no one said they did. they also didn't need to trade myers but they did. they also didn't need to trade the rushkie dman and they did. but thanks for letting me know.
- rinaldo

So rattled.

Saw the trade was predicated on there not being a spot for Reinhart since he's a poor #3 center. We have Girgensons or Larsson for that role and Reinhart can play wing. Bringing in Couturier gives us a #3 center, and now what do we do with Girgensons and Larsson.

I like Simmonds and would welcome him on this team. But there's really no need to trade Reinhart, like, at all. So there's no there-there.
- nfph

So, playing Devil's advocate, earlier on this thread you guys are debating whether Reinhart ever reaches his "potential" in part because he's playing with fringe players on the 3rd line. Also, a couple of posters commented that his true value is as a playmaker - I agree - so he wouldn't seem as good of a fit with ROR or Eichel's line.

Now, consider why did you trade for ROR at all when you had Reinhart waiting in the wings? I personally don't think it's because Murray soured on him. I think it was more impatience. But there is at least a little bit of an element of uncertainty.

And I'm sure that it's already been debated in this blog about where does Reinhart fit with Eichel and ROR on the roster. It's been brought up in national circles as well.

It's fair to question whether Simmonds, Laughton (a strong prospect in most circles) and Streit is enough of a package. But Reinhart probably doesn't have as much value as you think either. Remember, we only got Luke Schenn for JVR. And we "only" had to give up Richards to get the "best player not in the NHL", and Simmonds and a pick.

Potential is almost always discounted, except for the Eichels and McDavid's of the world.

They absolutely needed to trade Myers.
Trading the Rusky D-man who has been a healthy scratch?

Neither of those players were #2 overall picks at a position that every team covets.
- ImThatGuy

no they didn't need to trade them. irrelevant he is being scratched right now.

point is if they can improve their team to get them where they want to go, there is no reason why he couldn't get traded. if they could add quality parts they consider it is all I saying. of course he wont be traded for garbage or what not

So, playing Devil's advocate, earlier on this thread you guys are debating whether Reinhart ever reaches his "potential" in part because he's playing with fringe players on the 3rd line. Also, a couple of posters commented that his true value is as a playmaker - I agree - so he wouldn't seem as good of a fit with ROR or Eichel's line.

Now, consider why did you trade for ROR at all when you had Reinhart waiting in the wings? I personally don't think it's because Murray soured on him. I think it was more impatience. But there is at least a little bit of an element of uncertainty.

And I'm sure that it's already been debated in this blog about where does Reinhart fit with Eichel and ROR on the roster. It's been brought up in national circles as well.

It's fair to question whether Simmonds, Laughton (a strong prospect in most circles) and Streit is enough of a package. But Reinhart probably doesn't have as much value as you think either. Remember, we only got Luke Schenn for JVR. And we "only" had to give up Richards to get the "best player not in the NHL", and Simmonds and a pick.

Potential is almost always discounted, except for the Eichels and McDavid's of the world.
- TheGreat28

Well, that wasn't me, first off, and I disagree with them. I have no qualms with Reinhart playing the wing, especially on the rest of his ELC. 2nd line winger, 1st line winger... fine by me.

And your last pp - if Reinhart's value is lower than we think - i.e., if the return will suck worse than we think - how is that convincing me we should trade him?

So, playing Devil's advocate, earlier on this thread you guys are debating whether Reinhart ever reaches his "potential" in part because he's playing with fringe players on the 3rd line. Also, a couple of posters commented that his true value is as a playmaker - I agree - so he wouldn't seem as good of a fit with ROR or Eichel's line.

Now, consider why did you trade for ROR at all when you had Reinhart waiting in the wings? I personally don't think it's because Murray soured on him. I think it was more impatience. But there is at least a little bit of an element of uncertainty.

And I'm sure that it's already been debated in this blog about where does Reinhart fit with Eichel and ROR on the roster. It's been brought up in national circles as well.


It's fair to question whether Simmonds, Laughton (a strong prospect in most circles) and Streit is enough of a package. But Reinhart probably doesn't have as much value as you think either. Remember, we only got Luke Schenn for JVR. And we "only" had to give up Richards to get the "best player not in the NHL", and Simmonds and a pick.

