The ROR trade sucked thread

[Brawndo]

4 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

But he is a leader for the Blues.  On and off the ice.  First guy to work, last one to leave, and the younger players know it.  

He was that for the Sabres in his first two years as well. His ROR Practices were well attended by younger players until they weren’t. 

I would love to know the reason why. 

I do wonder how different the culture or environment of the locker room would have been the last two seasons if Krueger would have said yes to the job in 2017, given the fact that his supposed specialty is team building and if it would have sufficed to prevent a trade from happening. 

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

Unfortunately for us, Buffalo is not a desired location for a player that wants to win now.  Maybe someday it will be.  

Ultimate taboo?   I doubt it. People in St Louis were talking about ROR for Parayko, or Robert Thomas and and a package of picks, ...  the deal they got made them ecstatic.   What killed the trade was the salary dump.  We dumped $7M of top talent and picked  up the roughly equivalent cost in Blues junk (Berglund and Sobotka). 

Berglund was considered a guy that underachieved.  Sobotka had past his best play and going to lose his spot to the young guns the Blues are now playing.  

We got burned unless Tage and a draft pick pan out. 

Wow I didn't realize what we got for ROR until you just told me.  You don't think I know we lost the trade?

Ultimate taboo, yes.  

So you think JBot could have gotten a lot more for ROR but just decided not to?   It's amazing that you want us to believe that.  

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, 7+6=13 said:

Wow I didn't realize what we got for ROR until you just told me.  You don't think I know we lost the trade?

Ultimate taboo, yes.  

So you think JBot could have gotten a lot more for ROR but just decided not to?   It's amazing that you want us to believe that.  

Hey, glad to help.  

As I said , Maybe we draft a good player and Tage turns into a solid player, then the trade will be looked at differently from the Sabres viewpoint.   

I think JBot got what he thought was the best he could.   Nothing I said suggests otherwise.  

[SwampD]

Gotta love The Tank.

If you don't see the direct connection,… God bless you.

[Broken Ankles]

8 hours ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

Even today it looks like there are a lot of takes and opinions on this trade.  I still don't hate this trade and here's why:

1. The 2017-2018 Sabres roster was comprised of only 2.5 top 6 forwards - O'Reilly, Eichel, and Kane (who I believe has proven himself as a solid middle 6 during his tenures in Buffalo and SJ, but shouldn't be considered a top line threat anymore).  The rest was 3rd/4th line role players, guys running out contracts, and rookies trying to break into the league.  Jacob Josefson played 39 games and had 4 points.  Nick Baptiste, Scott Wilson, Jordon Nolan, Benoit Pouliot, Zemgus, and Larson didn't fair much better with a similar number of games (or more).  Pommers, Okposo, and Reinhart were pedestrian at best.  Want to throw up in your mouth a little bit?  Matt Moulson and Seth Griffith played 14 and 21 games that season, respectively.  Check out the roster and stats, it's disgusting… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Buffalo_Sabres_season#Player_statistics  .We needed 3-4 top 6 forwards and didn't have the assets to get them.  The O'Reilly trade brought us 3 roster players at a similar cap hit.   Yes this cost us 1 of our 2 top 6 forwards, but who else had any trade value on that team besides Eichel?  Kane was the only one and we got a fair return there.   My main point here is this trade plugged some upcoming holes for the 2019 season while overall freeing up cap space to go make a splash in FA or with a trade (see Skinner trade)

2.  The Berglund Breakdown - this was a monkey wrench thrown into Jbots plan only the Blues GM could have likely foreseen.  Berglund was not happy about being traded, was not happy about his role with the Sabres, and was not happy with being a hockey player anymore.  It appeared Jbots strategy was to pencil Berglund into the 2C role and let Middlestat develop.  If Middlestat appeared ready to handle a bigger load he could step in and provide the offensive 2C role, while Housley would be able to rely on Bergs for the defensive 2C role and a veteran presence.  Decent plan considering what they had to work with.  Unfortunately this plan burst into flames and drove straight into a ditch.  A happy Berglund would have helped this team, and his departure left a significant void - one I felt Zemgus should have stepped into.  

