Sabres Trade Taylor Hall (50% of His Salary Retained)and Curtis Lazar to Boston for a 2021 2nd and Anders Bjork

[Cascade Youth]

Two things can both be true:

1) The Pegulas are addicted to rookie GMs who won't challenge their authority.

2) Taylor Hall sucks (now).

[Torpedo Forecheck]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree with this, the trade isn’t evidence he CANT do it, yet he doesn’t have any trades yet signifying he CAN, either. He hasn’t completed a trade or signing yet id say was “good” and one that noticeably improved the team 

I think this is a very fair analysis of KA.

The part that seems to be pissing people off as I skim this thread is trading Lazar for Bjork. To me, these are just a couple of JAGs, the real deal is a second for Hall. One is 26 the other 24, perhaps the 26 year old is a little more useful and made the Bruins feel better. 

I also feel like keeping Hall did nothing (he had to be moved once out of the lineup and was leaving). I have no idea if we had better offers, I don't think we were getting a one -no way, no how.

Both Lazar and Hall have been out of the lineup over the last several games and the team is playing better. Neither figures into the future plans.

[nfreeman]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

He’s not a prospect no matter how many times you call him that 

OK, Mr. Smarty-Pants, but the question remains:  do you think Lazar-for-Bjork was something the Bruins made the Sabres do, or vice-versa?

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Honestly at this point I hope he gets traded. Sam deserves better then this organization.

 

You and I agree about the value of Sam. And I also agree with you that he deserves a better organization and situation. The problem is so do Jack, Dahlin and a lot of other good players who are stuck in a dysfunctional organization. My hope is that Pegula learned from this humiliating season that he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. 

The overriding issue for me that will determine success is first getting the organization right. He gutted it in order to save money with the expectation that it could still function as a professional hockey organization. He was dead wrong! He gambled on Krueger who was an interesting hire who was out of the NHL mainstream.  Again, he was dead wrong! Gutting the scouting department where player evaluations are the most critical factor that determines success in all sports was beyond being stupid. It was self-sabotage. 

With the belated change in coaches and with the probable buttressing of staffing in the front office I'm hoping that this organization can be stabilized. What gives me a patina of more confidence is that one singular change in the HC has had a dramatic change on in play on the ice.  

 

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

OK, Mr. Smarty-Pants, but the question remains:  do you think Lazar-for-Bjork was something the Bruins made the Sabres do, or vice-versa?

I could see it going either way tbh, my limited knowledge of Bjork combined with what I know of Lazar leads me think, from what I can see, that both players are within a “preference” range, if I had to guess - either conceivably preferred by either GM. 

As I pointed out as well and I think Tom mentioned quoting me, the $ difference could have been a factor in Lazar’s favour, which can and does factor into value determination 

My main point all along is the presence of the Bjork Lazar swap makes analysis of the trade a little less cut and dry. Whereas normally for me the convo ends at “they got the highest pick/prospect/player/return they could dump him for”, now there is further talent and roster evaluation factored in that *could* mean the deal isn’t a net positive. 

It’s up in the air. 

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, SDS said:

If you could analyze Taylor Hall’s NMC, his cap hit and the specific market for a left-winger on the effects of the trade it would be greatly appreciated.

(Just so you don’t have to look it up, Toronto is paying Nick Foligno $1.375 million for the rest of the season). 

Yes because their GM got creative. Buffalo seemed to have no interest in such a trade even though we have extra 3rds to make that happen. 

15 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Bjork is also older than Thomson by more than a year with less draft pedigree if people care about that after the fact which varies 

They said on trade centre just now that Hall heavily pushed for Boston 

Don't give UFA's full NMC... ever. 

[Thorner]

And Adams hasn’t made a good trade yet, so all bets are off he should be continually questioned 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Thorny said:

And Adams hasn’t made a good trade yet, so all bets are off he should be continually questioned 

Also true. 

I don't have defend wanting more, Adams needs to defend not getting it. 

[Doohicksie]

58 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

and after Krueger left his floating seemed to get worse.

I disagree.  He wasn't engaged much at all this season.  He was "worse" even while Krueger was still here.

