Trade: Ryan O'Reilly to St Louis Blues

[Eleven]

4 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

how could it properly be disregarded? it happened.

it should be regarded in its proper context.

So when I typed my original question at 6am or whatever, I was thinking of a few posts saying that the Sabres' streak should not "really" be considered as part of the overall record.

[jame]

18 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

 

To be fair, they are(/were) actual roster players, as opposed to money out the window.

Do you really think there's a difference (in their cases)?

 

[jame]

14 minutes ago, Eleven said:

So when I typed my original question at 6am or whatever, I was thinking of a few posts saying that the Sabres' streak should not "really" be considered as part of the overall record.

Their streak should be understood in it's context.

St Louis was a team that was failing due to a single issue (bad goaltending), they fixed their issue... now they are winning. It's not that complicated. 

The Sabres streak and subsequent failing has nothing in common with St Louis (problem/problem solved).

Trying to make the Buffalo streak relevant again, by comparing it to St Louis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, jame said:

The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.

and yet, we are a better team without him than we were with him. How do you not get that???????

[jame]

15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

and yet, we are a better team without him than we were with him. How do you not get that???????

How are you unable to separate the two things?

If Edmonton trades McDavid for a pencil sharpener... but then adds Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Gordie Howe in separate moves... and suddenly gets better.... it doesn't mean that trading McDavid for a pencil sharpener was a good trade that made the team better.

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[...]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

If Edmonton trades McDavid for a pencil sharpener... but then adds Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Gordie Howe in separate moves... and suddenly gets better.... it doesn't mean that trading McDavid for a pencil sharpener was a good trade that made the team better.

Missing the one variable (in this case McDavid) you can never prove either way. The mechanics of logic get in the way.  

[jame]

@PerreaultForever

We traded ROR for dogshit, and the trade has nothing to do with the improvements we've seen this year. We know this because we went through the sad face lockeroom routine a few weeks ago, and Okposo came right out and said nothing has changed inside the room.

What we do know that changed

1. More speed and skill added. Skinner, Sheary, Mittelstadt, Erod are all significant upgrades to the players they replaced.

2. Better, Deeper, Stronger Defense. Adding Dahlin and Pilut. While getting full season/performance from Bogo and Mcabe.

3. Stabilized goaltending. Bringing Hutton in, and Ullmark up.

4. Star Player growth. Eichel and Reinhart are producing more in their 4th year... no big shocker there.

We lost the ROR trade... in a massive way. The team has improved by building a defense, solidifying in goal.

Last year's team had enormous holes due to roster negligence by Botts, and due to a horrible run of injuries. This year's roster has been as healthy as can be, and has one massive self inflicted roster hole.

2 minutes ago, ... said:

Missing the one variable (in this case McDavid) you can never prove either way. The mechanics of logic get in the way.  

It required an extreme example when the normal one (staring everyone right in the face) isn't obvious.

[erickompositör72]

1 hour ago, jame said:

Last year's team had enormous holes due to roster negligence by Botts, and due to a horrible run of injuries. This year's roster has been as healthy as can be, and has one massive self inflicted roster hole.

You're really going to put the quality of our 17-18 roster (or lack thereof) squarely on JBott?

I feel like you make some very astute, well-articulated points, and then you go off the deep-end.

[jame]

25 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

You're really going to put the quality of our 17-18 roster (or lack thereof) squarely on JBott?

I feel like you make some very astute, well-articulated points, and then you go off the deep-end.

Pouliot, Tennyson, Griffith, Antipin, Josefson, Nolan, C.Johnson... are all players he signed and had on the opening day roster... that’s essentially 1/3 of the roster... and NONE of them are in the NHL today.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

So when I typed my original question at 6am or whatever, I was thinking of a few posts saying that the Sabres' streak should not "really" be considered as part of the overall record.

Ah. I dig.

It's mos def part of the picture. It's a bit of an aberration is all (imo). But those happen! Frequently, in fact.

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, jame said:

The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.

Vast hyperbole.

