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

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

It cannot be over-emphasized that in every team sport, one star player is way, way more valuable than two very good players or three good players. Kane and Reilly are all but star players already.

[Weave]

The team can only have 50 players under contract.  We had to move 2-3 prospects to bring in a young established player just to keep the contract count manageable.

 

We ended up moving several picks, a few proven losers, and prospects that were rolls of the dice regarding their impact at the NHL level, and received known NHL talents in return.  I'm impressed so far.  Picks and prospects should be treated like chess pieces.  It is good strategy to sacrifice a few pawns to draw out the bishops and knights.

 

No, Murray probably didn't win any of these trades.  He probably lost the Lehner deal.  I've seen the "successes" built around winning trades.  I'm not impressed with winning trades any more.

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

 

 

 

Potential is a bunch of draft picks. It's also a dice roll. We moved potential to get known quantities.  That's pretty awesome from where i am sitting.

[North Buffalo]

The team can only have 50 players under contract. We had to move 2-3 prospects to bring in a young established player just to keep the contract count manageable.

 

We ended up moving several picks, a few proven losers, and prospects that were rolls of the dice regarding their impact at the NHL level, and received known NHL talents in return. I'm impressed so far. Picks and prospects should be treated like chess pieces. It is good strategy to sacrifice a few pawns to draw out the bishops and knights.

 

No, Murray probably didn't win any of these trades. He probably lost the Lehner deal. I've seen the "successes" built around winning trades. I'm not impressed with winning trades any more.

 

 

 

Potential is a bunch of draft picks. It's also a dice roll. We moved potential to get known quantities. That's pretty awesome from where i am sitting.

Still potential till they all get together and with potentially two head cases, who knows.., Hedge always hedge

It cannot be over-emphasized that in every team sport, one star player is way, way more valuable than two very good players or three good players. Kane and Reilly are all but star players already.

I hope you are right, call me skeptical. Show me, god can't wait till season starts. Edited June 28, 2015 by North Buffalo

[Weave]

Still potential till they all get together and with potentially two head cases, who knows.., Hedge always hedge

 

They are way more proven quantities than the picks and prospects they moved.

[North Buffalo]

They are way more proven quantities than the picks and prospects they moved.

with medical issues..., discount... where is my discount folks... lol

[Weave]

with medical issues..., discount... where is my discount folks... lol

 

Lehner has legit questions.  What other player are you concerned about?

[GoPre]

Lehner has legit questions.  What other player are you concerned about?

 

Exact question I had. A shoulder injury w/ Kane? Yeah, that's something to worry about. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Thanes16

[North Buffalo]

I watched past Sabre teams fall apart because of injury, guys that have had them are targeted dont think Kane's shoulder and Lerner's head wont be

[woods-racer]

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.

 

That's the rub, only the future will tell if he won or lost.

 

Kane can be a future name hanging in the rafters or a head case and a locker room cancer.

 

Lehner may be a  practice puck hit to the head of never playing a regular season game again and a normal life. He may also be the goalie for  Sabres for the next decade and be one of the best stat wise ( I will always believe Hasek as the best in my lifetime). 

 

ROR could walk in a year as an UFA.

 

There is risk, there is reward.

 

I wanted all of the reward of the tank, I didn't know all the risk still associated with it was along for the ride.

 

I want my cake and eat it too...

[Weave]

I watched past Sabre teams fall apart because of injury, guys that have had them are targeted dont think Kane's shoulder and Lerner's head wont be

 

Every player in the league has an injury history.

[jahnyc]

One additional note, Murray also has acquired some expensive assets (O'Reilly (assuming he re-signs with Buffalo), Bogosian and Kane), and traded another (Myers).  I agree that you cannot look at the trades in a vacuum, but cost of players in terms of salary is another consideration.

 

As another poster noted, it comes down to whether Murray used his assets wisely.  Should be interesting, although I really do not understand the Lehner trade in terms of trading a first round pick in a strong draft.

