Worst trades in Sabres history?

[mjd1001]

I don't see the ROR trade as being one of the worst ever. Not even close. Same thing with Eichel. A trade being bad for the sabers has nothing to do with what they went on to do with another team.... It has to do with what they did for your team versus what you got in return is doing.

When ROR and Jack we're here, the team was bad most of the time, never made the playoffs. When they traded them, same thing. You can make an argument that things you got back for each of them might be worth it in the future or are worth it already.

For me to qualify as a bad trade... It has to be one that you look at in the future and say... Oops, that one really really hurt us. I don't think if either of them were still here, especially under current conditions, that this franchise would be turned around in any major way.

[shrader]

7 hours ago, Alaska John said:

ROR, Eichel, Reinhart, and Barrasso all wanted out of Buffalo for one reason or another, and Hasek was traded for non-hockey issues that I still don't understand. 

At least the Reinhart trade brought in Devon Levi, and we got more than nothing for both ROR and Eichel.  It's too early to tell whether in the long run the Sabres won or lost those trades.  Barrasso was too long ago for me to remember how that trade went.  

Hasek wanted out too.

[Stoner]

7 hours ago, Alaska John said:

ROR, Eichel, Reinhart, and Barrasso all wanted out of Buffalo for one reason or another, and Hasek was traded for non-hockey issues that I still don't understand. 

At least the Reinhart trade brought in Devon Levi, and we got more than nothing for both ROR and Eichel.  It's too early to tell whether in the long run the Sabres won or lost those trades.  Barrasso was too long ago for me to remember how that trade went.  

Dom wanted to win a Cup. The Sabres didn't sign Peca before or during the 2000 2001 season when the team was arguably very close to winning it all. There was a big meeting in Coudersport, PA, after the season attended by at least Dom and the Rigases. The Adelphia Empire was on the verge of collapse. Dom orchestrated a trade and held all or most of the cards. He even reportedly nixed a deal that would have sent too much to Buffalo. He needed his new team to be a strong as possible.

Barrasso of course ultimately became yet another young star who left Buffalo and won a Cup.

Edited January 16 by PASabreFan

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I don't see the ROR trade as being one of the worst ever. Not even close. Same thing with Eichel. A trade being bad for the sabers has nothing to do with what they went on to do with another team.... It has to do with what they did for your team versus what you got in return is doing.

When ROR and Jack we're here, the team was bad most of the time, never made the playoffs. When they traded them, same thing. You can make an argument that things you got back for each of them might be worth it in the future or are worth it already.

For me to qualify as a bad trade... It has to be one that you look at in the future and say... Oops, that one really really hurt us. I don't think if either of them were still here, especially under current conditions, that this franchise would be turned around in any major way.

Looking back, trading ROR away was absolutely disastrous for the team. It led to that core collapsing, Botterill being fired, and an additional 6 years (and counting) in the wilderness since. How one could look at that trade and not call it terrible is beyond me. You are just guessing with no real logical backing that keeping a good player wouldn’t have mattered. Whereas, we KNOW we’ve been terrible since and we KNOW the lack of forward depth led to the collapse of that roster, Eichel and Reinhart and Ullmark leaving, and the lack of depth we still see today: because we are still in the process of rebuilding 

Your argument respectfully isn’t a very good one. “They didn’t do anything here so it doesn’t matter that we dealt them.” By the same logic we can trade Tage today because we haven’t amounted to a single playoff berth with him. This is what you are actually arguing: worst case scenario is that we are bad once we move him, right? Which, as you laid out in your argument makes the trade inconsequential, as we merely maintain the status quo. No harm no foul. You can see once broken down like this it doesn’t make any sense. 

When will people learn and except it’s the *collection* of talent and about building depth, and a team?  “We never won anything with Eichel and ROR”. You mean, when Eichel was 18-20 years old and we were literally recovering from a scorched earth tank?

Be serious for a minute  

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Thorner]

The gall to suggest a guy who led the playoffs in scoring, and a guy who won the Smythe, wouldn’t have made the team better had we built around them is a little much, no? 