Setting aside the intangible dressing room suppositions, look at some recent trades involving 1st line players:

• Botterill got the equivalent of two firsts and second for ROR.
• Waddell got the equivalent of a 2nd and two 3rds for Skinner
• Dorion got a second for Hoffman
• Bowman got Saad for Panarin
• Gorton got the rough equivalent of two 1sts and a 2nd for McDonough and Miller
• Hextall got two firsts for Brayden Schenn
• Sweeney for a first and two seconds for Dougie Hamilton
• Armstrong got Brouwer and a third for TJ Oshie
• Shanahan got the equivalent of two 1sts for Kessel
• Sakic got the equivalent of two firsts and a second for O'Reilly

If it's one of the worst trades in 25 years, it's got a lot of company.

Edited February 15, 2019 by dudacek

[jame]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Vast hyperbole.

Setting aside the intangible dressing room suppositions, look at some recent trades involving 1st line players:

• Botterill got the equivalent of two firsts and second for ROR.
• Waddell got the equivalent of a 2nd and two 3rds for Skinner
• Dorion got a second for Hoffman
• Bowman got Saad for Panarin
• Gorton got the rough equivalent of two 1sts and a 2nd for McDonough and Miller
• Hextall got two firsts for Brayden Schenn
• Sweeney for a first and two seconds for Dougie Hamilton
• Armstrong got Brouwer and a third for TJ Oshie
• Shanahan got the equivalent of two 1sts for Kessel
• Sakic got the equivalent of two firsts and a second for O'Reilly

If it's one of the worst trades in 25 years, it's got a lot of company.

Beyond the use of “equivalency”... you also do not recognize the value of term.

# of 1st line centers in your list... one ROR. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, jame said:

Beyond the use of “equivalency”... you also do not recognize the value of term.

# of 1st line centers in your list... one ROR. 

Of course I do. Like most people on here, I follow hockey pretty closely. Term can be an asset or a detriment depending on a team's cap situation and the way a team or player is trending. Your arguments speak for themselves. There is no need to be patronizing.

Equivalency is reasonable writing shorthand for guys Kapanen and Thompson and Grigorenko being recent first round picks. Quibbling over that is like insisting on using TJ Oshie or Dennis Persson exclusively to debate the value of 24th overall picks.

You clearly place a very high value on O'Reilly. But you wouldn't have to go very far to find people who would rather have Panarin, or Hamilton, or Skinner, or virtually anyone on that list over him. It's a reasonable group of his peers.

Every one of these trades has extenuating circumstances that can be tied to them. But if you compare assets in versus assets out, the O'Reilly trade is very much in line with the others.

Edited February 15, 2019 by dudacek

[Weave]

47 minutes ago, jame said:

Pouliot, Tennyson, Griffith, Antipin, Josefson, Nolan, C.Johnson... are all players he signed and had on the opening day roster... that’s essentially 1/3 of the roster... and NONE of them are in the NHL today.

Don't care to wade into this argument.  Just here to say.... cheez, that list is bad.  What a mess we watched.

[dudacek]

I don't think the debate here is what Botterill got for O'Reilly. He shopped him for months to teams like Carolina, Calgary, Montreal and St. Louis among others and took the best offer that was available to him: the market established value.

I think it really come down to this: O'Reilly was signed by Murray to be a core piece of the team moving forward; Botterill did not believe in him as a core piece and moved on.

It's a trade that consciously created a vacuum on and off the ice with the intent of making the team better over the long term. I think Botterill decided he was adding by subtracting. He should be judged on how that vacuum is filled.

And that is a hand that has yet to be fully played out.

Edited February 16, 2019 by dudacek

[jame]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Of course I do. Like most people on here, I follow hockey pretty closely. Term can be an asset or a detriment depending on a team's cap situation and the way a team or player is trending. Your arguments speak for themselves. There is no need to be patronizing.

Equivalency is reasonable writing shorthand for guys Kapanen and Thompson and Grigorenko being recent first round picks. Quibbling over that is like insisting on using TJ Oshie or Dennis Persson exclusively to debate the value of 24th overall picks.

You clearly place a very high value on O'Reilly. But you wouldn't have to go very far to find people who would rather have Panarin, or Hamilton, or Skinner, or virtually anyone on that list over him. It's a reasonable group of his peers.