3. O'Reilly wanted out and didn't care about this team.   Let's face it - Ryan is a crybaby when things aren’t going well.  He cried about his contract in Colorado and forced his way out of there, he cried about the team he captained in Buffalo and forced his way out of there, and he's going to cry if/when St Louis starts to get bad.  Yes he says all the right things and is an amazing hockey player, but the guy has the constitution of 10 ply toilet paper.  Yes I am aware this is subjective, but the first 2 things actually happened so I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here.  

4. The trade worked.  Blah blah blah their record was worse, blah blah blah they only had one forward line that could score blah blah blah there coach was in over his head blah blah blah.  This is not GM mode in EA sports.  You went from a team with 2 top 6 forwards to 3.  You had a team that was actually enjoyable to watch for the first 50 games, even when they lost.  And you ended the season with a number of assets you can still use along with some cap anchors coming off the books.  Yes JBot has RFA and FA contracts to get signed, but so does almost every other GM in the league.  

5.  What does JBot have to do this off season?  Add scoring.  He can do this by signing Skinner.  I'd like to see him make an RFQ offer sheet for Marner, and if that fails go after Panarin.  Having two scoring wingers we could play with Sam and Jack will be lethal, and let's see who comes to camp ready to be a top 6er out of the Tage, Casey, Nylander group.  My guess is that Casey is coming to camp next year physically ready for the 2C role.  I'd love our top six to look like:
           a. Skinner - Jack - Sam
           b. Sheary/Okposo - Casey - Panarin/Marner
       
   This would give us 4 top 6 forwards, playing with a high potential prospect and a vet next year.   

Sorry for the long post, but I really enjoy thinking about the short-term/long-term strategies when it comes to building a team, evaluating talent, and managing salaries; and I've been stuck on this line of thinking for a while when it comes to the O'Reilly trade.  I'm curious to hear other people's opinion on it considering the points I've made.  Let me know what you think!
 

1.) Mostly agree.  Our weakness was in bottom six.  However as I alluded to in an earlier post, the reason why my position changed was due to the fact that the return of Vlad, Tage and Berglund were all below average.  In theory it should have helped.  But it didn't.  The Berglund circumstances were unique, but still hurt team overall.   If you factor in the the 1st round pick drops to 31st overall, it only strengthens the case against the trade. 

2.) Yes, Berglund's absence hurt Casey's development.  But JB/PH lose points for continuing to play him in that role.   He should have been in Roch by January.  Or playing 4th line with the Sabres acquiring a veteran Center. 

3.)  It is subjective, but I too agree.  Perhaps only b/c I want to believe it.  

4.) Their record was actually better this year than last.  It only seemed worse b/c the last 4 months of the season.   I cannot say the fact it was slightly better  was due to the trade.   I also would not suggest it was addition by subtraction.  The numbers suggest the pieces that came from STL hurt the team and were below replacement level.  The uplift was due to Dahlin, Skinner, and a nice step by Sam.   I agree with your argument about anchor's.  Anchors away my friend.  So no reason not to make better use of that money this season.

5.) If Sheary, Okposo, Casey, Tage or Nylander are playing 2nd line minutes next season, we are doomed.   The only player on the roster that I could see in a top 6 role is Olofsson, if he is protected by a strong center (Hayes?) and Sam on the right side.  And that  means another UFA/Trade assumes the first line RW role.   I don't believe anyone offer sheets Marner.    Panarin wants $11M+.  You might get a Hayes & Skinner in a best case scenario, but you certainly cannot afford  Panarin & Skinner.   That's over $30M on your top line.  And it will not be long before Rasmus will need something to 'wet his beak'. 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Broken Ankles

[Weave]

7 hours ago, SwampD said:

Gotta love The Tank.

If you don't see the direct connection,… God bless you.