What do we think is more likely? That two players who proved themselves capable of being the very best in the world at the most important stretch of hockey in the universe, combined, WOULD have provided a solid base to winning, or WOULDN’T?

The same people who preach patience are ready to write off the combo because we saw them together on a disfunctional roster under disfunctional coaching and management, immediately after burning the roster to the ground and salting the earth, during Jack’s 18-20, *elc* seasons when he hadn’t even learned to play 2 way yet 

what do we feel is more representative of their abilities to be built around? The fact they won cups? Or what the worst franchise in hockey history did with them? Seriously, answer the question, what’s the better marker? What the Sabres did with them? Or what competent franchises did with them?

A shred of Occam’s razor reveals the answer blindingly  

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[TageMVP]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Looking back, trading ROR away was absolutely disastrous for the team. It led to that core collapsing, Botterill being fired, and an additional 6 years (and counting) in the wilderness since. How one could look at that trade and not call it terrible is beyond me. You are just guessing with no real logical backing that keeping a good player wouldn’t have mattered. Whereas, we KNOW we’ve been terrible since and we KNOW the lack of forward depth led to the collapse of that roster, Eichel and Reinhart and Ullmark leaving, and the lack of depth we still see today: because we are still in the process of rebuilding 

Your argument respectfully isn’t a very good one. “They didn’t do anything here so it doesn’t matter that we dealt them.” By the same logic we can trade Tage today because we haven’t amounted to a single playoff berth with him. This is what you are actually arguing: worst case scenario is that we are bad once we move him, right? Which, as you laid out in your argument makes the trade inconsequential, as we merely maintain the status quo. No harm no foul. You can see once broken down like this it doesn’t make any sense. 

When will people learn and except it’s the *collection* of talent and about building depth, and a team?  “We never won anything with Eichel and ROR”. You mean, when Eichel was 18-20 years old and we were literally recovering from a scorched earth tank?

Be serious for a minute  

I label it as a bad trade immediately because Ryan O'Reilly was a great player on a bad team and won a cup as soon as he got traded. What have the Sabres done? Nothing. 

Cup win > no playoffs = lost the trade  

Not only that, why do you have to trade a guy that says he losing his love for the game? Why is the only answer to get rid of him immediately? Why couldn't Botteril work with him to try to ease his discomfort? Maybe he did, I'm not sure. But O'Reilly wasn't wrong. The team was highly dysfunctional. 

It all starts at the top and unfortunately nothing has changed 

[mjd1001]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Looking back, trading ROR away was absolutely disastrous for the team. It led to that core collapsing, Botterill being fired, and an additional 6 years (and counting) in the wilderness since. How one could look at that trade and not call it terrible is beyond me. You are just guessing with no real logical backing that keeping a good player wouldn’t have mattered. Whereas, we KNOW we’ve been terrible since and we KNOW the lack of forward depth led to the collapse of that roster, Eichel and Reinhart and Ullmark leaving, and the lack of depth we still see today: because we are still in the process of rebuilding 

Your argument respectfully isn’t a very good one. “They didn’t do anything here so it doesn’t matter that we dealt them.” By the same logic we can trade Tage today because we haven’t amounted to a single playoff berth with him. This is what you are actually arguing: worst case scenario is that we are bad once we move him, right? Which, as you laid out in your argument makes the trade inconsequential, as we merely maintain the status quo. No harm no foul. You can see once broken down like this it doesn’t make any sense. 

When will people learn and except it’s the *collection* of talent and about building depth, and a team?  “We never won anything with Eichel and ROR”. You mean, when Eichel was 18-20 years old and we were literally recovering from a scorched earth tank?

Be serious for a minute  

They were a bad team with him here, they were a bad team after he was traded. I didn't see them getting better with him on the roster. End the story all I need.

Just as much as my argument is incomprehensible to you, Yours is to me. I didn't see them turning the corner and turning into a playoff or cup contender with him here. So how could trading him away... Were you got arguably a top 10-20 scorer in the league in return.... Be awful? I don't get it.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

They were a bad team with him here, they were a bad team after he was traded. I didn't see them getting better with him on the roster. End the story all I need.