[SDS]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Bjork is also older than Thomson by more than a year with less draft pedigree if people care about that after the fact which varies 

They said on trade centre just now that Hall heavily pushed for Boston 

So maybe Hall pushing for Boston sheds some more light on the return? The word heavily is subjective, but I think it could be as far as Boston being the only team he was really willing to go to. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

I disagree.  He wasn't engaged much at all this season.  He was "worse" even while Krueger was still here.

That's fair. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, SDS said:

So maybe Hall pushing for Boston sheds some more light on the return? The word heavily is subjective, but I think it could be as far as Boston being the only team he was really willing to go to. 

But again, the mistake was made in the fall when he was signed and given a full NMC. We as a team have to stop giving UFA's term, money, and control. Good news is that Hall at least was only a 1 year deal. 

[Curt]

43 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I am a Taylor Hall fan.  I think he is an excellent winger in the NHL.  Not elite.

It became clear as the season went on that his heart (and Hart) were not in it, especially when it became clear that his *friend* was not going to be the coach any more.

What was the market going to show for a disgruntled scoring winger that was not scoring?  A second rounder was reasonable.

The salary retention means nothing really.  The season in more than half over, so the Sabres have already paid about $4 million, so they are retaining about $2 million on the cap for a few months.  

I like Curtis a lot, but he was not going to be part of the long-term future of the Sabres.  The guy they got in exchange just may be.

It is clear that there really was no market for Hall.  I really think that KA did a very good job on this trade.

I would have rather given Hall one more year and he may actually sign a contract in Buffalo for next year, but that would be somewhat surprising to me at this point.

Aww, thanks man!  I like you a lot too!

Edited April 12, 2021 by Curt

[Doohicksie]

54 minutes ago, Sabre fan said:

at the end of the day has done nothing to improve the team.

At the beginning of the season, this wasn't the view based on who was brought in.  Staal and Hall in particular were viewed as positives.  The problem, THE problem was Krueger.  Not only did he not get the most out of the players brought in, his system actually sucked the life out of established players.

 

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I could see it going either way tbh, my limited knowledge of Bjork combined with what I know of Lazar leads me think, from what I can see, that both players are within a “preference” range, if I had to guess - either conceivably preferred by either GM. 

As I pointed out as well and I think Tom mentioned quoting me, the $ difference could have been a factor in Lazar’s favour, which can and does factor into value determination 

My main point all along is the presence of the Bjork Lazar swap makes analysis of the trade a little less cut and dry. Whereas normally for me the convo ends at “they got the highest pick/prospect/player/return they could dump him for”, now there is further talent and roster evaluation factored in that *could* mean the deal isn’t a net positive. 

It’s up in the air. 

 

The reporting coming out this morning seems to indicate you are right on this.

The Bruins needed to a little more salary relief in the deal and they swapped a couple low roster players to give them that.

If the Sabres liked Bjork better, or the Bruins liked Lazar better, it was a secondary consideration.

[Hoss]

57 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I'm with inky here. I've never read an impressive hockey take on twitter, even (especially?) from people who know what a regression is

I feel confident in saying this: you don’t know how to use Twitter if you’ve “never read an impressive hockey take on Twitter.” Full stop.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Lawton on the NHL Network just explained why we got so little for Hall.  He said KA, instead of getting 3-5 teams Hall would accept a trade to, got one, Boston.  This allowed Hall complete control of the process and insured no market for his services.  Lawton said KA should have said that I'm not going to trade you and IMHO left him in the pressbox.  Hall would then have to decide if only giving the Sabres one option was worth it?

KA shouldn't have given Hall a full NMC, but certainly should have got a list from Hall of 3-5 teams.  More incompetence.

Edited April 12, 2021 by GASabresIUFAN

[Randall Flagg]

7 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I feel confident in saying this: you don’t know how to use Twitter if you’ve “never read an impressive hockey take on Twitter.” Full stop.

I used to follow all of the hot names and give money to all the patreons of all of the latest stat geeks (geeks used endearingly) on twitter.

I left all of that and lost no value or understanding of the game lol

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Randall Flagg

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But again, the mistake was made in the fall when he was signed and given a full NMC. We as a team have to stop giving UFA's term, money, and control. Good news is that Hall at least was only a 1 year deal. 

