Proposal: Sam Reinhart to Anaheim

[Jim Bob]

My counter offer: Reinhart for Fowler and Theodore

 

[gallagt01]

How is that terrible?

Vatanen is not far behind Linholm and Larrson considered the replacement for whichever defensemen Anaheim losses. You get 2 top 4 defensemen, yes one is unproven and the other has less experience than Linholm. It's not terrible. I also said I would consider but I'd be reluctant to trade Samson at this stage of his career.

Vatanen isn't even close to Lindholm.

You ripped on the Anaheim poster for "expecting a bag of spare parts for Reinhart" (which he never said or implied) and then...proposed we trade Reinhart for a bag of spare parts.

The discussion starts (and ends, since the Ducks rightfully wouldn't be interested) at Lindholm.

 

[tsujimoto74]

So I'm guessing the Reinhart for Lindholm idea doesn't sit well with our Anaheim friend. Did you expect us to trade a 20 year potential stud centermen for a bag of spare parts? It's gonna cost you a 22 year old backend player with tons of potential.

No doubt Samson's upside is higher than Hampus' but at this stage your guy have "proven more." At the end of the days you are talking about 1 season vs 3 seasons.

I'd be willing to consider:

Reinhart and a 2nd for Sami Vatanen, Jacob Larsson and a 1st.

you get a young scorer you want and we get 2 young mobile defensemen.

That offer is just as bad as the one in OP. Vatanen is nowhere near special enough to trade Reinhart for, doesn't matter what you add to him.

 

[Dingo44]

I wouldn't trade Reinhart for anyone on the Ducks or for any amount of Ducks.

Maybe Lindholm plus 2016 & 2017 firsts - not lottery protected.

But still no. We tanked an entire season to assure we get Reinhart and then he's already exceeded our expectations. We didn't tank for a LHD and spare parts and then a couple maybes.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I wouldn't trade Reinhart for anyone on the Ducks or for any amount of Ducks.

Maybe Lindholm plus 2016 & 2017 firsts - not lottery protected.

But still no. We tanked an entire season to assure we get Reinhart and then he's already exceeded our expectations. We didn't tank for a LHD and spare parts and then a couple maybes.

and if we tanked an entire season and got Lindholm it would be as good, just a LHD... ok, 1st pair for the next decade

 

[Kennerdell]

I wouldn't trade Reinhart for anyone on the Ducks or for any amount of Ducks.

Maybe Lindholm plus 2016 & 2017 firsts - not lottery protected.

But still no. We tanked an entire season to assure we get Reinhart and then he's already exceeded our expectations. We didn't tank for a LHD and spare parts and then a couple maybes.

I'm not going to fault people for continually kicking the tires on Reinhart. He is almost not talked about at all on the main boards. Or very much in general for the most part. If you watch him play you see that he has elite talent already. We know this here. But unless you take your time to single him out and watch him during a game it's difficult to really appreciate his game. So to the common fan they usually have a hard time understanding his value as being what we say it is. He's that guy who does every little thing right and leads you through a deep cup run to win the whole thing.

But now he knows.

 

[Myllz]

Yeah, I don't really understand the whole "we tanked an entire season for Reinhart" argument. No we didn't, we tanked the entire season for a top pick that would improve the team. If that pick turns into Lindholm and the team improves, what's the problem? I get that people become attached to players on the team, but that shouldn't mean not trading one of them if it's improving your roster. Now if you want to argue trading Reinhart for Lindholm wouldn't improve the team, that's a better response.

 

[TehDoak]

I'm pretty staunchly opposed to moving Reinhart. But if we were to move him, Lindholm is probably one of the few players I'd consider moving him for.

Lindholm is going to be a top 15 defender in the league shortly (if he's not already there). Getting him potentially gives us a Weber-Josi type top pairing with Eichel/O'Reilly centering the the top 2 lines. Yes, it creates a hole at forward we have to fill, but it basically sets a long term foundation on which we can build a contender.

I'm certainly aware what Reinhart brings to the table, and I think he's going to be a special player. But all the talent in the world up front won't mean a damn thing if you don't have a defense.

 

[Jim Carr's Rug]

'Value' is part of the discussion, of course -- but -- there shouldn't even be a discussion. I think it's okay to have an attachment to him that isn't told by the tale of the tape. Reinhart is part of our payment for all the crap we've lived through. He's identity. Might as well trade away the team name. We earned him.

Sentimental? Sure. I can own that. Sports are irrational, anyway.

Great post Sig.