Just as much as my argument is incomprehensible to you, Yours is to me. I didn't see them turning the corner and turning into a playoff or cup contender with him here. So how could trading him away... Were you got arguably a top 10-20 scorer in the league in return.... Be awful? I don't get it.

I’ve already illustrated factually why your argument misses the mark 

“They were a bad team with him here, they were a bad team after he was traded. I didn't see them getting better with him on the roster. End the story all I need.”

Substitute Tage in for a hypothetical comparable: if we dealt him now for a couple prospects. What are the potential resulting scenarios? Let’s lay them out, using the logic of your argument to define how we feel about it

we trade him and we remain bad: “bad team while Tage was here, bad team while he was traded”. Inconsequential deal.

we trade and we get good: “I guess Tage was the problem.” 

Can you see that you’ve backed yourself into a position where, if your team is really bad, you seemingly can’t make a bad trade?

respectfully, it doesn’t make any sense. Coming up with an analysis for why dealing anyone from a bad team just doesn’t matter and convincing yourself of it is probably the type of thinking that keeps a team bad 

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Thorner]

Apologies, I was mistakenly under the impression that Eichel winning the cup proved he could be part of a winner, ROR the same. No? Lol

The book is written: obviously the Sabres COULD have built around them.

I thought that was generally accepted around here tbh. For the life of me I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise at this point. They PROVED they could be key components of championship teams! That proved them not winning in Buffalo was a Buffalo issue. It was a team building issue. 

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Marvin]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The gall to suggest a guy who led the playoffs in scoring, and a guy who won the Smythe, wouldn’t have made the team better had we built around them is a little much, no? 

What do we think is more likely? That two players who proved themselves capable of being the very best in the world at the most important stretch of hockey in the universe, combined, WOULD have provided a solid base to winning, or WOULDN’T?

The same people who preach patience are ready to write off the combo because we saw them together on a disfunctional roster under disfunctional coaching and management, immediately after burning the roster to the ground and salting the earth, during Jack’s 18-20, *elc* seasons when he hadn’t even learned to play 2 way yet 

what do we feel is more representative of their abilities to be built around? The fact they won cups? Or what the worst franchise in hockey history did with them? Seriously, answer the question, what’s the better marker? What the Sabres did with them? Or what competent franchises did with them?

A shred of Occam’s razor reveals the answer blindingly  

 

4 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

They were a bad team with him here, they were a bad team after he was traded. I didn't see them getting better with him on the roster. End the story all I need.

Just as much as my argument is incomprehensible to you, Yours is to me. I didn't see them turning the corner and turning into a playoff or cup contender with him here. So how could trading him away... Were you got arguably a top 10-20 scorer in the league in return.... Be awful? I don't get it.

The problems with the O'Reilly-Eichel-Reinhart teams were: the lack of quality in much of the defence; lack of overall depth due to The Tank and trades; the lack of professionalism from some of XGMTM's acquisitions; and the mediocre coaching.  Eichel and Reinhart had the problem of falling in with the wrong teammates.  None of those teams' problems truly had much else to do with those three.  Those teams should have been coached better and should have been built better.

[Thorner]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:22 AM, PASabreFan said:

Normalizing losing was possibly a very smart and strategic move by someone other than Terry.

I think where we see it manifest most often is that people forget that everything a team does, every roster move they make, purely exists as a means to achieving an end: achieving a result.

We look to evaluate trades and transactions by anything and everything we possibly can, before measuring them based on wins and losses. The only thing that actually matters. We fear that expectation 

[bob_sauve28]

Bad trade? 

Buffalo Sabres acquireDateWinnipeg Jets acquire

Jason Kasdorf
Zach Bogosian
Evander Kane

February 11, 2015

Brendan Lemieux
Joel Armia
Drew Stafford
Tyler Myers
2015 1st round pick

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Bad trade? 