Completely agree.  ROR wasn’t a locker room cancer, he was one of many highly competitive players who couldn’t stomach multiple seasons with no expectation of winning.  

I’m hoping this is a lesson that you don’t jettison excellent players because they don’t like the environment.  You fix the environment instead.  Guys like ROR are rare commodities.

[ddaryl]

My hindsight being 20/20 the RoR trade sucked major sac.

 

If we could shed all that dead cap weight we took back then I say it was a wash but we are hamstrung by Murray deals and this stupid trade, and I so wanted to like when it went down.

 

If Botterill can't clean this up quickly we are in trouble IMO.. He needs to find some players that mesh well with the young studs. Not aging vets with bloated contracts

[That Aud Smell]

Not sure if it's been discussed upthread.

RaKru is heralded as a master of communicating with players and then uniting them as a team.

Had he been here, could RaKru have eliminated the "need" to trade ROR?

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

11 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

1.) Mostly agree.  Our weakness was in bottom six.  However as I alluded to in an earlier post, the reason why my position changed was due to the fact that the return of Vlad, Tage and Berglund were all below average.  In theory it should have helped.  But it didn't.  The Berglund circumstances were unique, but still hurt team overall.   If you factor in the the 1st round pick drops to 31st overall, it only strengthens the case against the trade. 

2.) Yes, Berglund's absence hurt Casey's development.  But JB/PH lose points for continuing to play him in that role.   He should have been in Roch by January.  Or playing 4th line with the Sabres acquiring a veteran Center. 

3.)  It is subjective, but I too agree.  Perhaps only b/c I want to believe it.  

4.) Their record was actually better this year than last.  It only seemed worse b/c the last 4 months of the season.   I cannot say the fact it was slightly better  was due to the trade.   I also would not suggest it was addition by subtraction.  The numbers suggest the pieces that came from STL hurt the team and were below replacement level.  The uplift was due to Dahlin, Skinner, and a nice step by Sam.   I agree with your argument about anchor's.  Anchors away my friend.  So no reason not to make better use of that money this season.

5.) If Sheary, Okposo, Casey, Tage or Nylander are playing 2nd line minutes next season, we are doomed.   The only player on the roster that I could see in a top 6 role is Olofsson, if he is protected by a strong center (Hayes?) and Sam on the right side.  And that  means another UFA/Trade assumes the first line RW role.   I don't believe anyone offer sheets Marner.    Panarin wants $11M+.  You might get a Hayes & Skinner in a best case scenario, but you certainly cannot afford  Panarin & Skinner.   That's over $30M on your top line.  And it will not be long before Rasmus will need something to 'wet his beak'. 

 

 

I'd say our weakness was the middle six last season, because they had more than enough 4th line roll players on the roster.  We needed more from Okposo and Sheary on the second line, and didn't get it.  Rodriguez may surprise us next year and push for a 2nd line roll instead of Okposo or Sheary.  Kyle seems to have settle on being a 3rd/4th line power forward, and I prefer if we had a roster that allowed him to be in that roll.  

I don't like the idea of Casey playing 4th line minutes at all.  He needs ice time during games to develop - whether it is in Roch or Buf is up to management and the roster.  But I fully agree he played too much of that 2C role this year for the struggles he had.  Unfortunately there was no one else on the roster that could step into that role and actually produce on a constant basis.   

And regarding the crew you mentioned for 2nd line minutes, we need at least one of those guys to step up or next season will be better, but we will still be a bubble team.  I'm expecting Tage and Casey to make some serious gains in the off-season to push for a bigger role.  Olofsson still has a ton of potential at 24, but I'm not sure one season in the AHL has acclimated him to a role beyond 3rd line winger and playing the off-wing or point on the PP.

The Sabres do have around $30M in cap space next year thanks to no $7M O'Reilly contract, $3.5M from Berglund, Tage's entry level deal, $5.6 from Pommers, $5M from Moulson, and $3.2 from Johan + Zemgus.  Even when they sign their key RFAs (Ullmark at $2.5-3M, McCabe $2.75-4MM, Rodriguez $1.5-2.5), they will still have $20-25 to spend.  Skinner gets $7.5-8, Paranin $10.5-11, and you still have some cash to fill in 3-4 more contracts, depending on other roster moves.  Right now the Sabres only have 5 contracts signed for the 20-21 season, which gives Jbot a lot of flexibility on term and AAV.  

