jame

Ironically, last year Botts chose "nothing" It's not his job to do favors...

Hopefully Botts knows what to do with a 6th rounder this time... it sure wasn't last year... lol

Botts turned a 3rd in to a 6th while giving up NHL Defensive Depth.... Botts has a plan though.

I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say that...

I haven't seen a single fact presented that supports the argument that Anaheim is doing a tear down. Maybe a quick recap would put me in my place.

When confronted with the facts... this is where you always retreat. Maybe continue to refine your position? I'm giving you evidence that disputes your claim that Anaheim is doing a tear down. What evidence do you have to support the claim, beyond the Montour trade? It's been fun guys. Go Sabres!

hmmm define "huge" contract? Historical validation is important. It removes the hysteria. There's a lot of question when those takes are not validated going forward.

Good thing we didn't include that 3rd asset... that would've ruined it.

Is "middle 6" is what you label a prospect who you know doesn't have the skill to translate to the NHL at anything more than a role player?

Phaneuf being the only relevant one on the list, traded to one of the few teams that was basically like, "***** it, we're screwed in another year anyways". Good luck finding 3 of those partners for Perry, Getzlaf, and Kesler.

Not that draft position should matter in this case, but the 2014 draft was garbage, and the 2015 draft was an all time great draft class. In a bad evaluation sure.

It doesn't say anything like that....

I value the prospect potential of a D more than the potential of a depth/agitating winger. Guhle was a much higher rated prospect for me. Higher than Armia ever was too.

There were major issues with Myers game. Myers/Bogo was a swap. The history of their play since them validates that position. Lemiuex was a marginal asset, again validated through the last few years....

It's an interesting take.... team trades 24 year old defensemen, fans read the tea leaves as a tear down..... That is after signing Henrique long term, and getting Rakell and Kase on bargain contracts through their prime.... and having an elite young netminder... But sure... they've got to tear it all down because of bad contracts.

The fact remains those contracts are immovable. Lots of teams rebuild on the fly... the tear down phenomenon is not a standard by which all teams execute a rebuild. Anaheim is a team that NEEDS playoff revenue. They will be rebuilding on the fly, while they try to grind out defensive hockey and the playoff wildcard while rebuilding. They've got the goaltender in place for the system. They literally CANNOT do a teardown. So the will rebuild on the fly.

But Perry and Kesler have no value. Have you seen their contracts and their play? They are toast... no one is taking those contracts on for MULTIPLE years.

Bogo/Myers was always a wash. I think you can make the case that Armia+Lemiuex isn't that far off value wise from Guhle (wing vs D value). We should also recognize that Kane was a higher value asset that was depreciated because of injury/lockerroom, than Montour at the time of the respective trades.

So you expect Kesler, Perry, and Getzlaf to be traded in the next hour? Or you expect them to wave their NMCs soon? What do you think a tear down is?

Right. So their approach is going to be to stay afloat and make playoff appearances (revenue), while rebuilding on the fly. They will not do a tear down. The reason you trade a young Montour, is not because of timing, or cap or any of that... it's because they are going to pivot to a defensive model, playing low scoring, mistake free hockey... and Montour just doesn't fit that style at all. Minutae Multi futures from the top rung of our future assets....

Anaheim is not doing a tear down

Montour is under contract next year for 3.3 This was not a budget/cap trade at all. Montour was traded because of the system based changes Anaheim needs to make to remain competitive/playoff capable during their aging roster turnover/rebuild. Correct. It was meant to counter a false cap/rebuild argument.

Why would a rebuilding team not want to pay a 25 year old defensemen? Montour is a huge risk taker, and when his style is reigned in, it becomes less effective. Anaheim rcognizes their cap scenario, age, etc require them to shift their game to a defensive model, as they rebuild. The reason Anaheim trades Montour is because they recognize they won't be good enough to sustain his risk/reward style, and he doesn't fit the necessary systematic changes they need to make to compete while they rebuild. Buffalo, however, is building an uptempo team that Montour seems ideal for.

First bold: Ask yourself why this player is being cast off then? Second bold: All of Tim Murray's big trades can be described in exactly those terms.

That's a fair differentiator