Murray has traded a lot of assets in a very short period of time

[jahnyc]

Murray has essentially traded six first round picks (players that were first round picks or picks to be made in those rounds) and four second round picks (Lemieux and three second round picks to be made) for an amazing total of ten first/second round picks or players drafted in those rounds that have been traded during his short tenure as GM.  I would have thought that most new GMs would have relished the idea of drafting players in the first and second rounds, but that is not the way Murray has operated.  Not too sure about the overall value received in exchange for all of these assets.  I think he overpaid in the Kane deal and overpaid significantly to acquire Lehner.  

 

Short summary which does not include all of the components of the various trades:

 

Fasching:  two second round picks.

Kane/Bogosian: Myers (first round), Armia (first round), Lemieux (second round), first round pick (2015)

Lehner: first round pick (2015)

O'Reilly/McGinn: Zadorov (first round), Grigorenko (first round), second round pick (2015)

[Weave]

Who cares what round vets were picked in?  It is irrelevant.  Once the player is developed the only thing that matters is how effective he is in his role..

As for the rest.  We call them assets for a reason.  I don't care how they are used as long as the result is successful.  Trade, develop, play, whatever.  If we trade every first rounder we ever draft and the result is a decade of being relevant in May I don't care.

[Kelly the Dog]

You also can't look at it in a vacuum. If you want to just look at a trade concerning draft picks, in the Kane/Bogosion example you used, Murray committed highway robbery. He got a 3rd overall and a 4th overall for an 11th, 16th and 23rd plus a second rounder.

[GoPre]

Murray said from the get go picks/prospects would be used to better this team. He went w/ his plan and executed it very well. The Sabres are far better and prepared for the future. 

[Kelly the Dog]

Murray said from the get go picks/prospects would be used to better this team. He went w/ his plan and executed it very well. The Sabres are far better and prepared for the future.

 

One of the keys to the Lehner trade is exactly that. It's both a bridge and a look to the future. If it pans out, and Lehner turns into a top 10 or higher goalie in two years, he's going to be 25 and growing up together with Eichel and Kane, OReilly, Gus, Ennis, Risto, reinhart, etc.

[...]

If the Sabres become Stanley Cup contenders in the next three or so years, does it matter? Not to me.

 

Given the talent available, and the assets we had/have to build a competitive roster, highly competitive roster, anyone have suggestions where Murray could have done better?

 

We have seen the draft-and-wait approach.  We have experienced the cautious, conservative approach to building a team and we all collectively thought it sucked.  Buffalo needed shock and awe, we got shock and awe.  We needed excitement and a zero-f*&ks-given attitude.  We have it and it's awesome to be part of it.

 

You want to wait 5-6 years to see if we can contend?  Okay, draft your prospects, play the game the old fashioned way.  You want to vie for a Cup in 3-4 years or less?  I give you Tim Murray. 

[Kelly the Dog]

If the Sabres become Stanley Cup contenders in the next three or so years, does it matter? Not to me.

 

Given the talent available, and the assets we had/have to build a competitive roster, highly competitive roster, anyone have suggestions where Murray could have done better?

 

We have seen the draft-and-wait approach.  We have experienced the cautious, conservative approach to building a team and we all collectively thought it sucked.  Buffalo needed shock and awe, we got shock and awe.  We needed excitement and a zero-f*&ks-given attitude.  We have it and it's awesome to be part of it.

 

You want to wait 5-6 years to see if we can contend?  Okay, draft your prospects, play the game the old fashioned way.  You want to vie for a Cup in 3-4 years or less?  I give you Tim Murray.

 

Yep. We should all adopt the Zero Fux Given attitude of Murray. In fact, he should probably change his name to Zero Fukksgiven, kinda like Zero Mostel or Ryan Fitzgibbons.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't understand the angst here. We didn't trade our picks/prospects for vets at the end of the road about to be washed up, we traded for under-24 vets either in, or about to be in, their prime. The kids can play proper roles and develop smoothly and we avoid the dreaded "what if we end up like Edmonton" all while icing what should be a very competitive, and exciting, team. I'd be beside myself if we moved the O'Reilly package for Sharp or even Lucic...but we didn't. The reason so many around the league thought Buffalo was an attractive location for prospective GMs is because of all of the assets collected, that the incoming GM could use those to build his team. It was a blank slate with a ton of raw materials to work with. Furthermore, there are only so many roster spots--whether now or later, players would *have* to be traded. If you can move completely untested commodities for proven young stars, why in the world wouldn't you want to do it?