[North Buffalo]

That's the rub, only the future will tell if he won or lost.

 

Kane can be a future name hanging in the rafters or a head case and a locker room cancer.

 

Lehner may be a  practice puck hit to the head of never playing a regular season game again and a normal life. He may also be the goalie for  Sabres for the next decade and be one of the best stat wise ( I will always believe Hasek as the best in my lifetime). 

 

ROR could walk in a year as an UFA.

 

There is risk, there is reward.

 

I wanted all of the reward of the tank, I didn't know all the risk still associated with it was along for the ride.

 

I want my cake and eat it too...

. My points exactly and more succinctly.

[deluca67]

They are way more proven quantities than the picks and prospects they moved.

 

Lehner is not a proven player. They traded future for potential in that trade. 

 

 

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)

 

What is being discussed here is Hockey Asset Management 101. What Murray is doing is text book. He has obtained assets to go with those he inherited. He has executed some of the assets into Reinhart & Eichel, he has manipulated some assets by trading picks for prospects and he has converted some assets into NHL players. There is a nice balance in the way he goes about managing the assets of the Buffalo Sabres. 

 

I have a great deal of respect for those who are expressing concerns about some of the asset management. It's easy to say "hey just enjoy it." We have gone through some pretty lean times around here lately. Is there any surprise that there is some nervousness regarding the Sabres new found wealth? I can see how some fans can react much like survivors of The Great Depression.  I've heard stories of some that lived for decades after The Great Depression as if they were still living in it. Refusing to spend any money and living a very minimalist lifestyle.

 

There is the other side of the coin. The Lottery Winners, those who suddenly find themselves with great wealth and spend without regard or thought for the future. There are always stories out there of former  Lottery Winners who find themselves broke because they thought the money could never run out.

 

Tim Murray needs to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. The word we heard most under the Regier era was "patience", the word that needs to define the Murray era is "balance." To win a Stanley Cup you need to have a balanced roster. To have long term success you need to balance the Salary Cap ledger. To avoid a repeat of the horrors of the past few seasons is balance the needs of the here and now while setting yourself in a position to re-tool and replenish the pipeline as you go. If Murray is successful we will be entering a golden era in franchise history. If Murray is unsuccessful the reigns will be handed over to another.

 

What it comes down to for me is where was this franchise when Tim Murray took over and where is this franchise right now. I am very happy where the franchise is right now. It's doesn't mean I have to like every trade or draft pick that Tim Murray makes and it doesn't mean I don't have similar concerns that initiated this thread. As a life long fan I am very comfortable with the path this franchise is on and with Tim Murray mapping out that future. I have faith and confidence that a Stanley Cup is in our future. Much sooner than later.         

Edited June 28, 2015 by DeLuca1967

[Brawndo]

In the unlikely event that ROR makes it to the trade deadline and has not signed an extension, Murray will move him for picks and prospects. The more likely scenario is ROR is introduced to the Buffalo Press on July 2nd after his extension is signed.

[Kelly the Dog]

Good post, Deluca. Plus, Murray is not always going to be like this. He will have players of his choosing on the team and won't have to be making risky monster trades and giving away assets he didn't draft or three for ones, etc. within one year from now he's going to have an entire team of his players (or his kind of players) and it won't be so swing for the fences.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[tom webster]

Lehner is not a proven player. They traded future for potential in that trade.

 

 

 

What is being discussed here is Hockey Asset Management 101. What Murray is doing is text book. He has obtained assets to go with those he inherited. He has executed some of the assets into Reinhart & Eichel, he has manipulated some assets by trading picks for prospects and he has converted some assets into NHL players. There is a nice balance in the way he goes about managing the assets of the Buffalo Sabres.

 

I have a great deal of respect for those who are expressing concerns about some of the asset management. It's easy to say "hey just enjoy it." We have gone through some pretty lean times around here lately. Is there any surprise that there is some nervousness regarding the Sabres new found wealth? I can see how some fans can react much like survivors of The Great Depression. I've heard stories of some that lived for decades after The Great Depression as if they were still living in it. Refusing to spend any money and living a very minimalist lifestyle.

