Lehner has Ankle Surgery Out for Season

[TheAud]

It is relevant when you consider we had Michal Neuvirth and traded him away. We could have just signed him and kept the 1st. Anders Lindback would have been an adequate #2.

It's relevant to the "is GMTM an effective asset manager" discussion. It is irrelevant to Lehner's performance vs. Ullmark or Johnson going forward because it's in the past. 

It's a sunk cost. It doesn't matter if the was traded for a 7th rounder or for Wayne Gretzky he's just a guy on the team at this point. 

[Thwomp!]

We didn't give up too much for Kane and Bogosian. It was about getting pieces that fit in to the team that Murray wanted to build. Trades cannot just be analyzed in a vacuum like Regier tried to teach everyone. Besides, we got the best player in the trade.

Saying that giving up a late first for Lehner was too much, has jumped the shark. It was a draft pick. Who knows who we would have picked had we kept it. The pick was a much more replaceable asset than what we may potentially have in Lehner.

 

 

Buffalo's Undeniable Starting Tender

We completely disagree with each other, mainly because I'm not feeling the love for who we got and how well and often they've played. I know I'm in the vast majority here, but Murray's wreckless asset management concerns me and bears watching in the future.

[Taro T]

We completely disagree with each other, mainly because I'm not feeling the love for who we got and how well and often they've played. I know I'm in the vast majority here, but Murray's wreckless asset management concerns me and bears watching in the future.

You sure about that?

 

Those w/ major concerns about TM are more 'vocal' but not sure they are the majority.

[ddaryl]

You sure about that?

 

Those w/ major concerns about TM are more 'vocal' but not sure they are the majority.

 

they're no a majority in fact a very small minority and like you said are overly vocal for bizarre reasoning.

 

How can anyone not like what his team is becoming. I haven't been this excited for Sabres Hockey since the Briere Drury years. I'm extremely excited for this franchises near future

Edited April 1, 2016 by ddaryl

[Thwomp!]

You sure about that?

Those w/ major concerns about TM are more 'vocal' but not sure they are the majority.

Damn phone. Obviously meant minority. :P

they're no a majority in fact a very small minority and like you said are overly vocal for bizarre reasoning.

 

How can anyone not like what his team is becoming. I haven't been this excited for Sabres Hockey since the Briere Drury years. I'm extremely excited for this franchises near future

I'm excited too. But it's excitement for primarily the young players that we tanked into, not for the majority of the moves that have been made to build the team thus far.

[nfreeman]

I think it's way too early to judge Lehner, including the asset the Sabres gave up for him.  We'll need at least one full season out of him before we can evaluate.

 

I do not discount Eastside's concerns about giving up too much in the trade for Kane, but I really think it comes down to how one feels about Kane.  I am very happy with him on this team and can see him adding even more value next year.  I also don't think the Sabres could've gotten materially more for the assets they gave up than Kane, Bogo and the goalie prospect.

 

I agree that Fasching/McNabb at this point is more or less a wash.  If Fasching has a big year next year, which certainly could happen, we can start to exult about that move.

 

I think everyone's happy with ROR.

[Randall Flagg]

I wouldn't be any more upset about pick 21 turning into a better player than Lehner than I would be about any pick behind the ones we make in a draft turning into a better player than our picks, because after a few players nobody has any idea what the players' futures will hold. I also don't believe pick 21 will have a better career than Lehner will. Combined with the fact that Legwand has been a solid veteran presence, particularly for our franchise player, and not a mess on the ice, playing a part in making our PK a lot better as the season went on, I cannot imagine feeling bad about this trade. Especially not this early.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[JJFIVEOH]

I wouldn't be any more upset about pick 21 turning into a better player than Lehner than I would be about any pick behind the ones we make in a draft turning into a better player than our picks, because after a few players nobody has any idea what the players' futures will hold. I also don't believe pick 21 will have a better career than Lehner will. Combined with the fact that Legwand has been a solid veteran presence, particularly for our franchise player, and not a mess on the ice, playing a part in making our PK a lot better as the season went on, I cannot imagine feeling bad about this trade. Especially not this early.

I agree. Especially if Lehner can keep his head in the game. I think character players are just as important as talent. If Lehner can keep his head in the game his personality itself is enough to get his team pumped up. It's a reason I really like Bogo. You can have all the talent in the world, but if you have the personality of a rock (Pysyk) your contributions are often limited.

[TrueBlueGED]

The thing about evaluating this trade is that we have no freakin' clue who Murray would have drafted. Sure we could look at it and say "See how good Boeser and White are? We could've had one!" While true, we also could've had Samsonov, or Juulsen, or Larsson, or maybe he'd have gone "Full Boston" and grabbed a 3rd round prospect. Think back to 2014 when half the board was head over heels for Barbashev, and he was right there for us in round 2...and Murray drafted Lemieux instead. I didn't like the trade, but I think the level of angst is over the top given the uncertainty of what Murray would have done in lieu of the trade.