[dudacek]

I think this would be a more than competitive forward group next year:

Eichel and Skinner anchoring line one, Reinhart and O’Reilly line two

Rodrigues, Okposo, Sheary, Mittelstadt, Olofsson, Nylander mixed and matched as forwards 5-10.

Wilson, Girgensons, Larson as our role players.

 

What could have been...

[7+6=13]

7 hours ago, Weave said:

Completely agree.  ROR wasn’t a locker room cancer, he was one of many highly competitive players who couldn’t stomach multiple seasons with no expectation of winning.  

I’m hoping this is a lesson that you don’t jettison excellent players because they don’t like the environment.  You fix the environment instead.  Guys like ROR are rare commodities.

Who or what is bringing this absolute no expectation of winning?  I'm honestly not being snarky - it's a legit question.  

Was it Bylsma, Housley, GMTM, JBot, Eichel, Pegula's - I mean who is responsible for this mystery spirit of losing that crushes excellent players who can't stomach losing?

I think it's BS and much more simple.  We aren't a talented enough team,.  It's the same as when ROR and Kane were here and replacing them with Dahlin and Skinner - the entire middle of our lineup just isn't good enough to field an NHL team.  

In regards to ROR,  I thought he played very good and I think he was too hard on himself because I saw for the most part a guy giving effort.   

However, he had a meltdown unacceptable for my second highest player and a leader to have.   For that he's got to go and I'm not paying any bonus even if it means I get less in a trade.  I get it, we suck and we lose a lot, but that doesn't make his ridiculous actions right.  He admitted it's an honor to play in the NHL and he needs to fix his mental deficiencies.  Well you do that somewhere else Sir. 

So the Sabres still stink and have a spirit of losing that can only be explained as supernatural - because there's been enough change that it's not people - and ROR wasn't a problem?  That's a no from me.  He's a mental puss that found an easier route that suites him better.     

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by 7+6=13

[Weave]

4 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

Who or what is bringing this absolute no expectation of winning?  I'm honestly not being snarky - it's a legit question.  

Was it Bylsma, Housley, GMTM, JBot, Eichel, Pegula's - I mean who is responsible for this mystery spirit of losing that crushes excellent players who can't stomach losing?

I think it's BS and much more simple.  We aren't a talented enough team,.  It's the same as when ROR and Kane were here and replacing them with Dahlin and Skinner - the entire middle of our lineup just isn't good enough to field an NHL team.  

In regards to ROR,  I thought he played very good and I think he was too hard on himself because I saw for the most part a guy giving effort.   

However, he had a meltdown unacceptable for my second highest player and a leader to have.   For that he's got to go and I'm not paying any bonus even if it means I get less in a trade.  I get it, we suck and we lose a lot, but that doesn't make his ridiculous actions right.  He admitted it's an honor to play in the NHL and he needs to fix his mental deficiencies.  Well you do that somewhere else Sir. 

So the Sabres still stink and have a spirit of losing that can only be explained as supernatural - because there's been enough change that it's not people - and ROR wasn't a problem?  That's a no from me.  He's a mental puss that found an easier route that suites him better.     

 

 

 

You answered your own question.  There was no expectation of winning with the roster that was built. And likely the coach that was hired.   It was evident for the 3(?) yrs he was here, AND there was no reasonable expectation that there would be enough roster turnover and a coach turnover to avoid it for his 4th year.  That's a 3rd of a very good players career down the stink pipe.

[Marvin]

Hi, there.

I didn't mean to side-track us a bit by commenting about being a Sikh.  It is just my perspective: things that could actually cost me my life cause me less consternation than the ROR trade seems to for some people.  I have a much lower tolerance for that kind of talk than most.