 

There is the other side of the coin. The Lottery Winners, those who suddenly find themselves with great wealth and spend without regard or thought for the future. There are always stories out there of former Lottery Winners who find themselves broke because they thought the money could run out.

 

Tim Murray needs to be somewhere the middle of the two extremes. The word we heard most under the Regier era was "patience", the word that needs to define the Murray era is "balance." To win a Stanley Cup you need to have a balanced roster. To have long term success you need to balance the Salary Cap ledger. To avoid a repeat of the horrors of the past few seasons is balance the needs of the here and now while setting yourself in a position to re-tool and replenish the pipeline as you go. If Murray is successful we will be entering a golden era in franchise history. If Murray is unsuccessful the reigns will be handed over to another.

 

What is comes down to for me is where was this franchise when Tim Murray took over and where is this franchise right now. I am very happy where the franchise is right now. It's doesn't mean I have to like every trade or draft pick that Tim Murray makes and it doesn't mean I don't have similar concerns that initiated this thread. As a life long fan I am very comfortable with the path this franchise is on and with Tim Murray mapping out that future. I have faith and confidence that a Stanley Cup is in our future. Much sooner than later.

I, for one, think that Murray has done a tremendous job. However, I disagree on the balance issue. The Blackhawks have proven that the successful model is three or four stars, some solid veterans and a constantly rotating pool of prospects.

[...]

Lehner is simple: Murray determined Lehner is more valuable to him than any player he could pick at 21.

 

And while I question the concussion as well, Murray does have a medical staff, NHL research, personal and professional experience, and sport history to help evaluate the potential outcome of this injury.

 

I would guess that, while a gamble, the degree of the gamble falls well in favor of Murray and the Sabres.

 

Murray is like an abstract artist, you have to step back and take in the totality of his work. There have been individual moves that I would question, or wonder about, but when I look at what the Murray "big picture", it makes complete sense.

[Kelly the Dog]

Lehner is simple: Murray determined Lehner is more valuable to him than any player he could pick at 21.

And while I question the concussion as well, Murray does have a medical staff, NHL research, personal and professional experience, and sport history to help evaluate the potential outcome of this injury.

I would guess that, while a gamble, the degree of the gamble falls well in favor of Murray and the Sabres.

Murray is like an abstract artist, you have to step back and take in the totality of his work. There have been individual moves that I would question, or wonder about, but when I look at what the Murray "big picture", it makes complete sense.

Not only that but he said exactly what he was going to do when he took the job. He's going to sell off everyone that is UFA, he is going to get rid of anyone that does not want to be here, he is going to acquire big tough hard working team players who are hard to play against, and if guys who are in their early twenties and established top six or top line players are available, even if we have to take on some contacts with them, he would pick them up in the middle of the season or on draft day in exchange for some of his best assets.

 

He's done exactly that in about a year and a half.

[smj]

One thing we are all forgetting is that there are only a certain number of players a team can have signed.  Mediocrity is the enemy of excellence.  These draft picks (most likely yielding marginal players) and marginal players should be used to upgrade to solid/excellent players.  Kane, ROR and Lehner may not turn out to be excellent but they are a lot closer than any of these "assets" people aren't happy we traded away.  I am happy the tank is over.  These players may or may not be the answer but at least we won't be waiting another five years to find out which is what happens if you try to turn these assets into players through the draft.

Edited June 28, 2015 by smj

[deluca67]

I, for one, think that Murray has done a tremendous job. However, I disagree on the balance issue. The Blackhawks have proven that the successful model is three or four stars, some solid veterans and a constantly rotating pool of prospects.