[North Buffalo]

Who cares what round vets were picked in? It is irrelevant. Once the player is developed the only thing that matters is how effective he is in his role..

 

As for the rest. We call them assets for a reason. I don't care how they are used as long as the result is successful. Trade, develop, play, whatever. If we trade every first rounder we ever draft and the result is a decade of being relevant in May I don't care.

For 2 reasons I would say your statement misses the point. It remains to be seen if who Murray got in return makes a difference, the new assets have flaws too and may not gell. 2 his negotiating has lent the Sabres giving away too much imo and if Murray had given away less could he have gotten more in return with other trades. Imo he could have done better by not giving away so much, the Sabres could have gotten another D and a scoring winger and a more stable goaltender.

 

Your statement of who cares and it is irrelant is myopic and short sighted as well as insulting. The Sabres have been bad for too long for many of us question every move of this GM and point out his moves pitfalls. Until the Sabres actually show they are competative I think these are highly relevant discussions.

If the Sabres become Stanley Cup contenders in the next three or so years, does it matter? Not to me.

 

Given the talent available, and the assets we had/have to build a competitive roster, highly competitive roster, anyone have suggestions where Murray could have done better?

 

We have seen the draft-and-wait approach. We have experienced the cautious, conservative approach to building a team and we all collectively thought it sucked. Buffalo needed shock and awe, we got shock and awe. We needed excitement and a zero-f*&ks-given attitude. We have it and it's awesome to be part of it.

 

You want to wait 5-6 years to see if we can contend? Okay, draft your prospects, play the game the old fashioned way. You want to vie for a Cup in 3-4 years or less? I give you Tim Murray.

 

. its a bit "risky"

I don't understand the angst here. We didn't trade our picks/prospects for vets at the end of the road about to be washed up, we traded for under-24 vets either in, or about to be in, their prime. The kids can play proper roles and develop smoothly and we avoid the dreaded "what if we end up like Edmonton" all while icing what should be a very competitive, and exciting, team. I'd be beside myself if we moved the O'Reilly package for Sharp or even Lucic...but we didn't. The reason so many around the league thought Buffalo was an attractive location for prospective GMs is because of all of the assets collected, that the incoming GM could use those to build his team. It was a blank slate with a ton of raw materials to work with. Furthermore, there are only so many roster spots--whether now or later, players would *have* to be traded. If you can move completely untested commodities for proven young stars, why in the world wouldn't you want to do it?

Fair points, except that two of the players received in return are big physical question marks and one Kane may be a head case and one has case of cracked head, Lerner, don't know yet and that is a lot to give a way on a maybe and a prayer. Granted both are hockey player and dont need a lot upstairs for anything other than hockey.

 

And the Sabres still need another scoring winger and top 4 D.

Edited June 27, 2015 by North Buffalo

[GoPre]

For 2 reasons I would say your statement misses the point. It remains to be seen if who Murray got in return makes a difference, the new assets have flaws too and may not gell. 2 his negotiating has lent the Sabres giving away too much imo and if Murray had given away less could he have gotten more in return with other trades. Imo he could have done better by not giving away so much, the Sabres could have gotten another D and a scoring winger and a more stable goaltender.

 

Your statement of who cares and it is irrelant is myopic and short sighted as well as insulting. The Sabres have been bad for too long for many of us question every move of this GM and point out his moves pitfalls. Until the Sabres actually show they are competative I think these are highly relevant discussions.

. its a bit "risky"

Fair points, except that two of the players received in return are big physical question marks and one Kane may be a head case and one has case of cracked head, Lerner, don't know yet and that is a lot to give a way on a maybe and a prayer. Granted both are hockey player and dont need a lot upstairs for anything other than hockey.