Aside: hallucinogens, smoking, etc. are strictly forbidden to Sikhs.  Also, I am a traditional Sikh, not one of the Sikh Dharma (Yogi Bhajan's group).

5 hours ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

I'd say our weakness was the middle six last season, because they had more than enough 4th line roll players on the roster.  We needed more from Okposo and Sheary on the second line, and didn't get it.  Rodriguez may surprise us next year and push for a 2nd line roll instead of Okposo or Sheary.  Kyle seems to have settle on being a 3rd/4th line power forward, and I prefer if we had a roster that allowed him to be in that roll.  

I don't like the idea of Casey playing 4th line minutes at all.  He needs ice time during games to develop - whether it is in Roch or Buf is up to management and the roster.  But I fully agree he played too much of that 2C role this year for the struggles he had.  Unfortunately there was no one else on the roster that could step into that role and actually produce on a constant basis.   

And regarding the crew you mentioned for 2nd line minutes, we need at least one of those guys to step up or next season will be better, but we will still be a bubble team.  I'm expecting Tage and Casey to make some serious gains in the off-season to push for a bigger role.  Olofsson still has a ton of potential at 24, but I'm not sure one season in the AHL has acclimated him to a role beyond 3rd line winger and playing the off-wing or point on the PP.

The Sabres do have around $30M in cap space next year thanks to no $7M O'Reilly contract, $3.5M from Berglund, Tage's entry level deal, $5.6 from Pommers, $5M from Moulson, and $3.2 from Johan + Zemgus.  Even when they sign their key RFAs (Ullmark at $2.5-3M, McCabe $2.75-4MM, Rodriguez $1.5-2.5), they will still have $20-25 to spend.  Skinner gets $7.5-8, Paranin $10.5-11, and you still have some cash to fill in 3-4 more contracts, depending on other roster moves.  Right now the Sabres only have 5 contracts signed for the 20-21 season, which gives Jbot a lot of flexibility on term and AAV.  

It is nice to read a different perspective.  However, I must disagree with you.  We needed at least another 4th line.  SOBotka, Thompson, Elie, and Mittlestadt had no business being in the NHL this year.  Housley hardly maximised the Sabres' productivity by having SOBotka getting the 4th-most ice time until articles from Bill Hoppe et al. pointed out how bad he was.  But he had a MAXIMUM of 10 NHL-quality players to choose from for most of the year.  Just three guys who wouldn't get caved in every time would have been preferable.  And O'Reilly makes that clearly possible.

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

 

You answered your own question.  There was no expectation of winning with the roster that was built. And likely the coach that was hired.   It was evident for the 3(?) yrs he was here, AND there was no reasonable expectation that there would be enough roster turnover and a coach turnover to avoid it for his 4th year.  That's a 3rd of a very good players career down the stink pipe.

I know the answer - seems we agree.  My only issue is ROR was unprofessional in the way he handled it and had to go.  You jettison players that make comments like that - it's unacceptable.  Totally understand feeling that way but you can't say it - not in this sport.  

 

[Weave]

32 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I know the answer - seems we agree.  My only issue is ROR was unprofessional in the way he handled it and had to go.  You jettison players that make comments like that - it's unacceptable.  Totally understand feeling that way but you can't say it - not in this sport.  

 

A player wearing his heart on his sleeve doesn't bother me in the least.  And certainly not one as good as O'Reilly.  Unprofesional is calling out your teammates for being lousy.  Or your coach.  My view of it is very different than yours.  He didn't air any dirty laundry.  He just said the losing was getting to him.  That seems like a pretty professional response to me.

[dudacek]

I do think O’Reilly had his issues off the ice, but giving this interview isn’t one of them.

His play on the ice was and is exemplary. His personality off the ice was ill-suited for what Botterill believed this group of players at this particular time in their career needed to move forward.

This is my theory: during a difficult period of franchise growth, ROR was ill-equipped to lead a callow group of players very much in need of leadership, despite the fact he wanted to, and despite the fact his stature demanded it.