IMO, what you have described regarding the Hawks is "balance." They manipulate the roster balancing talent and cap space. Paying the mega stars, filling in the roster with veterans as you said and keeping the pipe line constantly flowing with the pool of prospects. When I said "balance" this is more of what I had in mind. It's really a balance of contracts in today's NHL. Long term deals, flexible veteran contracts and entry level contracts.   

[Bob Malooga]

You need to invest in your business to make it better...the more you put in, the more you potentially get out.

 

Same rules apply here, and Tim Murray has done everything the right way so far.

[woods-racer]

Lehner is simple: Murray determined Lehner is more valuable to him than any player he could pick at 21.

 

And while I question the concussion as well, Murray does have a medical staff, NHL research, personal and professional experience, and sport history to help evaluate the potential outcome of this injury.

 

I would guess that, while a gamble, the degree of the gamble falls well in favor of Murray and the Sabres.

 

Murray is like an abstract artist, you have to step back and take in the totality of his work. There have been individual moves that I would question, or wonder about, but when I look at what the Murray "big picture", it makes complete sense.

 

I see what the artist is trying to convey, I see what GMTM is building in the big picture.

 

But the Sabres can still be the Penguins of 2014-15 if they the reward doesn't justify the means.

 

We may have the Crosby- Malkin success story, and not the Toews-Kane success we anticipate with Reinhart and Eichel.

 

Has GMTM given the Sabres the epitome of balance in the line up like Chicago, or the sacrificing of draft picks for the future is now way of the Penguins?

 

I would have gladly accepted the ride of fandom that has been one of a Penguins fan before the tank. My expectations are greater now that I have lived the tank.

[TrueBlueGED]

We've gone from purely hoping and praying on future returns, many of them with a low percentage, to certainty and near-certainty on high ceiling pieces.

 

We were all praying Joel Armia would put it all together and become a 25 goal top-6 player, while trying to bury in our subconscious the very real possibility he's a washout. Not only were we worried about his hockey future, but he has every bit the injury concerns that Kane has. We were dreaming of Brendan Lemieux becoming a petulant 3rd liner who can chip in 35 points...within the next four years. We were hoping a late 1st round pick would turn into an NHL player five years down the line. We now have Evander Kane who we know, at worst, is a top-6 player and is very likely a 1st line player with real linemates. How is this bad asset management? Is the risk of him being a headcase really any higher than the rest of those unproven assets amounting to zilch at the NHL level? Kane was a #4 overall pick and has best pedigree, highest ceiling, and most proven NHL production of any piece involved here.

 

We traded our "potential Norris candidate" Myers for a currently equivalent player who had even more hype than Myers at draft time. A couple of years back I wouldn't have traded Myers for Getzlaf straight up, but at some point, you have to let the dream die. He's a 25 year old 6 year pro who has flashed #1 ability, but has also flashed a #6 floor. At what point do we accept he's just a 2nd pairing defenseman? We traded him for a Dman who also belongs on the second pair, is a little younger, and has the same potential which is just as unlikely to be realized. How is this bad asset management?

 

We traded a #1 pick for an unproven goaltender and a cap dump. I hated this trade, and still think it's bad, but that #1 pick is a late 1st rounder and 4-5 years away from even getting a legitimate chance in the NHL. Lehner is going to be our starter next year, and Legwand will provide some nice leadership from the 4th line. Would I rather have spent a 3rd and 7th on Lack? Yes. But Lehner is cost-controlled for 4 more years whereas Lack is a pending UFA, and that matters. This isn't great asset management by any stretch, but one bad deal does not a bad or "wasteful" GM make.

 

We acquired a 1st line center who can play wing and a solid 3rd line winger for Zadorov, Grigorenko, a 2nd round pick and JT Compher. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first: Compher if he ever makes the NHL is a 3rd-4th line forward, Grigorenko had an unworkable contract situation and no real spot on the roster even without the trade, and a 2nd round pick may make an NHL appearance 5 years down the road with a tiny percentage chance to be an impact player. We can be tantalized by Grigorenko's ceiling all we want, but the odds of him reaching that aren't worth considering--his most likely positive outcome is a middle-6 center, which a still significant chance of being a total bust.