 

And the Sabres still need another scoring winger and top 4 D.

 

That's known as over valuing. Some GM named "Darcy something" used to do that. Yeah, would've been great to follow his plan. 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Thanes16

[DR HOLLIDAY]

I don't understand the angst here. We didn't trade our picks/prospects for vets at the end of the road about to be washed up, we traded for under-24 vets either in, or about to be in, their prime. The kids can play proper roles and develop smoothly and we avoid the dreaded "what if we end up like Edmonton" all while icing what should be a very competitive, and exciting, team. I'd be beside myself if we moved the O'Reilly package for Sharp or even Lucic...but we didn't. The reason so many around the league thought Buffalo was an attractive location for prospective GMs is because of all of the assets collected, that the incoming GM could use those to build his team. It was a blank slate with a ton of raw materials to work with. Furthermore, there are only so many roster spots--whether now or later, players would *have* to be traded. If you can move completely untested commodities for proven young stars, why in the world wouldn't you want to do it?

 

Well said the Edmonton model does not work......Having different layers of youth is something important......I wish we had a Steve Ott type guy to stir the pot.......That and our goal keepers are still unknown to me

[North Buffalo]

That's known as over valuing. Some GM named "Darcy something" used to do that. Yeah, would've been great to follow his plan.

 

If the two most of us question Murray about Kane and Lerner, yes that is over valueing their worth especially given their health issues. I have no problem with these trades if both their heads are screwed on right, but that is a very important asset to have working correctly. look how quickly NFL draft picks and FAs fall when healthis an issue. Heck look at PLF near his end even though he could still skate. Head issues should not be taken lightly. Edited June 28, 2015 by North Buffalo

[Taro T]

For 2 reasons I would say your statement misses the point. It remains to be seen if who Murray got in return makes a difference, the new assets have flaws too and may not gell. 2 his negotiating has lent the Sabres giving away too much imo and if Murray had given away less could he have gotten more in return with other trades. Imo he could have done better by not giving away so much, the Sabres could have gotten another D and a scoring winger and a more stable goaltender.

Your statement of who cares and it is irrelant is myopic and short sighted as well as insulting. The Sabres have been bad for too long for many of us question every move of this GM and point out his moves pitfalls. Until the Sabres actually show they are competative I think these are highly relevant discussions.. its a bit "risky"

And it would remain to be seen, and for FAR longer until it could be seen, what any of the '97's and prospects that were traded will / would make a difference.

 

The Sabres WILL pick up a D-man or 2 on July 1. They also drafted 3-4 more. (All of which may or may not pan out, but we won't know whether they do/will for 3-5 years.) The events of Friday did not prevent a D upgrade.

 

If you're lucky 1/3 of your prospects will pan out (1/2 if you're extremely lucky). Where is the problem with giving up 2-3 prospects for a player that's there? You get ~7 new prospects every year. This team still has a bunch of high end prospects that won't be Sabres this season. They still have a ton of caproom (even after breaking the bank on ROR) & an owner w/ bucks and a willingness to spend them. This team will still be upgrading more.

 

This team could be playoff bound this year (wouldn't want money on it, but it is definitely possible), if TM isn't making these aggressive moves, that wouldn't be possible. This is the 1st time in at least 3 years that I am looking forward to this season. Don't see where the future's been mortaged in these moves.

 

Except for Moulson, Gionta, and Gorges; anyone expected to have a big role is a teenager or early/mid-20's. Eichel will be awesome. Kane & O'Reilly are very good, as is Ennis, & Bogosian should be. Risto & Girgensons have shown signs that they will be very good. Reinhart should be very good. Larsson & Pysyk should be good.

 

10 good to very good young players - you only dress 18. The Sabres haven't had that since before they dressed 18 skaters.

 

We won't be able to see ANY results for over 3 months. After the last 3 years, there's no way I'm lamenting JT Compher and Joel Armia all summer long.

 

Friday was fantastic. Enjoy it. :beer:

[North Buffalo]

And it would remain to be seen, and for FAR longer until it could be seen, what any of the '97's and prospects that were traded will / would make a difference.

