Proposal: Sam Reinhart to van

[Cogburn]

Not sure why the Canucks want Reinhart other than the fact that he’s good.

The ask value-wise would be similar to what you would ask for Boeser.

The ask content-wise would be for a player of similar value and age, or a package of young players, with at least one of them projecting to be Reinhart level. The Sabres can use players at all positions, style-wise they’d prefer some energy or edge, but value would supersede that.

Miller or Boeser or your 1st are of similar value and would start a conversation.

Hoglander, Podkolzin, Dipietro and next year’s 1st are assets that could anchor a package offer.

The Sabres can take cap back - maybe Roussel, Holtby or Schmidt - but they won’t give it away. Those players are not of interest at their current contracts, but they might take one if the overall package justified the cap hit.

Pretty much anyone on the Sabres roster other than Dahlin and Cozens would be on the table if you are trying to build a package, but remember how much value Reinhart has on his own.

If you can find something that works within those parameters it’s worth a shot. But I suspect other teams are better matches.

Our first round pick is an absolutely fine place to start for me. The idea would be to add Reinhart to our core, not to trade Miller or Boeser for him though.

Hog and Pod are not on the table, if it's my call though. As ELCs, their contributions are far more valuable to us then to any other team. DiPietro is definitely available, given how Demko has been looking of late. I'd consider Rathbone too, but many of my fellows would likely string me up if I said that in person.

Roussel or Holtby, assuming he's not on the Kraken after the expansion draft, work as cap dumps if Eriksson's single year at 4.875 million dollar cap hit is simply too much. I wouldn't be interested in adding significantly to get one of them included though. Cap will have to return whether it is Vancouver, or I'd assume a team looking to compete that is in better shape creating a package for Reinhart. Schmidt, as far as most of us are concerned, is not a cap dump. Over paid? Sure. But he's not someone we'd be throwing into a trade just to ditch the cap hit...someone has to play D here.

Anyway, if a 1st, Dipietro and Roussel/Holtby can get us moving forward, I'm in. Any more, and I'd lose interest pretty quickly though.

 

[Hierso]

if buffalo is trading Zreinhart they would be getting younger players or picks in return

not older players who are older than him and have higher cap hits.

it costs you a 1sr+ just to move Eriksson just for a 7th.

Reinhart is better than Miller. Clearly better.

the offer is an insult.

I genuinely don't understand what the bolded means. Are you saying that a one year cap dump is worth more then a first in the top 10? I agree that 1st + Eriksson doesn't net you Reinhart, but i'd take Eriksson for Vancouvers first.

 

[Satanphonehome]

Our first round pick is an absolutely fine place to start for me. The idea would be to add Reinhart to our core, not to trade Miller or Boeser for him though.

Hog and Pod are not on the table, if it's my call though. As ELCs, their contributions are far more valuable to us then to any other team. DiPietro is definitely available, given how Demko has been looking of late. I'd consider Rathbone too, but many of my fellows would likely string me up if I said that in person.

Roussel or Holtby, assuming he's not on the Kraken after the expansion draft, work as cap dumps if Eriksson's single year at 4.875 million dollar cap hit is simply too much. I wouldn't be interested in adding significantly to get one of them included though. Cap will have to return whether it is Vancouver, or I'd assume a team looking to compete that is in better shape creating a package for Reinhart. Schmidt, as far as most of us are concerned, is not a cap dump. Over paid? Sure. But he's not someone we'd be throwing into a trade just to ditch the cap hit...someone has to play D here.

Anyway, if a 1st, Dipietro and Roussel/Holtby can get us moving forward, I'm in. Any more, and I'd lose interest pretty quickly though.

1st, Podkolzin and Holtby for Reinhart and a 3rd?
1st, Schmidt, Dipietro for Reinhart and Colin Miller?

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

1st, Podkolzin and Holtby for Reinhart and a 3rd?
1st, Schmidt, Dipietro for Reinhart and Colin Miller?

Schmidt isn’t a cap dump. He’s a very good 2/3 D on a decent contract.

 

[Boondock]

-Says realistically more a winger
-Never watched him all season
PPG at center

- watches lots of hockey so looks up position played by Reinhart
- realize he's played over 50% on the wing (53.4% wing 20/21; 77.2% wing 19/20) the last 2 seasons
- goes back and looks at comment, realize I'm still right
- with Petersson and Horvat still would be primarily a winger
- some people just like to bitch

 

[Cogburn]

1st, Podkolzin and Holtby for Reinhart and a 3rd?
1st, Schmidt, Dipietro for Reinhart and Colin Miller?

Given the perimeters you set out earlier, I'd have to stick to my original offer.

Schmidt is an asset for us, and even if not super valuable, is still the all around, top four defender we need more of. Hughes and Rathbone are set to provide all the offense we need, and Schmidt is our most competent defensive defender we have on on roster for next year, even if it's not his specialty.