 

[Dingo44]

Here's the thing though - and if you want to complain that I'm attached to Reinhart because of where we picked him (I'm attached to him because of HIM but OK, I did say that), that's fine.

But we can offer sheet Lindholm if he is the ONE PIECE WE NEED and then we give up a few picks - and that's fine. I doubt any of those picks give us another player at the level of Reinhart. Maybe they give us Lindholm, but not another Reinhart.

So offer sheet the guy and be done with it.

I hate the title of this thread.

 

[stokes84]

Lindholm is a nice young player, but he has gotten massively overrated on this forum. He's not any sort of game changer. Good player, but you don't trade away players like Reinhart for players like Lindholm. And for all this talk of needing elite defense, it's nice to see Pittsburgh about to win it all with Letang and a bunch of nobodies.

 

[sabrebuild]

How is that terrible?

Vatanen is not far behind Linholm and Larrson considered the replacement for whichever defensemen Anaheim losses. You get 2 top 4 defensemen, yes one is unproven and the other has less experience than Linholm. It's not terrible. I also said I would consider but I'd be reluctant to trade Samson at this stage of his career.

It's terrible because your trading a dollar bill for quarters.

Samson is already a stud, in 2 years he will be one of the best forwards in the league. You don't trade patrice bergeron for brian campbell and spare parts.

 

[Myllz]

Lindholm is a nice young player, but he has gotten massively overrated on this forum. He's not any sort of game changer. Good player, but you don't trade away players like Reinhart for players like Lindholm. And for all this talk of needing elite defense, it's nice to see Pittsburgh about to win it all with Letang and a bunch of nobodies.

At this point in their careers, Lindholm is just as much of a game changer as Reinhart.

 

[Jim Bob]

It's terrible because your trading a dollar bill for quarters.

Samson is already a stud, in 2 years he will be one of the best forwards in the league. You don't trade patrice bergeron for brian campbell and spare parts.

Sam had a solid rookie season and has a boatload of potential.

I think it's a bit early to say he's a stud after a 0.53 pts/gp (177th in the NHL) rookie year.

Reinhart's upside is the main argument I could see for why not to make a deal like Reinhart for Lindholm despite Lindholm filling more of a positional need for this team. That and the contract and expansion draft angle, as well.

But, Reinhart isn't at the "stud" level for me after just a solid rookie season.

If he puts up 65+ points next season......

 

[stokes84]

At this point in their careers, Lindholm is just as much of a game changer as Reinhart.

Considering he already has 3 full NHL seasons under his belt, I would hope so.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Yeah I have to chime in too...I would NOT trade Reinhart for Lindholm unless every other option fell through (offer sheet, trades for Lindholm with other assets or other LHDs). It's not that I think Reinhart is so much more valuable (he is, but not by a lot), but that the Ducks are in a tough spot right now and giving them a perfect trade option with full value is giving them an easy out. Why do that when you could possibly get him or a similar player without trading Reinhart?

I actually like the front loaded offer sheet idea that results in a 7.2 mil or so cap hit and a 1st, 2nd, 3rd compensation. Either that or a trade option using offer sheet leverage for a similar price in players/prospects lesser than Reinhart.

I'd consider it, but definitely not now or over the next month or so.

 

[Myllz]

Considering he already has 3 full NHL seasons under his belt, I would hope so.

So...he is a game changer, then?

 

[stokes84]

So...he is a game changer, then?

No...

 

[Myllz]

No...

Then neither is Sam.

 

[stokes84]

Then neither is Sam.

Did I say he was at this moment? He just finished his rookie season...

 

[old kummelweck]

I wouldn't even entertain offers on Reinhart at this point unless maybe Subban was in the discussion.

yep, or the kid that went ahead of him his draft year.

 

[Aladyyn]

yep, or the kid that went ahead of him his draft year.

Ekblad? No way.

 

[Myllz]

Did I say he was at this moment? He just finished his rookie season...

Then I suppose I think more highly of Sam than you do, since he was a game changer on a number of nights last season.

 

[stokes84]

Then I suppose I think more highly of Sam than you do, since he was a game changer on a number of nights last season.

Nic Deslauriers was a game changer on the odd night last season. Being a game changer means you do it on a consistent basis. Sam has it in him, but he isn't there yet. I don't think Lindholm has that kind of quality.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

Reinhart is as untouchable as Eichel for now, we are not Cup contenders yet so no reason to be desperate in a search of the missing stud LHD.

Down the road if Eichel is the franchise 1C on a level with the elite of the league and we are still missing a big ingredient then one of ROR or Reinhart may be what it takes to get it.