Buffalo Sabres acquireDateWinnipeg Jets acquire

Jason Kasdorf
Zach Bogosian
Evander Kane

February 11, 2015

Brendan Lemieux
Joel Armia
Drew Stafford
Tyler Myers
2015 1st round pick

Doesn’t say anything from a Sabres perspective but, as a noted Jets disliker the only saving grace for me here is that the trade amounted to a whole lot of nothing for them, too. Especially after their entire building chanted, “best trade ever” for a solid year 

And actually watching live in person here as Kane silenced the crowd on “track suit night” by setting Reinhart up for his hat trick was a nice silver lining too considering it was the first time I saw Buffalo win live. Sticking it to a crowd emboldened by arguably racist undertones was enjoyable 

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Alaska John]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Dom wanted to win a Cup. The Sabres didn't sign Peca before or during the 2000 2001 season when the team was arguably very close to winning it all. There was a big meeting in Coudersport, PA, after the season attended by at least Dom and the Rigases. The Adelphia Empire was on the verge of collapse. Dom orchestrated a trade and held all or most of the cards. He even reportedly nixed a deal that would have sent too much to Buffalo. He needed his new team to be a strong as possible.

Barrasso of course ultimately became yet another young star who left Buffalo and won a Cup.

Thanks for all that info.  I remember the Peca holdout of course and that was just an embarrassment for the organization.  I had not idea that Hasek did what he did.  

[Stoner]

36 minutes ago, Alaska John said:

Thanks for all that info.  I remember the Peca holdout of course and that was just an embarrassment for the organization.  I had not idea that Hasek did what he did.  

I started to question myself on Dom nixing a deal. Hence the word reportedly. Now I'm almost certain it was Dom himself who reported it at a presser after the trade.

[JoeSchmoe]

I've said it here many times. The worst trade easily is when we traded Andreychuk and Puppa for Fuhr.

We already had Hasek, and though he was still young, he was starting to show glimpses of what he could be.

In the end, Muckler shipped out Andreychuk - a guy who scored 54 goals that year, for a goalie who at the time was about as good as the guy we already had... Maybe worse. For whatever reason, he thought Fuhr's "experience" was more important than the 54 goals he gave up.

We win the cup that year if Muckler doesn't make this trade.

[Doohicksie]

Great.  Another Bog of Eternal Stench thread.

[bob_sauve28]

16 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I've said it here many times. The worst trade easily is when we traded Andreychuk and Puppa for Fuhr.

We already had Hasek, and though he was still young, he was starting to show glimpses of what he could be.

In the end, Muckler shipped out Andreychuk - a guy who scored 54 goals that year, for a goalie who at the time was about as good as the guy we already had... Maybe worse. For whatever reason, he thought Fuhr's "experience" was more important than the 54 goals he gave up.

We win the cup that year if Muckler doesn't make this trade.

But the callers in the radio show said Andreychuck was soft! The Tiny Tot of the Kilowatt was angry at...well, everything...but especially at Andreychuk 

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Great.  Another Bog of Eternal Stench thread.

You know what they say..

 You smelt it, you dealt it 

[Archie Lee]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Looking back, trading ROR away was absolutely disastrous for the team. It led to that core collapsing, Botterill being fired, and an additional 6 years (and counting) in the wilderness since. How one could look at that trade and not call it terrible is beyond me. You are just guessing with no real logical backing that keeping a good player wouldn’t have mattered. Whereas, we KNOW we’ve been terrible since and we KNOW the lack of forward depth led to the collapse of that roster, Eichel and Reinhart and Ullmark leaving, and the lack of depth we still see today: because we are still in the process of rebuilding 

Your argument respectfully isn’t a very good one. “They didn’t do anything here so it doesn’t matter that we dealt them.” By the same logic we can trade Tage today because we haven’t amounted to a single playoff berth with him. This is what you are actually arguing: worst case scenario is that we are bad once we move him, right? Which, as you laid out in your argument makes the trade inconsequential, as we merely maintain the status quo. No harm no foul. You can see once broken down like this it doesn’t make any sense. 

When will people learn and except it’s the *collection* of talent and about building depth, and a team?  “We never won anything with Eichel and ROR”. You mean, when Eichel was 18-20 years old and we were literally recovering from a scorched earth tank?