As for Podkolzin, his style of play, age and ELC make him almost untouchable. We have so many bad contracts, and will be giving out so many new, bigger contracts this offseason and next, that he simply can't be moved. Hoglander falls under this as well. Even if both end up being middle six forwards, their price tag makes them far more valuable for us then they would be as an asset in a trade.

A first, DiPietro and a cap dump, with what ever we need value/roster wise to even this out would be where I have to leave it. Reinhart isn't a "need" for us, he'd be a sweet get, but we're not a top six forward away from competing. We don't have a Reinhart sized and shaped hole on this roster, so giving up both this year's first and Pod would really hurt us. If Reinhart were a number one D of the same age, I'd be amenable. But Reinhart is being added to Miller, Boeser, Pettersson and Horvat so we're not short on scoring forwards.

 

[Djp]

I genuinely don't understand what the bolded means. Are you saying that a one year cap dump is worth more then a first in the top 10? I agree that 1st + Eriksson doesn't net you Reinhart, but i'd take Eriksson for Vancouvers first.

no

Erikson+1st to team X for their 7th/ future considerations . Just like Toronto had to unliad Marleau

 

[Cogburn]

no

Erikson+1st to team X for their 7th/ future considerations . Just like Toronto had to unliad Marleau

There is nothing similar with Vancouver/Eriksson and Toronto/Marleau. Like nothing. Not the cap hit, not the cost, not on ice product, nothing.

 

[Djp]

There is nothing similar with Vancouver/Eriksson and Toronto/Marleau. Like nothing. Not the cap hit, not the cost, not on ice product, nothing.

except Toronto had to give up a 1st to unload his salary with just one year left.

 

[Cogburn]

except Toronto had to give up a 1st to unload his salary with just one year left.

Had to.

They made their moves, and were over the cap.

Had to.

But even then, their pick was expected to be that of a playoff team, and was top 10 protected. Unless we manage to place in the worst possible spot, and still move back two spots (the maximum), we will have a top 10 pick, probably higher.

And if we're comparing an inactive Eriksson to a bought out Marleau, both contributing 0, Eriksson will make less on the taxi squad (4.875) then Marleau was making (6.25). That's a 20% reduction in, uh, "value".

 

[flying v 604]

LOL.Eriksson is a first on his own almost for the cap dump. See Marleau deal.

Reinhart is a 1st plus more

2nd. See stall deal. But way to use a completely different example. All these people bitching about a cap dump when in reality Sabres will have plenty of cap and LE only will cost a million in real money. But ya that's worth a first lol.

 

[Qwijibo]

Had to.

They made their moves, and were over the cap.

Had to.

But even then, their pick was expected to be that of a playoff team, and was top 10 protected. Unless we manage to place in the worst possible spot, and still move back two spots (the maximum), we will have a top 10 pick, probably higher.

And if we're comparing an inactive Eriksson to a bought out Marleau, both contributing 0, Eriksson will make less on the taxi squad (4.875) then Marleau was making (6.25). That's a 20% reduction in, uh, "value".

I don’t really have an opinion on what it would cost to get a team to take on Eriksson, or even if there’d be a team willing to do so. But the one thing you’re not factoring into the Marleau comparison is that trade took place e prior to the dead cap era we’re currently in. Cap space is more of a commodity right now than ever before. Asking a team to take $6m in dead cap for a season will have a significant price

 

[Qwijibo]

2nd. See stall deal. But way to use a completely different example. All these people bitching about a cap dump when in reality Sabres will have plenty of cap and LE only will cost a million in real money. But ya that's worth a first lol.

Not sure how Eriksson will only cost $1m in real money when his signing bonus is $1m and his salary for the season is an additional $3m

 

[elitepete]

1st, Podkolzin and Holtby for Reinhart and a 3rd?
1st, Schmidt, Dipietro for Reinhart and Colin Miller?

You really think thT first proposal is fair? Ridiculous asking price.

 

[elitepete]

except Toronto had to give up a 1st to unload his salary with just one year left.

Toronto’s first rounder was not top 10.

 

[itwasaforwardpass]

1st, Podkolzin and Holtby for Reinhart and a 3rd?
1st, Schmidt, Dipietro for Reinhart and Colin Miller?

Personally I'd hold out for Podkozlin or Hoglander. I know the Canucks would rather keep them but you have to give to get.

Adding 1sts on top of that is a bit much.

 

[Cogburn]

I don’t really have an opinion on what it would cost to get a team to take on Eriksson, or even if there’d be a team willing to do so. But the one thing you’re not factoring into the Marleau comparison is that trade took place e prior to the dead cap era we’re currently in. Cap space is more of a commodity right now than ever before. Asking a team to take $6m in dead cap for a season will have a significant price

The dead cap era works both ways though. Any team taking on Reinhart has to displace other salary to take him on. Just because he is unsigned doesn't mean he won't have a cap hit, let's say 6-8 million for a top line player, on the light side. Retention is not an option on an unsigned contract, so a cap dump may be needed, assuming a roster player isn't part of another deal. We don't have those to spare at the moment, barring bad contracts.

