Official:Trade Brandon Montour to Buffalo for 1st and Guhle

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, IrwinNelson said:

They’ve gotta have a partner to move those pieces though. It’s going to handcuff them pretty significantly.

Well we never said they were going to have a successful tear down. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, jame said:

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?

No I don't. I expect those guys and any other player with value who doesn't fit into their window 2-3 years from now to be over the summer and next year

[shrader]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But that isn't the trade. I get that you qualified it with a minus 1 asset thing but that makes the entire trade completely different. 

If we ignore for a second that you're a male and you suck at drawing, you're just like Josie.  You both post on this message board.

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, IrwinNelson said:

They’ve gotta have a partner to move those pieces though. It’s going to handcuff them pretty significantly.

True and that's the issue. They're going to get rid of them all somehow, but what they get for them won't be great. 

[jame]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I think Armia and, more importantly, the perceived (by WPG) spread of Myers over Bogo have to be considered part of the consideration for Kane -- which in turn supports those who disagree that this is a TM-style move.

I think whoever posted upthread that this is more of a measured JB move than a max-out-the-credit-card TM move -- i.e. a LOT of picks and prospects for a good player who is somewhat proven in the NHL but still young -- is right.

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.

Edited February 25, 2019 by jame

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But none of those guys have been traded (or is likely to be).

Mean tear downs don't just happen at the deadline of a particular season 

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

It's not minutae.  It's the difference in still having one of the LA 2nds, Lemieux, & Compher or Zadorov still available to use or trade or have the cupboards bare.

Agreed. Even a 3rd line piece like the ones noted above would be very helpful to our current team depth.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

the first bold - The Anaheim team as a whole is headed into a re-building phase, and while Montour is young, he only has 1 year before an RFA payday that a re-building team isn't going to want to pay for. If you are expecting to compete in the next few years (like the Sabres expect to) then that fits perfectly in the competitive window.

Anaheim is trading him to align their team to the expected competitive window, which is why a 21 yr old defenseman and a RD1 pick is more valuable to them.

Actually I liked the ROR trade when it was made.  I thought we overpaid, but understood TM trying to get a 2nd line center and 2 way player to take some pressure off Eichel and Reinhart.  I hated Lehner trade because of the amount given for an injured goalie and taking the cap hit for Legwand.  I also didn’t like the Kane deal.  I was not a Kane or Bogo fan being from Atlanta and didn’t like either of their injury histories when acquired.  Truth be told TM paid top $ for expensive damaged goods.  This was all done to a bottom dwelling team who needed depth and help at all positions.

Unlike Jbot who have up nearly nothing for Skinner and while he really paid more for Montour but both trades filled gaping holes on our team (scoring winger and puck moving RHD).

Compare the Skinner (1yr left), and ROR (UFA) trades:

TM gave Colorado: Zadorov (16th overall in 2013), Compher (35th overall in 2013), Grigornenko (12th overall in 2012) and the 31st overall pick in 2015 for ROR.

Jbot gave Carolina: Pu (69th overall in 2016), a 2nd in 2019, a 3rd in 2020 and a 6th in 2020 for Skinner.  Pu was just traded for Future Considerations.  

Jbot received much more bang for his $ for similarly impactful players.  TM ripped 4 key prospects out of our system to get ROR while gave up maybe one.

[...]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are 

Keslar, Perry and Getzlaf aren't going anywhere.  At most, until those contracts are gone, they can only tear down around those guys.  I would view a "tear down" as rebuilding the core.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, ... said:

Keslar, Perry and Getzlaf aren't going anywhere.  At most, until those contracts are gone, they can only tear down around those guys.  I would view a "tear down" as rebuilding the core.

They just traded a 24 year old d man for a prospect and a late 1st. They're not rebuilding anything around that core, they're done with it 

[jame]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

No I don't. I expect those guys and any other player with value who doesn't fit into their window 2-3 years from now to be over the summer and next year

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.

 

[...]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

They just traded a 24 year old d man for a prospect and a late 1st. They're not rebuilding anything around that core, they're done with it 

They can't be "done with it" until they can get rid of them. That's the point.  And "rebuilding" isn't the same as "tearing it down".  You can rebuild around a core.  A tear down removes the core.  

Which do you really mean?

Edited February 25, 2019 by ...

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, jame said:

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.

 

I'm not saying it'll be easy or they won't get screwed on those deals, but worse contracts have been moved

[jame]

Just now, WildCard said:

They just traded a 24 year old d man for a prospect and a late 1st. They're not rebuilding anything around that core, they're done with it 

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.