The Sabres WILL pick up a D-man or 2 on July 1. They also drafted 3-4 more. (All of which may or may not pan out, but we won't know whether they do/will for 3-5 years.) The events of Friday did not prevent a D upgrade.

If you're lucky 1/3 of your prospects will pan out (1/2 if you're extremely lucky). Where is the problem with giving up 2-3 prospects for a player that's there? You get ~7 new prospects every year. This team still has a bunch of high end prospects that won't be Sabres this season. They still have a ton of caproom (even after breaking the bank on ROR) & an owner w/ bucks and a willingness to spend them. This team will still be upgrading more.

This team could be playoff bound this year (wouldn't want money on it, but it is definitely possible), if TM isn't making these aggressive moves, that wouldn't be possible. This is the 1st time in at least 3 years that I am looking forward to this season. Don't see where the future's been mortaged in these moves.

Except for Moulson, Gionta, and Gorges; anyone expected to have a big role is a teenager or early/mid-20's. Eichel will be awesome. Kane & O'Reilly are very good, as is Ennis, & Bogosian should be. Risto & Girgensons have shown signs that they will be very good. Reinhart should be very good. Larsson & Pysyk should be good.

10 good to very good young players - you only dress 18. The Sabres haven't had that since before they dressed 18 skaters.

We won't be able to see ANY results for over 3 months. After the last 3 years, there's no way I'm lamenting JT Compher and Joel Armia all summer long.

Friday was fantastic. Enjoy it. :beer:

Me neither and that part I agree with, my concern is with what he got in return specifically Kane... Head case... We will see the first time he feels slighted, and Lerner - head ache case. Was gonna say case of head but that sounded wrong.... Edited June 28, 2015 by North Buffalo

[Kelly the Dog]

Me neither and that part I agree with, my concern is with what he got in return specifically Kane... Head case... We will see the first time he feels slighted, and Lerner - head ache case. Was gonna say case of head but that sounded wrong....

There is a difference between mercurial players and so called head cases on the ice and ones off the ice. They both can hurt your team but they are different. On the ice, Kane is known for relentless hustle, and being the ultimate competitor. He's no problem whatsoever on the ice, in fact he's a role model. Same with O'Reilly. He was a problem and distraction over contract and money and would he even be there, etc. all that goes away when he signs a new contract. On the ice he's a firebrand and everything you want in a character guy.

[dudacek]

Murray has essentially traded six first round picks (players that were first round picks or picks to be made in those rounds) and four second round picks (Lemieux and three second round picks to be made) for an amazing total of ten first/second round picks or players drafted in those rounds that have been traded during his short tenure as GM.  I would have thought that most new GMs would have relished the idea of drafting players in the first and second rounds, but that is not the way Murray has operated.  Not too sure about the overall value received in exchange for all of these assets.  I think he overpaid in the Kane deal and overpaid significantly to acquire Lehner.  

 

Short summary which does not include all of the components of the various trades:

 

Fasching:  two second round picks.

Kane/Bogosian: Myers (first round), Armia (first round), Lemieux (second round), first round pick (2015)

Lehner: first round pick (2015)

O'Reilly/McGinn: Zadorov (first round), Grigorenko (first round), second round pick (2015)

 

So Murray used six first and four second round picks to give us:

O'Reilly, Kane, Bogosian, Lehner, McGinn and Fasching?

 

I'd take that in a second over:

Myers, Ennis, Pysyk, Enroth, Kassian, Adam, Brennan, Armia, Persson and Schiestel

 

That's what we got with the six firsts and four seconds we used prior to the tank.

 

And to account for the "but Darcy sucked" element, here's what the Anaheim Ducks did in the same period:

Cam Fowler, Kyle Palmeiri, Jake Gardiner, Rickard Rackell, William Karlsson, John Gibson, Devante Smith-Pelly, Emerson Etem, Peter Holland and Mat Clark

 

Pretty impressive hit rate for NHLers, but I'd still trade the works for O'Reilly, Kane and Bogosian.