Potential is almost always discounted, except for the Eichels and McDavid's of the world.
- TheGreat28

Because if you can get a great player like ROR, you do so, regardless of who you have on your roster?

Ask Boston if they would un-do the Seguin trade because they were "too crowded at Center"

ROR is going to mentor both Eichel and Reinhart.

The only way I see Reinhart getting moved is for a young top pairing potential D-man.

IE) Cam Fowler

no they didn't need to trade them. irrelevant he is being scratched right now.

point is if they can improve their team to get them where they want to go, there is no reason why he couldn't get traded. if they could add quality parts they consider it is all I saying. of course he wont be traded for garbage or what not
- rinaldo

Right, but I don't think those scenarios actually improve the Sabres that much, at least not within a timeframe that matters (i.e., 2 years from now).

So rattled.

Saw the trade was predicated on there not being a spot for Reinhart since he's a poor #3 center. We have Girgensons or Larsson for that role and Reinhart can play wing. Bringing in Couturier gives us a #3 center, and now what do we do with Girgensons and Larsson.
- nfph

rattled? really? yeah why not.

couturier is better in that role than those 2 imo...give the sabres a hell of punch down the middle for a very long time...maybe you then move girgenson to wing or to get an upgrade on d. that is a possibility no? flyers will also need to add to that deal obviously.

Right, but I don't think those scenarios actually improve the Sabres that much, at least not within a timeframe that matters (i.e., 2 years from now).
- nfph

that's fine it may not. just don't think it is that outlandish at all if buffalo ends up moving him is all.

So rattled.

Saw the trade was predicated on there not being a spot for Reinhart since he's a poor #3 center. We have Girgensons or Larsson for that role and Reinhart can play wing. Bringing in Couturier gives us a #3 center, and now what do we do with Girgensons and Larsson.
- nfph

No, it was predicated on him being way to valuable to be a 3rd line center. That his talent lies in his playmaking ability. The Flyers sorely lack that. In fact, Simmonds production is down primarily because he lacks a true playmaker.

You have too many natural centers. A 60-point natural winger would be a tremendous asset, both 5 on 5 and on as a net presence on the PP. That was the starting point for the package.

rattled? really? yeah why not.

couturier is better in that role than those 2 imo...give the sabres a hell of punch down the middle for a very long time...maybe you then move girgenson to wing or to get an upgrade on d. that is a possibility no? flyers will also need to add to that deal obviously.
- rinaldo

re: rattled, don't know why the passive-aggressive "but thanks for letting me know" otherwise. Maybe it's just a style thing. I'm not worried about it.

Anyhow. Couts may be a more effective 3rd line center, but I'm not convinced he's better enough that I really care. I mean, if that trade happened, I wouldn't grab a torch or a pitchfork (and some here were over reacting) but I'd think it was an odd trade.

No, it was predicated on him being way to valuable to be a 3rd line center. That his talent lies in his playmaking ability. The Flyers sorely lack that. In fact, Simmonds production is down primarily because he lacks a true playmaker.

You have too many natural centers. A 60-point natural winger would be a tremendous asset, both 5 on 5 and on as a net presence on the PP. That was the starting point for the package.
- TheGreat28

You have a point, but if we're worried about contending in 2-3 years, let Reinhart be that, only younger and cheaper.

Well, that wasn't me, first off, and I disagree with them. I have no qualms with Reinhart playing the wing, especially on the rest of his ELC. 2nd line winger, 1st line winger... fine by me.

And your last pp - if Reinhart's value is lower than we think - i.e., if the return will suck worse than we think - how is that convincing me we should trade him?
- nfph

Look, it's a hypothetical deal. Fair? who knows. But you guys are laughing saying "oh look at the idiot Flyers fans". I'm simply defending the trade proposal a) on the grounds that Buffalo may be better trading Reinhart in the long run and b) not being as outlandish as you guys are suggesting.

But I'm not trying to convince you to make the trade. Neither of us are doing any deals any time soon. Time will tell what Murray does with him.

re: rattled, don't know why the passive-aggressive "but thanks for letting me know" otherwise. Maybe it's just a style thing. I'm not worried about it.