From what I’ve read about his past and his family, I perceive Ryan as a very driven person packing some baggage. It’s not his fault Jack was more talented and has a more magnetic personality which magnified Ryan’s insecurities. It’s not his fault that he was surrounded by too many players who had yet to establish themselves, or that the dressing room structure Kyle and Zach and Josh and Matt and Jason were supposed to help provide lost its moral heft through their struggles on the ice. It’s not his fault that his goalie was in an even worse emotional state. It’s not his fault that his coaches were a cold fish followed by a milquetoast. It’s not his fault that management failed to provide the support system that would have helped him succeed.

He is who he is and the situation was what it was.

Ryan needed to be given structure and affirmation but instead was forced into a position where he was expected to provide the structure and affirmation for others, which he was unable to do. I believe there were issues the public did not see, issues that some observers, including here and in the Buffalo media have alluded to, but not expounded on publicly simply because it was the most classy thing to do. Nothing shocking or irredeemable, just human frailty. The interview was a window into his interior struggles but it was the struggles, not the interview, that got him traded.

Botterill made the decision that the team psyche and Ryan’s psyche were feeding each other in a downward spiral and the best, or at least the most expedient, way of fixing the team psyche was to remove Ryan. (The same logic applies to Lehner)

It may have been a correct reading - the joy and resilience the team showed in the first half seemed to support that - but ultimately two things rendered it moot: Botterill’s general failure to adequately fill the leadership void with the correct personalities; and his total inability to make up for the massive hole O’Reilly’s absence created on the ice.

Meanwhile, relieved from the personal anxieties created by leading a failure, and buoyed by a more established room and a more talented roster, O’Reilly thrived in St. Louis.

Obviously, I don’t have any proof of this and I could be completely wrong. But it is what I believe based on what I do know.

We’ll never know if bringing in Krueger and Hutton a year earlier would have been enough to right the ship with Ryan still on board. A situation existed, choices were made, we live with the consequences.

Sports is entertainment, but it is also life. People want heroes and villains and pat conclusions, and people to blame. In entertainment you can give the people what they want, but in life sometimes it’s as simple as being in the wrong place in the wrong time, or moving on from an unfortunate situation.

O’Reilly has moved on and so have the Sabres.

I hope it works out for both of them.

Edited May 24, 2019 by dudacek

[hsif]

Isn’t it possible that part of the “problem” with ROR was his inability to tolerate the mediocre effort by the most skilled player on the team? Coasting off the ice….. pouting behavior when things don’t go 9’s way.... Jack is exceptionally skilled, but I don’t think his effort on the ice is pedal to the floor all the time. We expected ROR to be a leader…. some personality types can’t be led by peers. When that person is the face of the franchise, it’s a problem. I don’t believe for a minute that ownership wanted ROR gone for off ice issues………. Ownership didn’t want him gone.

Rather than name names, and tear down, ROR used the “love of the game” statement.  He couldn’t lead this team…. Couldn’t lead the face of the franchise. Too much locker room drama, and he wanted out of that. Too little time in his career….. lemme out.

At this point, the franchise is undeniably tied to Jack. It’s no wonder that the Sabres new head coach is touted as a “premier” motivator and a unifying force in the locker room….. let’s hope so

This is just observation and speculation on my part….. Just MHO.

Said about Krueger……….

“I can’t say enough good things about him,” said European defenseman Christian Ehrhoff. “He is focused on keeping everyone’s confidence up and everybody’s head right, believing in yourself and the group. We’ve come together as a team.”

[LGR4GM]

A leader overcomes adversity, they don't run away from it. 

[That Aud Smell]

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

I do think O’Reilly had his issues off the ice, but giving this interview isn’t one of them.

< >

I hope it works out for both of them.

This is an excellent post. Among the best I've seen around here in a dog's age.

21 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

A leader overcomes adversity, they don't run away from it. 

I prefer @dudacek's nuance on the subject over the rigidity of an over-used aphorism.