Edited June 28, 2015 by dudacek

[Taro T]

Me neither and that part I agree with, my concern is with what he got in return specifically Kane... Head case... We will see the first time he feels slighted, and Lerner - head ache case. Was gonna say case of head but that sounded wrong....

Kane not thriving in the Peg doesn't raise any flags for me. I view it much as I viewed James Lofton's Green Bay issues. Not an issue, and I've yet to see any red flags since he came to Buffalo. I want the players to have a swagger. I don't plan on hanging w/ them in the Cobblestone or 716; I'll watch 'em on the ice. And I expect team full of swagger will be more entertaining to watch than team full of Vanek-face.

 

Lehner's concussion is concerning. And I'd've preferred Lack for 51 and holding onto the 21, but TM thinks he's worth the risk. Until he starts getting proven wrong, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. After 40 years of DR; I'll stick w/ the anti-DR for now. !)

[North Buffalo]

Kane not thriving in the Peg doesn't raise any flags for me. I view it much as I viewed James Lofton's Green Bay issues. Not an issue, and I've yet to see any red flags since he came to Buffalo. I want the players to have a swagger. I don't plan on hanging w/ them in the Cobblestone or 716; I'll watch 'em on the ice. And I expect team full of swagger will be more entertaining to watch than team full of Vanek-face.

Lehner's concussion is concerning. And I'd've preferred Lack for 51 and holding onto the 21, but TM thinks he's worth the risk. Until he starts getting proven wrong, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. After 40 years of DR; I'll stick w/ the anti-DR for now. !)

And some don't have prob with Kane, hope you are right. Lerner, if and a big if, watched him in Ottowa before he got hurt, imo, will be a very good goaltender, if his head is ok, much better than Lack... Just saying the risk is worth a discount... Murray needs to get his cake and eat it too at a fair price, not a Westchester, NY price

[TrueBlueGED]

So Murray used six first and four second round picks to give us:

O'Reilly, Kane, Bogosian, Lehner, McGinn and Fasching?

 

I'd take that in a second over:

Myers, Ennis, Pysyk, Enroth, Kassian, Adam, Brennan, Armia, Persson and Schiestel

 

That's what we got with the six firsts and four seconds we used prior to the tank.

 

And to account for the "but Darcy sucked" element, here's what the Anaheim Ducks did in the same period:

Cam Fowler, Kyle Palmeiri, Jake Gardiner, Rickard Rackell, William Karlsson, John Gibson, Devante Smith-Pelly, Emerson Etem, Peter Holland and Mat Clark

 

Pretty impressive hit rate for NHLers, but I'd still trade the works for O'Reilly, Kane and Bogosian.

 

It's also a little misleading to break it down strictly by round--more important is where in each round they were drafted. Kane and Bogosian were top-5 picks, and on average, each of those is worth 2-3 mid-1sts. So yea, we're fine. Attention everyone, the Buffalo Sabres will be fine!

 

Bring on October!

[PotentPowerPlay22]

Murray has essentially traded six first round picks (players that were first round picks or picks to be made in those rounds) and four second round picks (Lemieux and three second round picks to be made) for an amazing total of ten first/second round picks or players drafted in those rounds that have been traded during his short tenure as GM.  I would have thought that most new GMs would have relished the idea of drafting players in the first and second rounds, but that is not the way Murray has operated.  Not too sure about the overall value received in exchange for all of these assets.  I think he overpaid in the Kane deal and overpaid significantly to acquire Lehner.  

 

Short summary which does not include all of the components of the various trades:

 

Fasching:  two second round picks.

Kane/Bogosian: Myers (first round), Armia (first round), Lemieux (second round), first round pick (2015)

Lehner: first round pick (2015)

O'Reilly/McGinn: Zadorov (first round), Grigorenko (first round), second round pick (2015)

Seven 1st round picks counting Stafford.

 

I remember the euphoria when the Bills got Rob Johnson, Doug Flutie and most of all Drew Bledsoe. Don't fight the euphoria the day after. Time will tell. Murray gambled a big chunk of the future on the near term and nobody knows how it will ultimately turn out. 

