he really broke out this season perhaps he can do it again and put up more.

How many times has a player gone into a contract year and broke out and everyone on the board says man hes gonna get paid, even if he's been non existent up until that point and then they get paid.

Reinharts trajectory hasnt really moved the needle to think he can be anything more 50-55 point player. I personally hope he can be a 65-70 point player but thats because I always hope for the best from our players and its probably not very likely he is that calibre of a player.

The reason Larkin got 6.1, is directly related to him having a disaster 2nd season. If he had progressed to a 50-55 point second season, his deal would have been closer to 7 a year.

 

[paulmm3]

Points don't exist in a vacuum and a very much a function of the players playing around someone. There's no such thing as a 50-55 point player or a 65-70 point player.

What made William Karlsson go from 25 points in 81 games to 78 points in 82 games from 2016-17 to 2017-18? Is it William Karlsson or is it a combination of William Karlsson, the coach he's playing for, the number of minutes he's playing, the teammates he's playing with, the system he's playing in, and his usage?

 

[tsujimoto74]

Points don't exist in a vacuum and a very much a function of the players playing around someone. There's no such thing as a 50-55 point player or a 65-70 point player.

What made William Karlsson go from 25 points in 81 games to 78 points in 82 games from 2016-17 to 2017-18? Is it William Karlsson or is it a combination of William Karlsson, the coach he's playing for, the number of minutes he's playing, the teammates he's playing with, the system he's playing in, and his usage?

Don't forget puck luck. If Karlsson shoots his career average sh% last season, he scores 27 goals rather than 43 on the same number of shots. If he shoots his career worst %, the number drops to 11-12. The swing from career year to career low can be huge, and that's not even minding the sh% of common linemates.

 

[Dingo44]

Don't forget puck luck. If Karlsson shoots his career average sh% last season, he scores 27 goals rather than 43 on the same number of shots. If he shoots his career worst %, the number drops to 11-12. The swing from career year to career low can be huge, and that's not even minding the sh% of common linemates.

And Reinhart had no puck luck in the first half of last season. His game improved in a number of ways the last 40, but there also were a lot of chances he had in the first half that just didn't go in.