Every one of these trades has extenuating circumstances that can be tied to them. But if you compare assets in versus assets out, the O'Reilly trade is very much in line with the others.

Panarin was traded because he had to be, there was a real limitation placed on his trade value... and even still he returned a legitimate top 6 forward. Using that trade to justify the return on ROR is bizarre

Skinner? Really? A pending UFA with a full NMC? Putting that trade on the same planet as the ROR shows there is a huge disconnect on trade value.

These trades don’t belong anywhere in a ROR trade conversation... it’s apples and oranges

Hamilton is a decent attempt... if you think hamilton is good (hint, he’s a #4 defensemen)

[jame]

42 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don't think the debate here is what Botterill got for O'Reilly. He shopped him for months to teams like Carolina, Calgary, Montreal and St. Louis among others and took the best offer that was available to him: the market established value.

I think it really come down to this: O'Reilly was signed by Murray to be a core piece of the team moving forward; Botterill did not believe in him as a core piece and moved on.

It's a trade that consciously created a vacuum on and off the ice with the intent of making the team better over the long term. I think Botterill decided he was adding by subtracting. He should be judged on how that vacuum is filled.

And that is a hand that has yet to be fully played out.

Carolina was willing to trade Lindholm and Hanifin, wanted ROR... that’s how bad Botterill is.

ps by setting an artificial deadline, the market was never fully established 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, jame said:

Carolina was willing to trade Lindholm and Hanifin, wanted ROR... that’s how bad Botterill is.

ps by setting an artificial deadline, the market was never fully established 

 

What's your source for a ROR lindholm hanifin trade? I've never heard or seen this. 

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What's your source for a ROR lindholm hanifin trade? I've never heard or seen this. 

The Athletic had a reporter embedded in the Carolina war room who reported the Canes had talked to the Sabres about ROR.

It was never specifically spelled out what was on the table and why they went the way they did. It left the impression to me that Carolina chose to take the Hamilton offer rather than ROR offer, but @jame's take is just as feasible. It also left me with the impression that an ROR/Hamilton deal was also being discussed.

Edited February 16, 2019 by dudacek

[jame]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What's your source for a ROR lindholm hanifin trade? I've never heard or seen this. 

It was pretty well reported that carolina was in on ROR trade talks...

[LGR4GM]

What else was involved? This seems like a lot of speculation. Discussing a trade could mean anything. Seems thin to me especially since the Hamilton trade happened first. 

[Radar]

I liked ROR as a player. Hated to see him traded but it's done. Let's put it to rest. For whatever reason the guys upstairs thought it necessary and I'm pretty sure they know more than I do.

[dudacek]

I remain on the fence about the ROR trade, but Jame seems to take three premises as gospel:

1) ROR is a core piece (I tend to agree)

2) ROR's supposed issues either didn't exist or were easily fixable (I tend to disagree)

3) ROR could have generated a greater return (I want to agree based on my personal player evaluation, but disagree based on the return)

But if you accept 1, 2 and 3 as fact, then Jame's conclusion that Bott's is an idiot is entirely defensible.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, jame said:

It was pretty well reported that carolina was in on ROR trade talks...

But that's not what you said. You're implying a ror for lindholm and hanifin was on the table and botterill said no. What proof do you have of that?

[jame]

Just now, dudacek said:

I remain on the fence about the ROR trade, but Jame seems to take three premises as gospel:

1) ROR is a core piece (I tend to agree)

2) ROR's supposed issues either didn't exist or were easily fixable (I tend to disagree)

3) ROR could have generated a greater return (I want to agree based on my personal player evaluation, but disagree based on the return)

But if you accept 1, 2 and 3 as fact, then Jame's conclusion that Bott's is an idiot is entirely defensible.

1. Yes

2. Yes,  not as big of an issue as Buffalo media has retroactively magnified, and thus easily fixed with winning.

3. Your position assumes a competency Botts hasn’t earned. 

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But that's not what you said. You're implying a ror for lindholm and hanifin was on the table and botterill said no. What proof do you have of that?

I said caroli a was willing to trade Hanifin and Lindholm. Fact.

I said Carolina was interested in trade talks on ROR. Reported.

A good GM makes good trades