 

And then there's Zadorov, the real piece of this trade. We all know his ceiling is incredibly high--huge, good skater, legitimate offensive talent, physical defensive force. All the tools are there. But will he put them together? Showed up to camp out of shape and had to be ridden by coaches and vets to get in shape during the season (a process that took months, which really speaks to how poor his initial condition was), showed up late to meetings, came back late from the all-star break, and had continual brain cramps in the defensive zone during games. Now, each of those things individually can be explained by some combination of youth and inexperience, which hopefully would go away with the right coaching and simply natural maturation. The problem is they all happened to the same guy. Is it enough to lose hope? No, certainly not. But if the cumulative effect of all those things doesn't raise eyebrows and a red flag, you're being emotional rather than objective. What separates good players from great ones? Hockey sense and dedication--the two major questions for Zadorov. The NHL chews up and spits out super talented players every year. Yes, he could eventually turn into a franchise defenseman...but again, it comes down to a matter of likelihood. Zadorov could just as easily be a total bust as he is a #1 defenseman, with the heavy money on something in-between: a second pairing defenseman. If we can work under the assumption that a #1 Dman and a #1 center are roughly equivalent in value to a generic team, how do you consider a possible (and likely not) #1 Dman for a proven #1 center to be bad asset management? 

 

Both of the big trades has been quantity and questions for quality and certainty. The ceiling of the questions moved out is not higher than the proven performance of the pieces brought in, hence many pieces for fewer pieces. What we moved out is more easily replaceable than what we brought in is obtainable. Picks/prospects get dealt regularly, top line players in their prime do not. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a quantity-for-quality trade turned out in favor of the team getting quantity? "The team that gets the best player won the trade" has become a saying because history shows it to be true far more often than not, and this result happens because quantity is more easily replaced than quality. You can get 2nd and 3rd line players in free agency, you almost never get 1st line players that way. It's the exact same reason that great teams re-tool around their core rather than shipping out their core to retain peripheral players. Building a team works the same way as this--acquire core pieces at the expense of the periphery. 

 

Build the core, protect the core, compete for the Cup. Worry about the rest later.

[dejeanneret]

Like what Weave said, there are only so many players we can have under contract.  We can't sign them all.

 

Bottom line is we are looking for the best 12 forwards, 7 defenseman, and 1 goalie you can put on the ice.  That's 20 players. 

 

Those 20 are what wins you cups.

 

So if we need to trade 3 for 1, so be it.   We have enough depth to do that. 

 

Obviously value means something, but in the end it's not what we paid for the player but whether he performs at a high level. 

 

And those that believe "we paid too much" for a player, that's in your lamen opinion.  You have no clue.  No one on this board knows scouting talent like a professional GM. 

 

So let the pros do their thing, and have faith that your GM is steering you in the right direction.  Micromanaging every trade or player move isn't what great GM's do.  They look at the big picture.

 

Our big picture is looking fantastic.

Edited June 28, 2015 by dejeanneret

[Brawndo]

We've gone from purely hoping and praying on future returns, many of them with a low percentage, to certainty and near-certainty on high ceiling pieces.

 

We were all praying Joel Armia would put it all together and become a 25 goal top-6 player, while trying to bury in our subconscious the very real possibility he's a washout. Not only were we worried about his hockey future, but he has every bit the injury concerns that Kane has. We were dreaming of Brendan Lemieux becoming a petulant 3rd liner who can chip in 35 points...within the next four years. We were hoping a late 1st round pick would turn into an NHL player five years down the line. We now have Evander Kane who we know, at worst, is a top-6 player and is very likely a 1st line player with real linemates. How is this bad asset management? Is the risk of him being a headcase really any higher than the rest of those unproven assets amounting to zilch at the NHL level? Kane was a #4 overall pick and has best pedigree, highest ceiling, and most proven NHL production of any piece involved here.