[3putt]

The thing about evaluating this trade is that we have no freakin' clue who Murray would have drafted. Sure we could look at it and say "See how good Boeser and White are? We could've had one!" While true, we also could've had Samsonov, or Juulsen, or Larsson, or maybe he'd have gone "Full Boston" and grabbed a 3rd round prospect. Think back to 2014 when half the board was head over heels for Barbashev, and he was right there for us in round 2...and Murray drafted Lemieux instead. I didn't like the trade, but I think the level of angst is over the top given the uncertainty of what Murray would have done in lieu of the trade.

But this fails as well.  We knew what Neuvirth was and Halak.  Is Lehner any better?  At this point the jury is still out.  Those two would not have cost an asset.  The unsaid premise is that immediacy was required.  I think that was the error.  A 3 year deal, with an eye to moves to bolster the organization top to bottom was the wiser choice.  Modern scouting is much more exact.  The top guys are not reaches.  Boeser or White in the organization would calm alot of the who do get to play with Jack speculation. A different approach but the one I was in favor of. Jmho ymmv.

[Thorner]

But this fails as well. We knew what Neuvirth was and Halak. Is Lehner any better? At this point the jury is still out. Those two would not have cost an asset. The unsaid premise is that immediacy was required. I think that was the error. A 3 year deal, with an eye to moves to bolster the organization top to bottom was the wiser choice. Modern scouting is much more exact. The top guys are not reaches. Boeser or White in the organization would calm alot of the who do get to play with Jack speculation. A different approach but the one I was in favor of. Jmho ymmv.

The percentages don't bear this out, a first round pick in that range is still just as likely to not be an NHL player, nevermind a good one. In that way, those players are reaches. But a better term would be educated guesses.

 

There are two schools of thought here when it comes to disliking this trade, it seems. The first is that one doesn't see Lehner to be a very good goalie, so they are against the trade. Perfectly reasobable.

 

The second is that giving up a 1st for a goalie was, on principle, a bad move, that a 1st in that situation was an overpayment regardless of, and potentially even because of, the extenuating circumstances. It is this view I completely disagree with. Whether Murray was even correct in his judgement of Lehner is irrelevant, in regards to if Murray was making, for him, a reasonable payment. If Murray believed he was trading for a number 1, starting goalie, it was damn sure worth a late first round draft pick.

 

Murray could be wrong, but the logic behind the decision is sound. What he gave up wasn't the issue, that was market value for Lehner. What matters is if he judged the talent correctly. To that, we shall see. We need to give Lehner time before we can make judgements on this trade.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Thorny

[dudacek]

The percentages don't bear this out, a first round pick in that range is still just as likely to not be an NHL player, nevermind a good one. In that way, those players are reaches. But a better term would be educated guesses.

There are two schools of thought here when it comes to disliking this trade, it seems. The first is that one doesn't see Lehner to be a very good goalie, so they are against the trade. Perfectly reasobable.

The second is that giving up a 1st for a goalie was, on principle, a bad move, that a 1st in that situation was an overpayment regardless of, and potentially even because of, the extenuating circumstances. It is this view I completely disagree with. Whether Murray was even correct in his judgement of Lehner is irrelevant, in regards to if Murray was making, for him, a reasonable payment. If Murray believed he was trading for a number 1, starting goalie, it was damn sure worth a late first round draft pick.

Murray could be wrong, but the logic behind the decision is sound. What he gave up wasn't the issue, that was market value for Lehner. What matters is if he judged the talent correctly. To that, we shall see. We need to give Lehner time before we can make judgements on this trade.

A the risk of being accused of Murray cheerleading, I could not agree more.

[3putt]

A the risk of being accused of Murray cheerleading, I could not agree more.

Ok, I'll play. First Jones' pedigree far exceeded Lehner's if for no ther reason he did not miss half a season with concussion issues. So argument doesn't work. Lehner was in the Lack, Talbot category the market value was a second or third. That Murray believed he was getting a #1 is also irrelevant. Number ones were available for less cost. Murray went to an auto lot and said I want a pickup. The salesman says we have 3 all in black. Murray says he'll pay double for a red one. The salesman has a black one painted and walks off with double the market value for the same vehicle. You make distinctions between player a and player b when the production is equivalent. Under those circumstances the market value is the same. That he prefers one over the other and pays a premium for it is the objection some, including myself, have with how he makes trades. The improvement in the team is obvious but is that due to the specific addition or adding a player of a certain style? Is it the maturation ahead of schedule of Sam and Jack? Would we be in the same position with a full season of Lack or better with Jones? Simply saying we're better so Murray shouldn't be criticized is specious at best. In business success is often measured by roi. Are we getting good roi? These are legit questions.