I'd be fine not including Eriksson if other cap dumps are done else where, but a dump as a cost of doing business seems like it should be cheaper then a straight up dump elsewhere.

Beagle, Roussel, Holtby and I'm sure others are probably cheaper options that contribute, but they are not that significant an upgrade or savings versus dead cap.

Also, unless Buffalo, or any other team, has some unrealistic vision of Eriksson contributing, his cap hit in the minors or on a taxi squad is 4.875 next year, not the full six.

 

[BCNate]

The dead cap era works both ways though. Any team taking on Reinhart has to displace other salary to take him on. Just because he is unsigned doesn't mean he won't have a cap hit, let's say 6-8 million for a top line player, on the light side. Retention is not an option on an unsigned contract, so a cap dump may be needed, assuming a roster player isn't part of another deal. We don't have those to spare at the moment, barring bad contracts.

I'd be fine not including Eriksson if other cap dumps are done else where, but a dump as a cost of doing business seems like it should be cheaper then a straight up dump elsewhere.

Beagle, Roussel, Holtby and I'm sure others are probably cheaper options that contribute, but they are not that significant an upgrade or savings versus dead cap.

Also, unless Buffalo, or any other team, has some unrealistic vision of Eriksson contributing, his cap hit in the minors or on a taxi squad is 4.875 next year, not the full six.

Why would we even consider dealing LE as a dump? Whether it be a 1st+ for this year or next, or whatever, it will be a huge cost. If we need to get some cap back you buyout Virtanen for next to nothing (or potentially terminate, but I don't want to enter into that discussion) and deal Rousel with retention, a B prospect, or a lower pick. You get more space than a buried LE and keep your 1st rounder for this year or next.

The beauty of having this many bad deals is that you can be selective of the ones you want to get rid of!

 

[Cogburn]

Why would we even consider dealing LE as a dump? Whether it be a 1st+ for this year or next, or whatever, it will be a huge cost. If we need to get some cap back you buyout Virtanen for next to nothing (or potentially terminate, but I don't want to enter into that discussion) and deal Rousel with retention, a B prospect, or a lower pick. You get more space than a buried LE and keep your 1st rounder for this year or next.

The beauty of having this many bad deals is that you can be selective of the ones you want to get rid of!

Oh, I have to make sure we're on the same page. I'm not saying we should move our first to dump 1 year of Eriksson, I'm saying our first is worth a lot more than that.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

if buffalo is trading Zreinhart they would be getting younger players or picks in return

not older players who are older than him and have higher cap hits.

it costs you a 1sr+ just to move Eriksson just for a 7th.

Reinhart is better than Miller. Clearly better.

the offer is an insult.

He absolutely is not.

 

[oceanchild]

except Toronto had to give up a 1st to unload his salary with just one year left.

Not a top Ten pick and the dollar cost was significantly different

 

[Djp]

Not a top Ten pick and the dollar cost was significantly different

cap hit is the same.

this years draft a pick around 10 doesn’t have the same value as other years. Thus year there will be a high uncertainty around players that a pick at 10 in a week draft is equivalent to the high teen pick Carolina got from Toronto in a better draft pool.

 

[oceanchild]

cap hit is the same.

this years draft a pick around 10 doesn’t have the same value as other years. Thus year there will be a high uncertainty around players that a pick at 10 in a week draft is equivalent to the high teen pick Carolina got from Toronto in a better draft pool.

Cash isn’t the same and that is important, and just because you say it doesn’t have the same value doesn’t mean anything, a top 10 pick is a top ten pick.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

cap hit is the same.

this years draft a pick around 10 doesn’t have the same value as other years. Thus year there will be a high uncertainty around players that a pick at 10 in a week draft is equivalent to the high teen pick Carolina got from Toronto in a better draft pool.

No team in the NHL would share this outlook, you literally just make things up and pass them off as fact, stop.

 

[biturbo19]

From a Vancouver perspective, i'm not touching that deal. It may or may not be enough incentive for Buffalo, and they may have an offer like that from somewhere...but trading a high 1st round pick for what will be a 26 year old kinda slow, mostly soft, Top-6 filler piece like Reinhart is a very long ways from what Vancouver needs to be doing. Especially when he comes complete with an immediate RFA overpayment boondoggle in the making.

Unloading the last year of the Eriksson deal would be nice, but not at all worth that. I think people are really overstating the weight of that, based on all the years where it was a genuinely horrendous contract to deal with. One year remaining though, where the actual cash outlay is only 2/3rds of the Cap hit? More plausible to find a taker somehow. And if not...ehhh, it's just one more year of $5M dead cap with him buried in the minors. So be it.

That 1st round pick and the ELC value component of it in particular, is critical to the Canucks building anything meaningful and sustainable. Especially with most of the key pieces already in place, already coming off their own ELCs now.