 

We traded our "potential Norris candidate" Myers for a currently equivalent player who had even more hype than Myers at draft time. A couple of years back I wouldn't have traded Myers for Getzlaf straight up, but at some point, you have to let the dream die. He's a 25 year old 6 year pro who has flashed #1 ability, but has also flashed a #6 floor. At what point do we accept he's just a 2nd pairing defenseman? We traded him for a Dman who also belongs on the second pair, is a little younger, and has the same potential which is just as unlikely to be realized. How is this bad asset management?

 

We traded a #1 pick for an unproven goaltender and a cap dump. I hated this trade, and still think it's bad, but that #1 pick is a late 1st rounder and 4-5 years away from even getting a legitimate chance in the NHL. Lehner is going to be our starter next year, and Legwand will provide some nice leadership from the 4th line. Would I rather have spent a 3rd and 7th on Lack? Yes. But Lehner is cost-controlled for 4 more years whereas Lack is a pending UFA, and that matters. This isn't great asset management by any stretch, but one bad deal does not a bad or "wasteful" GM make.

 

We acquired a 1st line center who can play wing and a solid 3rd line winger for Zadorov, Grigorenko, a 2nd round pick and JT Compher. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first: Compher if he ever makes the NHL is a 3rd-4th line forward, Grigorenko had an unworkable contract situation and no real spot on the roster even without the trade, and a 2nd round pick may make an NHL appearance 5 years down the road with a tiny percentage chance to be an impact player. We can be tantalized by Grigorenko's ceiling all we want, but the odds of him reaching that aren't worth considering--his most likely positive outcome is a middle-6 center, which a still significant chance of being a total bust.

 

And then there's Zadorov, the real piece of this trade. We all know his ceiling is incredibly high--huge, good skater, legitimate offensive talent, physical defensive force. All the tools are there. But will he put them together? Showed up to camp out of shape and had to be ridden by coaches and vets to get in shape during the season (a process that took months, which really speaks to how poor his initial condition was), showed up late to meetings, came back late from the all-star break, and had continual brain cramps in the defensive zone during games. Now, each of those things individually can be explained by some combination of youth and inexperience, which hopefully would go away with the right coaching and simply natural maturation. The problem is they all happened to the same guy. Is it enough to lose hope? No, certainly not. But if the cumulative effect of all those things doesn't raise eyebrows and a red flag, you're being emotional rather than objective. What separates good players from great ones? Hockey sense and dedication--the two major questions for Zadorov. The NHL chews up and spits out super talented players every year. Yes, he could eventually turn into a franchise defenseman...but again, it comes down to a matter of likelihood. Zadorov could just as easily be a total bust as he is a #1 defenseman, with the heavy money on something in-between: a second pairing defenseman. If we can work under the assumption that a #1 Dman and a #1 center are roughly equivalent in value to a generic team, how do you consider a possible (and likely not) #1 Dman for a proven #1 center to be bad asset management? 

 

Both of the big trades has been quantity and questions for quality and certainty. The ceiling of the questions moved out is not higher than the proven performance of the pieces brought in, hence many pieces for fewer pieces. What we moved out is more easily replaceable than what we brought in is obtainable. Picks/prospects get dealt regularly, top line players in their prime do not. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a quantity-for-quality trade turned out in favor of the team getting quantity? "The team that gets the best player won the trade" has become a saying because history shows it to be true far more often than not, and this result happens because quantity is more easily replaced than quality. You can get 2nd and 3rd line players in free agency, you almost never get 1st line players that way. It's the exact same reason that great teams re-tool around their core rather than shipping out their core to retain peripheral players. Building a team works the same way as this--acquire core pieces at the expense of the periphery. 

 

Build the core, protect the core, compete for the Cup. Worry about the rest later.

The one of the most painful parts about trading Compher was that Eichel was shocked to hear that he was traded.

 

Zadorov certainly has the tools, but does he have the toolbox to put them in