Anyhow. Couts may be a more effective 3rd line center, but I'm not convinced he's better enough that I really care. I mean, if that trade happened, I wouldn't grab a torch or a pitchfork (and some here were over reacting) but I'd think it was an odd trade.
- nfph

reinhart is the more talented payer no doubt. maybe shutdown seanie is a better fit; and what else gets included nn the deal. I don't know just a suggestion.

maybe you package seanie and Simmonds for reinhart +.

Look, it's a hypothetical deal. Fair? who knows. But you guys are laughing saying "oh look at the idiot Flyers fans". I'm simply defending the trade proposal a) on the grounds that Buffalo may be better trading Reinhart in the long run and b) not being as outlandish as you guys are suggesting.

But I'm not trying to convince you to make the trade. Neither of us are doing any deals any time soon. Time will tell what Murray does with him.
- TheGreat28

Ya, some folks feel that way. I don't think it's ridiculous.

You have a point, but if we're worried about contending in 2-3 years, let Reinhart be that, only younger and cheaper.
- nfph

Well, look no further than the Flyers roster to see the negative side of trying to force natural centers to be wingers.

Ya, some folks feel that way. I don't think it's ridiculous.
- nfph

And for the record, I said that the fit was great for the Flyers and the package might be fair but you'd probably find a better fit elsewhere.

I still think the probability is decent that Reinhart gets traded. Maybe Draisaitl in Edmonton too. Both of you guys are too top heavy and those two would be wasted playing out of position or on the 3rd line.

Most points of any player since 2011
- Sabresfan-365

Was gonna say this.

I am a Reinhart fan, but I just feel we possibly drafted the 3rd or 4th best forward in that draft.

Reinhart and Lehner for Lundqvist!!!

Was gonna say this.

I am a Reinhart fan, but I just feel we possibly drafted the 3rd or 4th best forward in that draft.
- sbroads24

As long as you don't trade him for the equivalent of Luke Schenn, you'll be fine.

As long as you don't trade him for the equivalent of Luke Schenn, you'll be fine.
- TheGreat28

That's what I'd be afraid of, from the flyers perspective. I really do think the kid will be okay, however.

Was gonna say this.

I am a Reinhart fan, but I just feel we possibly drafted the 3rd or 4th best forward in that draft.
- sbroads24

Yea and honestly it doesn't bother me. Players like him are important. He won't wow you on the stat sheet, it's the subtle things. Having said that, the shortcomings in those areas makes him your atypical 2nd overall pick. Just like Eichel is for a different reason.

Yea and honestly it doesn't bother me. Players like him are important. He won't wow you on the stat sheet, it's the subtle things. Having said that, the shortcomings in those areas makes him your atypical 2nd overall pick. Just like Eichel is for a different reason.
- Sabresfan-365

I agree, but it sounds like we already have that in O'Reilly and Girgensons.

I think Bennett could be the better fit.

IMO we could use more speed and finesse.

I agree, but it sounds like we already have that in O'Reilly and Girgensons.

I think Bennett could be the better fit.

IMO we could use more speed and finesse.
- sbroads24

Not with his playmaking ability though. O'Reilly's good, Reinhart's better in that area.

We could use more speed and finesse but I'd like that to be alongside Reinhart, not in place of him.

I agree, but it sounds like we already have that in O'Reilly and Girgensons.

I think Bennett could be the better fit.

IMO we could use more speed and finesse.
- sbroads24

Start at 0:24

http://youtu.be/Pc0_Xnvl3t4

So my best friend/brother was killed in Ramadi, he is the reason i joined the military. I Served 5 years active, every year since ive been home, on veterans day i go and have a beer with him at forest lawn where he is burried. They close at 5pm and i get out at 430pm work is giving me a hard time about wanting to leave at 4pm to make it there. Am i wrong to be upset?
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

you shouldn't even be Fvucking working today dude.
I got the day off school as a kid, banks were closed, post office closed.
My dad (Vietnam Veteran) went to work.
The lack of respect veterans get from the public to our elected officials is complete and utter crap.
Sorry for the late late response. Started from page one, but couldn't not reply to this one.