 

I had criticized the Bledsoe trade the minute it happened until he eventually left Buffalo. At the time about 99% of the fans were ecstatic and they wondered (in no uncertain terms!)  why I doubted the value of the trade, but time revealed the truth.

 

Time will tell if Murray used all the assets wisely.  Most every one of these assets were accumulated by Darcy Regier in several excellent trades. 

 

I still believe he blew the Robin Lehner trade. A 1st round pick was too much considering the number of goalies available. Other good goalies were acquired for less. The O'Reilly trade is less clear. I really think Zadorov and Compher will be missed dearly in the long run.

 

We will see. 

[GoPre]

If the two most of us question Murray about Kane and Lerner, yes that is over valueing their worth especially given their health issues. I have no problem with these trades if both their heads are screwed on right, but that is a very important asset to have working correctly. look how quickly NFL draft picks and FAs fall when healthis an issue. Heck look at PLF near his end even though he could still skate. Head issues should not be taken lightly.

Legitmate question. Since none of us have any privy to medical records, my Dad, in the medical profession, was wondering how many fantasy leagues you are in.

And no, I'm not some teenager w/ an attitude problem. Simple 34 wondering wtf you're talking about.

[woods-racer]

I feel that the price that was paid by GMTM was to high for the players he got back in the trades, he seems to have "lost" is my initial reaction.

 

But I keep thinking I can't have my cake and eat it too...

 

We had a GM that "won" every trade, he never built a perennial winner.

 

We have a GM that has "lost" every trade (or at least way over paid), is he building a perennial winner?

 

I wanted a GM with moxy, vision, and a no holds bar attitude. GMTM is all that and more and now I feel he's to aggressive and giving up to much of the future.

 

I knew this day would come, when the draft numbers turned to actual players either in the draft or via trade. I think I over hyped it and wanted more. I think during the tank I hit a low that that I thought could be erased this weekend, and that turned out to be untrue, watching the Sabres play to win will be the only cure.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[Two or less]

The Sabres are not trading away assets for a quick run. They are not going out and getting guys like Patrick Sharp or Eric Staal. They are getting guys who are young and can grow together for the foreseeable future.

 

Also, the Sabres have 11 draft picks in the 2016 draft. They can move a few of those and move up and get guys they really want. We're heavily focused on scouting and drafting, so we just have to hope they find some gems along the way. They have a ton of picks still coming. Two second round picks in 2017 as well.

[Taro T]

I feel that the price that was paid by GMTM was to high for the players he got back in the trades, he seems to have "lost" is my initial reaction.

 

But I keep thinking I can't have my cake and eat it too...

 

We had a GM that "won" every trade, he never built a perennial winner.

 

We have a GM that has "lost" every trade (or at least way over paid), is he building a perennial winner?

 

I wanted a GM with moxy, vision, and a no holds bar attitude. GMTM is all that and more and now I feel he's to aggressive and giving up to much of the future.

 

I knew this day would come, when the draft numbers turned to actual players either in the draft or via trade. I think I over hyped it and wanted more. I think during the tank I hit a low that that I thought could be erased this weekend, and that turned out to be untrue, watching the Sabres play to win will be the only cure.

The team that gets the best player wins the trade. Which trade did TM lose?

 

And yes, the Sabres winning will make a lot of things better.

[North Buffalo]

It's also a little misleading to break it down strictly by round--more important is where in each round they were drafted. Kane and Bogosian were top-5 picks, and on average, each of those is worth 2-3 mid-1sts. So yea, we're fine. Attention everyone, the Buffalo Sabres will be fine!

 

Bring on October!

F fine, is it too much to ask, I Want awesome, potential is like a Wish Sandwich and a rubber biscuit..

Legitmate question. Since none of us have any privy to medical records, my Dad, in the medical profession, was wondering how many fantasy leagues you are in.

And no, I'm not some teenager w/ an attitude problem. Simple 34 wondering wtf you're talking about.

I am a medical professional with experience addressing head trauma and a child who has a complicated neurological problem, actually not in any fantacy leagues. But may live too close to Wall Street hence the request for a risk discount. Edited June 28, 2015 by North Buffalo