[That Aud Smell]

30 minutes ago, hsif said:

Isn’t it possible that part of the “problem” with ROR was his inability to tolerate the mediocre effort by the most skilled player on the team? Coasting off the ice….. pouting behavior when things don’t go 9’s way.... Jack is exceptionally skilled, but I don’t think his effort on the ice is pedal to the floor all the time. We expected ROR to be a leader…. some personality types can’t be led by peers. When that person is the face of the franchise, it’s a problem. I don’t believe for a minute that ownership wanted ROR gone for off ice issues………. Ownership didn’t want him gone.

<><>

Said about Krueger……….

“I can’t say enough good things about him,” said European defenseman Christian Ehrhoff. “He is focused on keeping everyone’s confidence up and everybody’s head right, believing in yourself and the group. We’ve come together as a team.”

Re the first piece, I'm open to the idea that Eichel has, or is trying to work through, a fatal flaw in his makeup as an elite player. His tendency to coast at times, lose focus, failing to grind when things aren't going his way or the puck isn't finding him. I used to be more concerned than I am now. I think he's trending in the right direction. The reports from his play in the worlds tourney have been encouraging. And not for nothing: The reason Crosby was/is the best player in the world for a long stretch of time had so much to do with the fact that he was the hardest working player on the ice and at the rink. He had world-class talent, sure. But he matched that talent with the level at which he played.

Re the second piece, I'm trying to manage my excitement for what RaKru could bring to the table. I'm a Liverpool supporter, so the Klopp comparisons are quite enticing.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

A leader overcomes adversity, they don't run away from it. 

Leaders also recognize bad situations and seek out situations better suited to what they bring all the damned time. 

[LGR4GM]

59 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

New underestimate the appeal of the mystery box. Botterill can't resist the appeal of a late first round pick and his preferred approach of trading quarters for nickels and slugs (Kane and O'Reilly trades). Someone will dangle a mediocre center with 2 cap dumps and a 1st in front of him and we can watch as Zach Bogosian plays in the top 4 (if he's healthy).

The Kane trade was fine. Kane was a UFA who we had no intention of signing and Botterill got what he could. ROR trade was garbage but to try and pile the Kane trade into that is weak. We traded 17 games of Kane for a 1st, a 4th, and middling prospect. That's about the going rate for a soon to be UFA rental. 

We traded 4 years of ROR for 2 cap dumps, a 1st, and a middling prospect. Also ROR is a better player than Kane. See how they are different? 

[Drunkard]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

The Kane trade was fine. Kane was a UFA who we had no intention of signing and Botterill got what he could. ROR trade was garbage but to try and pile the Kane trade into that is weak. We traded 17 games of Kane for a 1st, a 4th, and middling prospect. That's about the going rate for a soon to be UFA rental. 

We traded 4 years of ROR for 2 cap dumps, a 1st, and a middling prospect. Also ROR is a better player than Kane. See how they are different? 

The O'Reilly trade was definitely worse but both trades are cut from the same cloth because in both trades we gave up the best player for a bunch of middling or bad pieces (The Botterill Special). The fact that Botterill held his ground because he let it leak out earlier that he wanted 4 pieces including a first in the deal and he was hell bent on holding to that price while the clock was ticking ultimately resulted in having to take the best deal he could get before the deadline hit, but that doesn't mean it had to go that way.

Without requiring a first maybe we would have gotten a better prospect than Danny O'Regan. Or maybe once he determined that either he didn't want Kane or that Kane had no interest in staying here he could have traded him before the season started. It's logical to assume a full season of Kane would have been worth more than 17 games of Kane.

[inkman]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Leaders also recognize bad situations and seek out situations better suited to what they bring all the damned time. 

I would argue that's more of a self serving optunist

[dudacek]

Why does everyone regularly seem to forget the 2nd in the O’Reilly deal?

And how does the Skinner trade fit with the idea of “the Botterill special”? Didn’t he get more for 17 games of Kane than he gave up for 82 games of Skinner?