Jump to content


Photo

Reinhart vs RoR: Who do you value more?


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

Poll: Battle of Reinos

Reinhart vs RoR

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#81 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Spelaren som ska namnges senare

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 13 June 2018 - 12:53 PM

Or, to look at it another way, would you give Reinhart the same contract for the 5 years left on O'Reilly's deal? (IIRC, he's getting a $7.5MM cap hit annually.) Does anybody give that to Reinhart TODAY? My guess is, no.

 

No, that's not really the same question.  Reinhart, most will agree, is a lower performing player than ROR, at least for now.  But he's also less expensive and even on his new contract he won't be making ROR money.  The fact that Reino is taking up less cap space than ROR is part of the question.  It's not simply who is the better player, but who is the best player for the money?  At a lower cap hit, Reino may very well be the one with the higher value to the team.


Edited by Doohickie, 13 June 2018 - 12:54 PM.


#82 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 13 June 2018 - 04:45 PM

If you are getting offered the same package TODAY and the price is either O'Reilly + X or Reinhart + X it isn't even a question. Reinhart is shipped out.
Now, in 3 years could they're respective values change? Yes. But by that time you'll have gotten 3 years of value out of each, & it is very hard to see how you won't have received more value from O'Reilly than Reinhart barring injuries.
Or, to look at it another way, would you give Reinhart the same contract for the 5 years left on O'Reilly's deal? (IIRC, he's getting a $7.5MM cap hit annually.) Does anybody give that to Reinhart TODAY? My guess is, no.


I think this is a great way to sum it up. If you would not pay Reinhart, for the coming 5 years, what you’d be agreeable to paying ROR, you are valuing ROR more, including in regards to what you expect over the sum duration of the deal.

Doohickie, Reinhart may sign a deal resulting in him being better value relative to his contract than ROR, but the comparison is value between the two players relative to each other (contract can still factor in to that.)

Edited by Thorny, 13 June 2018 - 04:48 PM.


#83 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2018 - 04:47 PM

No, that's not really the same question.  Reinhart, most will agree, is a lower performing player than ROR, at least for now.  But he's also less expensive and even on his new contract he won't be making ROR money.  The fact that Reino is taking up less cap space than ROR is part of the question.  It's not simply who is the better player, but who is the best player for the money?  At a lower cap hit, Reino may very well be the one with the higher value to the team.

 

No.

 

I think this is a great way to sum it up. If you would not pay Reinhart, for the coming 5 years, what you’d be agreeable to paying ROR, you are valuing ROR more, including in regards to what you expect over the sum duration of the deal.

Doohickie, Reinhart may sign a deal resulting in him being better value relative to [i]his contract[/] than ROR, but the comparison is value between the two players relative to each other (contract can still factor in to that.)


What he said. ;)

:beer:

#84 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Spelaren som ska namnges senare

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 13 June 2018 - 05:00 PM

I disagree but I think we're at the level of semantics so arguing further won't convince anyone.  I'd much rather :beer:



#85 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,324 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2018 - 05:03 PM

I disagree but I think we're at the level of semantics so arguing further won't convince anyone.  I'd much rather :beer:


Fair enough. :beer:

#86 Trettioåtta

Trettioåtta

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 13 June 2018 - 05:07 PM

Always the promise of the potential future

 

There is no argument that Reinhart is better than ROR that doesnt begin with the word if

 

Even if Reinhart is a 70 point player, ROR is a 60 point player and much better defensively, takes the tougher minutes and lead the league in faceoffs. Those three things make up that 10 point difference



#87 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 142 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 05:57 PM

I think Reinhart's ceiling could be higher as far as points, but I agree that ROR plays tougher minutes and is better defensively.  If you believe that the Sabres are 3-5 years from contending you move ROR for a 22-24 year old who is still RFA eligible, who will be here in 3-5 years.  If you think you can win in the next three years you keep ROR to bolster your center position.

 

Also has anyone discussed the how Jack would react if they were to trade Reinhart.

 

If the right pieces were coming back I would even trade both in different trades.