 

I like this team. I like rooting for Jack and Sam and Risto and Jake. Kane is fun but frustrating at times. But all in all enjoyable. But I dont measure the health of the team on my enjoyment index. We suffered for 2 plus years all the while accumulating capital in the form of picks. It is not unreasonable to ponder whether we have spent that capital wisely. IMHO, the jury is still out. And again I like GMTM. It doesn't mean I can't disagree with some of his moves. That is the inherent right of any fan.

[dudacek]

3putt I respect your point of view on this.

 

Prior to the trade, I considered Lehner to be one of the top U25 goalies-in-waiting out there. I've since discovered most fans overlook his age and status as a prospect and think of him mostly as a guy who isn't good enough to start in Ottawa.

 

The crux of the argument is in the sentence where you say Lehner was in the Talbot Lack category.

A lot of fans on message boards agree with you. I don't. Tim Murray didn't, Bryan Murray didn't and at least one other GM who Murray was bidding against didn't.

 

If he bought a used Corolla (ie a Johnson, Lack) for the price of a new one (a late first-rounder) you are right, he overpaid.

If he bought new Corolla (Bishop, Jones) at new Corolla prices he did just fine.

And if he bought a Mercedes (Schneider), he's smarter than the fans.

 

Like you say, the jury is still out.

[Thorner]

Ok, I'll play. First Jones' pedigree far exceeded Lehner's if for no ther reason he did not miss half a season with concussion issues. So argument doesn't work. Lehner was in the Lack, Talbot category the market value was a second or third. That Murray believed he was getting a #1 is also irrelevant. Number ones were available for less cost. Murray went to an auto lot and said I want a pickup. The salesman says we have 3 all in black. Murray says he'll pay double for a red one. The salesman has a black one painted and walks off with double the market value for the same vehicle. You make distinctions between player a and player b when the production is equivalent. Under those circumstances the market value is the same. That he prefers one over the other and pays a premium for it is the objection some, including myself, have with how he makes trades. The improvement in the team is obvious but is that due to the specific addition or adding a player of a certain style? Is it the maturation ahead of schedule of Sam and Jack? Would we be in the same position with a full season of Lack or better with Jones? Simply saying we're better so Murray shouldn't be criticized is specious at best. In business success is often measured by roi. Are we getting good roi? These are legit questions.

I like this team. I like rooting for Jack and Sam and Risto and Jake. Kane is fun but frustrating at times. But all in all enjoyable. But I dont measure the health of the team on my enjoyment index. We suffered for 2 plus years all the while accumulating capital in the form of picks. It is not unreasonable to ponder whether we have spent that capital wisely. IMHO, the jury is still out. And again I like GMTM. It doesn't mean I can't disagree with some of his moves. That is the inherent right of any fan.

Good post. It just comes down to whether what makes Lehner different than the others, that red paint, makes him a better goaltender than the others. Murray seems to think the red paint is key, that whatever it represents means something valuable going forward. He thinks Lehner was the cream of the crop, and we agree, the jury is still out.

 

  

3putt I respect your point of view on this.

Prior to the trade, I considered Lehner to be one of the top U25 goalies-in-waiting out there. I've since discovered most fans overlook his age and status as a prospect and think of him mostly as a guy who isn't good enough to start in Ottawa.

The crux of the argument is in the sentence where you say Lehner was in the Talbot Lack category.

A lot of fans on message boards agree with you. I don't. Tim Murray didn't, Bryan Murray didn't and at least one other GM who Murray was bidding against didn't.

If he bought a used Corolla (ie a Johnson, Lack) for the price of a new one (a late first-rounder) you are right, he overpaid.

If he bought new Corolla (Bishop, Jones) at new Corolla prices he did just fine.

And if he bought a Mercedes (Schneider), he's smarter than the fans.

Like you say, the jury is still out.

I concur.

[dudacek]

Nobody talking about the very clear message sent by Murray in the very first answer of the year-ender?

He was asked about what the Sabres needed to make the playoffs and he said 50 or 60 games from a bona fide #1 goalie.

 

He went on to imply that Chad played far better than he could have hoped, but he is not that guy.

And he put the onus on Lehner to be that guy.

 

For the second time in two weeks he said your goalie may not have to be your best player, but he has to be your hardest working player.

He confirmed his belief in Robin's talent and challenged him hard to step up to the plate.

 

Pretty clear message sent to the player, the team and the fanbase.

 

From Lehner's season-ender, it sounds like the message was received.

Can't wait to see what he brings in September.

[LGR4GM]

My new season resolution is to give Lehner a chance. He's earned and I hope Murray is right about him.

[Derrico]

My new season resolution is to give Lehner a chance. He's earned and I hope Murray is right about him.

That's good to hear as I know if you've been critical of him this season (not unjustified).  I like Ullmark as well but the way he played the second half of the season pumps the breaks on anointing him the future starter of the team.  Here's to hoping both guys can take a big step next season.

[Huckleberry]

Hope the rehab on his ankle goes well.  Its a tricky injury and even after surgery you are prone to relapses.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him miss some time starting the season.    I guess they decided to do the surgery in time to be ready for the start of next season but you never know.