[Doohicksie]

5 minutes ago, sabills said:

Sure, but that was the PLAN. Noone knows if Montour will work out either.

Fair enough, but so far it seems like JBot is working with HCPH to acquire players to build a certain type of team.  XGMTM was building a concept of a team and didn't appear to be coordinating with his coach du jour.

[WildCard]

Just now, ... said:

They can't be "done with it" until they can get rid of them. That's the point.  And "rebuilding" isn't the same as "tearing it down".  You can rebuild around a core.  A tear down removes the core.

And I said they can try and get rid of them in the summer. I agree with what a tear down is, and I stand by that's their intention

Just now, jame said:

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.

They can do a teardown. Your insistence that they can't simply because of see bad contracts can be proven wrong simply by looking at other teams that have moved worse contracts

Anaheim doesn't need playoff revenue. Don't act like they're being relocated without it 

[nfreeman]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

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 than Montour at the time of the respective trades.

I'd say Armia was comparable to Guhle -- prospects seen to have had a high ceiling when drafted but who had lost some shine -- although you are right that Guhle probably has an edge due to position.  But when you consider Lemieux -- who was seen as a valuable prospect and still quite early in his career -- Armia plus Lemieux is materially more valuable.

As to the first bolded -- absolutely not.  Myers was seen as a very valuable asset -- probably the most precious trade chip the Sabres had -- while Bogo was seen as an albatross -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/report-evander-kane-traded-to-buffalo-in-seven-player-deal/article22909464/.  Myers was the key part of the price they paid to get Kane.

 

Quote

 

Myers is the key piece for Winnipeg, a 25-year-old defenceman who'd been attracting interest from around the league all year and alone was going to command a significant price.

 

 As for the 2nd bolded -- you are probably right here, but the spread isn't high -- Kane was coming off of season-ending shoulder surgery and had accumulated a decidedly negative reputation.  There were quite a few GMs who had zero interest in trading for him.  And your point above about D being more valuable than W is applicable here as well.

[jame]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

And I said they can try and get rid of them in the summer. I agree with what a tear down is, and I stand by that's their intention

They can do a teardown. Your insistence that they can't simply because of see bad contracts can be proven wrong simply by looking at other teams that have moved worse contracts

Anaheim doesn't need playoff revenue. Don't act like they're being relocated without it 

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. 

[nfreeman]

6 minutes ago, WildCard said:

And I said they can try and get rid of them in the summer. I agree with what a tear down is, and I stand by that's their intention

They can do a teardown. Your insistence that they can't simply because of see bad contracts can be proven wrong simply by looking at other teams that have moved worse contracts

Anaheim doesn't need playoff revenue. Don't act like they're being relocated without it 

I agree that they can pay other teams to take some of those contracts, and I kinda expect it to happen with at least one of them.  But I think @jame is right that Anaheim is a budget team that cares about playoff revenue and probably isn't planning on bottoming out.

[jame]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

I'd say Armia was comparable to Guhle -- prospects seen to have had a high ceiling when drafted but who had lost some shine -- although you are right that Guhle probably has an edge due to position.  But when you consider Lemieux -- who was seen as a valuable prospect and still quite early in his career -- Armia plus Lemieux is materially more valuable.

As to the first bolded -- absolutely not.  Myers was seen as a very valuable asset -- probably the most precious trade chip the Sabres had -- while Bogo was seen as an albatross -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/report-evander-kane-traded-to-buffalo-in-seven-player-deal/article22909464/.  Myers was the key part of the price they paid to get Kane.

 

 As for the 2nd bolded -- you are probably right here, but the spread isn't high -- Kane was coming off of season-ending shoulder surgery and had accumulated a decidedly negative reputation.  There were quite a few GMs who had zero interest in trading for him.  And your point above about D being more valuable than W is applicable here as well.

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.... 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

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.

Phaneuf, Clarkson, &Datsyuk all had "untradeable“ contracts moved. There is no such thing as an immovable contract. Not saying it'll be easy nor that they will get moved, but it IS possible.

[shrader]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

I agree that they can pay other teams to take some of those contracts, and I kinda expect it to happen with at least one of them.  But I think @jame is right that Anaheim is a budget team that cares about playoff revenue and probably isn't planning on bottoming out.

Maybe I'm off on this one, but this whole discussion boils down to "Anaheim has a lot of changes coming up", but two people are disagreeing on how to word that.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

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.... 

Guhle is also a marginal asset or at least on par with what Leamiux was. 

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, jame said:

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.... 

Myers having almost twice as many points than Bogo says otherwise. Also Myers was significantly younger at the time.

[jame]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Guhle is also a marginal asset or at least on par with what Leamiux was. 

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.