 

Hearing Reinhart to Calgary for Dougie Hamilton??

 

Could then turn around and trade Risto for young winger and draft pick,  example to Detroit or Vancouver...

 

Could you then move ROR to say Carolina for Skinner and Rask...



#88 dudacek

dudacek

    God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a city that God forgot

Posted 15 June 2018 - 06:02 PM

Really curious who Botterill is going to pull in at centre if he flips ROR.

Can’t see Eichel, Larsson or Mittelstadt becoming the go-to guy against the Stamkos and the Matthews of the division.

#89 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,433 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 06:34 PM

Really curious who Botterill is going to pull in at centre if he flips ROR.

Can’t see Eichel, Larsson or Mittelstadt becoming the go-to guy against the Stamkos and the Matthews of the division.

 

One of the many reasons that trading ROR is nutty.  Sabres have been literally screaming for a ROR-like center for decades.  He comes in, plays hard, leads team statistical categories, is a finalist for Lady Byng, and a straight-talk post season soundbite gets overblown and spins up the league-wide media to run him out of town.



#90 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 15 June 2018 - 08:34 PM

 If you believe that the Sabres are 3-5 years from contending you move ROR for a 22-24 year old who is still RFA eligible, who will be here in 3-5 years.  If you think you can win in the next three years you keep ROR to bolster your center position.

 

 

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.



#91 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Spelaren som ska namnges senare

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 15 June 2018 - 09:31 PM

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.

 

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:



#92 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 15 June 2018 - 09:39 PM

One of the many reasons that trading ROR is nutty. Sabres have been literally screaming for a ROR-like center for decades. He comes in, plays hard, leads team statistical categories, is a finalist for Lady Byng, and a straight-talk post season soundbite gets overblown and spins up the league-wide media to run him out of town.


But I’d like to think Botterill is too smart to be shipping ROR out due to league wide media. If Botterill is not, he shouldn’t be here. I’d assume there were other, more substantial reasons Botterill felt compelled to move him, if he indeed does.

He’s too good of a player to move, if not.

Edited by Thorny, 15 June 2018 - 09:40 PM.


#93 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,524 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:22 AM

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic. It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years. Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies. You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy. You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop. You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet. The team needs to learn the things ROR does. The role still needs to be filled.


I'm sure the team can find someone to be mopy after losses.

I'm obviously joking, but I don't doubt there are many who really do believe this to be what ROR is teaching the youngins.

But I’d like to think Botterill is too smart to be shipping ROR out due to league wide media. If Botterill is not, he shouldn’t be here. I’d assume there were other, more substantial reasons Botterill felt compelled to move him, if he indeed does.

He’s too good of a player to move, if not.


I definitely don't think Botterill moves O'Reilly *because of* the Canadian media, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he independently believes much of the same stuff (locker room, attitude etc.).

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.

#94 dudacek

dudacek

    God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a city that God forgot

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:25 AM

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.


My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.

Edited by dudacek, 16 June 2018 - 10:25 AM.


#95 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 16 June 2018 - 01:35 PM

My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.


Me too.

It’s looking like it’s going to be tough for Botterill to garner much of a positive reaction among Sabres fans for that trade, should it indeed come to pass.

#96 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 142 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 01:37 PM

I want to address this because IMO this is faulty logic.  It's not all about can we win now, or in the next 3 years.  Even if we are 3 years out, you still need someone in the role ROR occupies.  You still need someone to teach the next in line to be that guy.  You still need the vet to play the hard minutes while the kids develop.  You can't keep pushing off a certain player or role because the team isn't quite there yet.  The team needs to learn the things ROR does.  The role still needs to be filled.

Yes but in 3-5 years you have Eichel and Mittelstadt anchoring your top two line, ala Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin, and you put your 3-4 center as defensive guys.  Also in 3-5 years you hope Eichel and Mittelstadt have matured and grown in the defensive game. 


Edited by sweetlou, 16 June 2018 - 01:38 PM.