To me this just reads that you’re mad as AF about the trade and you are searching for a reason that sticks. One of them might be true, but you’re definitely searching.

If the NMC was the original sin, then you can’t be disappointed in the trade. Such an outcome would have been expected and that would’ve been the crux of your argument when this went down.

FWIW, I think this is probably the correct answer. As a fan I could be disappointed in the trade, but also understand it completely falls within expectations. To be convinced otherwise I would need to see the Venn diagram that shows me the number of teams in play that Hall wanted to be traded to, the other team had enough cap room, that team also needed a left winger that has Hall’s skill set (Hall ≠ Foligno) and lastly, are willing to trade the assets we are looking for.

That intersection in the diagram is probably exceedingly small in my estimation.

[Hoss]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Lawton on the NHL Network just explained why we got so little for Hall.  He said KA, instead of getting 3-5 teams Hall would accept a trade to, got one, Boston.  This allowed Hall complete control of the process and insured that no market for his services.  Lawton said KA should have said that I'm not going to trade you and left him in the pressbox.

KA shouldn't have given Hall a full NMC, but certainly should have got a list from Hall of 3-5 teams.  More incompetence.

Ah, so Adams’ inexperience really was the factor here.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, Hoss said:

Ah, so Adams’ inexperience really was the factor here.

"inexperience" is a very kind way of putting it.  

[Hoss]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

I used to follow all of the hot names and give money to all the patreons of all of the latest stat geeks (geeks used endearingly) on twitter.

I left all of that and lost no value or understanding of the game lol

 

If you’re seeking it out and unable to find it it’s a simple misunderstanding of the platform. I’ve never paid a penny to anyone on Twitter for their takes, either.

You don’t need Twitter or any other social media platform to advance your understanding of any topic (except maybe some memes) but when used correctly they are helpful tools.

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

"inexperience" is a very kind way of putting it.  

The other options are censored on the board.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

To me this just reads that you’re mad as AF about the trade and you are searching for a reason that sticks. One of them might be true, but you’re definitely searching.

If the NMC was the original sin, then you can’t be disappointed in the trade. Such an outcome would have been expected and that would’ve been the crux of your argument when this went down.

FWIW, I think this is probably the correct answer. As a fan I could be disappointed in the trade, but also understand it completely falls within expectations. To be convinced otherwise I would need to see the Venn diagram that shows me the number of teams in play that Hall wanted to be traded to, the other team had enough cap room, that team also needed a left winger that has Hall’s skill set (Hall ≠ Foligno) and lastly, are willing to trade the assets we are looking for.

That intersection in the diagram is probably exceedingly small in my estimation.

I think the trade is bad. You are searching for reasons to explain away why it wasn't better. I think the trade is bad and I think Adams did a poor job of getting nothing more than a 2nd for Taylor Hall while eating 4mil in salary. 

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, Hoss said:

If you’re seeking it out and unable to find it it’s a simple misunderstanding of the platform. I’ve never paid a penny to anyone on Twitter for their takes, either.

You don’t need Twitter or any other social media platform to advance your understanding of any topic (except maybe some memes) but when used correctly they are helpful tools.

The other options are censored on the board.

What I'm saying is, the hockey names you're likely talking about that I could be "missing" are almost certainly not only people I followed, but people who I paid money to for full access to the websites and tableaus they built for their latest stats databases and tools. So I don't think I'm missing anything. 

I ultimately found them uninteresting and often condescending. Once I stopped doing stats projects on here there was no need to get the platforms, and their tinny content wasn't worth the follow 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I think the trade is bad. You are searching for reasons to explain away why it wasn't better. I think the trade is bad and I think Adams did a poor job of getting nothing more than a 2nd for Taylor Hall while eating 4mil in salary. 

They all keep talking about some mythical auction for Hall's services.  There wasn't one.  As I just noted above, Lawton on the NHL Network said Ka got one team to negotiate with from Hall, instead of the 3-5 he should of to create a market/auction for his services.  That one was Boston and therefore we got fleeced.  Call it inexperience, call it incompetence, call it something else, but KA is not an NHL GM and should be gone as well.