#97 IKnowPhysics

IKnowPhysics

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,433 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 04:02 PM

Also in 3-5 years you hope Eichel and Mittelstadt have matured and grown in the defensive game. 

 

Eichel: What are you trying to tell me, that I can play defensively?

 

Botterill: No, Jack.  I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

 

U3h2pG9.gif



#98 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 16 June 2018 - 04:03 PM

I'm sure the team can find someone to be mopy after losses.

I'm obviously joking, but I don't doubt there are many who really do believe this to be what ROR is teaching the youngins.

I definitely don't think Botterill moves O'Reilly *because of* the Canadian media, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he independently believes much of the same stuff (locker room, attitude etc.).

Frankly, I think the most logical hypothesis that has been put out there is it could be O'Reilly's agent stoking the fires to push for a trade. If that's the case, I hope Botterill ignores it. "Winning solves everything" might be the truest cliché in the history of clichés. Tell the agent to suck it, build a winner with O'Reilly as a key piece, and all of the noise goes away.

 

My ongoing O’Reilly speculation may make it seem otherwise, but this is exactly how I feel.

 

I agree that the agent probably is stoking the fires, but still:  if he's stoking the fires, that means it's fairly likely that ROR has requested a trade.

 

And if ROR requested a trade, and if the Hammy speculation about Eichel not liking ROR is true -- then there are 2 strong factors contributing to the likelihood that JBott decides that it would be best for the team to trade him.



#99 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,524 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2018 - 04:12 PM

I agree that the agent probably is stoking the fires, but still: if he's stoking the fires, that means it's fairly likely that ROR has requested a trade.

And if ROR requested a trade, and if the Hammy speculation about Eichel not liking ROR is true -- then there are 2 strong factors contributing to the likelihood that JBott decides that it would be best for the team to trade him.

Do you think the Cavs benefitted from trading Kyrie? Or would they have been better off ignoring his request?

Until it shows up in his on-ice game, I firmly believe the Sabres would be better off ignoring the trade request. That's barring a bonkers return, obviously.

Edited by TrueBlueGED, 16 June 2018 - 04:12 PM.


#100 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:30 PM

Do you think the Cavs benefitted from trading Kyrie? Or would they have been better off ignoring his request?

Until it shows up in his on-ice game, I firmly believe the Sabres would be better off ignoring the trade request. That's barring a bonkers return, obviously.

 

I'm not disagreeing that they would be better off ignoring his request.  I'm simply pointing out that if those 2 items are true, the likelihood of a trade has increased, and perhaps above 50%.



#101 We've

We've

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:42 PM

Yes but in 3-5 years you have Eichel and Mittelstadt anchoring your top two line, ala Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin, and you put your 3-4 center as defensive guys.  Also in 3-5 years you hope Eichel and Mittelstadt have matured and grown in the defensive game. 

 

And then he becomes expendable.  Not now.



#102 dudacek

dudacek

    God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,616 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a city that God forgot

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:45 PM

I agree that the agent probably is stoking the fires, but still: if he's stoking the fires, that means it's fairly likely that ROR has requested a trade.

And if ROR requested a trade, and if the Hammy speculation about Eichel not liking ROR is true -- then there are 2 strong factors contributing to the likelihood that JBott decides that it would be best for the team to trade him.



Which is why I believe there is a strong possibility of an ROR trade.

Do you think the Cavs benefitted from trading Kyrie? Or would they have been better off ignoring his request?
Until it shows up in his on-ice game, I firmly believe the Sabres would be better off ignoring the trade request. That's barring a bonkers return, obviously.

Which is what I hope is Botterill’s approach.
But I think his approach is more a fair return, than bonkers return.
Which is I why agree with Freeman in that the return will be reasonable, but it won’t make a lot of Sabrespace happy.

Edited by dudacek, 16 June 2018 - 06:41 PM.


#103 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,524 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:50 PM

I'm not disagreeing that they would be better off ignoring his request. I'm simply pointing out that if those 2 items are true, the likelihood of a trade has increased, and perhaps above 50%.


Aaaahhhh gotcha. Read that one wrong. Carry on :)