Be serious for a minute  

I would say that trading O'Reilly was part of a series of bad decisions made in the Botterill era.  The 1st bad decision of that era was the actual hiring of Botterill.  Then the hiring of Housley as head coach.  Then, the complete dismantling of the team's toughness through the loss of Carrier in the expansion draft followed by the trading of Foligno, Deslauriers and eventually Kane (not critiquing any of those as individual moves, but collectively it was a a bad strategy). Next was the O'Reilly trade, but by that point it was too late. We were dead last in the NHL the season before the O'Reilly trade.    Remember that Botterill is the guy who, when given a 2nd chance to hire a head coach, chose Ralph Krueger. It was a hopeless situation.  In hindsight, we are fortunate that Botterill got lucky and Thompson turned out to be a legit goal scorer/point producer and R. Johnson looks like he will be a good long-term addition on the blue-line.

In the context of how bad things were and, more importantly, how incredibly unlikely it was that a turnaround of any significance could have happened under Botterill, I struggle to say that the outcome of the trade was bad. We were not turning it around with O'Reilly unless we fired Botterill that off-season and that was never happening.  I don't think it is close to the worst trade in team history. 

Andreychuk, Puppa and a 1st for Fuhr was terrible.

Calle Johansson and a 2nd for Ledyard and Malarchuk turned out awful. 

We drafted 4 Hall of Fame players between 1982 and 1987, completely lost patience and traded them all for a sum that got us a 1st round win over the Bruins in 1993.  Yuck.  

 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I would say that trading O'Reilly was part of a series of bad decisions made in the Botterill era.  The 1st bad decision of that era was the actual hiring of Botterill.  Then the hiring of Housley as head coach.  Then, the complete dismantling of the team's toughness through the loss of Carrier in the expansion draft followed by the trading of Foligno, Deslauriers and eventually Kane (not critiquing any of those as individual moves, but collectively it was a a bad strategy). Next was the O'Reilly trade, but by that point it was too late. We were dead last in the NHL the season before the O'Reilly trade.    Remember that Botterill is the guy who, when given a 2nd chance to hire a head coach, chose Ralph Krueger. It was a hopeless situation.  In hindsight, we are fortunate that Botterill got lucky and Thompson turned out to be a legit goal scorer/point producer and R. Johnson looks like he will be a good long-term addition on the blue-line.

In the context of how bad things were and, more importantly, how incredibly unlikely it was that a turnaround of any significance could have happened under Botterill, I struggle to say that the outcome of the trade was bad. We were not turning it around with O'Reilly unless we fired Botterill that off-season and that was never happening.  I don't think it is close to the worst trade in team history. 

Andreychuk, Puppa and a 1st for Fuhr was terrible.

Calle Johansson and a 2nd for Ledyard and Malarchuk turned out awful. 

We drafted 4 Hall of Fame players between 1982 and 1987, completely lost patience and traded them all for a sum that got us a 1st round win over the Bruins in 1993.  Yuck.  

 

Lmao post of the day. Like in seriousness the bold made me laugh, just the wording I guess.

Probably true. Poor JBot.

To his credit, many of our good players are his additions 

- - - 

As for the conclusion you drew about being unable to succeed with ROR therefore the trade not being bad I completely disagree but I’ve already laid out my case above. We’ll just have to see it differently I can’t really explain my stance further 

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Weave]

21 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Great.  Another Bog of Eternal Stench thread.

Smell my finger.

[TageMVP]

18 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Great.  Another Bog of Eternal Stench thread.

 

[Thorner]

A bad trade is a bad trade, just because it’s made in combination with a series of other bad decisions meaning success was theoretically never possible under said GM doesn’t therefore alleviate the badness of said trade. Why would it? 

again, if Adams traded Dahlin today, and Thompson tomorrow, and Power the next day, it would be like saying, “well, I guess the Dahlin trade wasn’t that bad, cause looking back, it didn’t matter cause we were never going to succeed in light of how bad Adams turned out to be.”

I’m not really sure what odd, backwards mental gymnastics are going on but none of it makes any sense anymore lol 

Edited January 16 by Thorny

[Goldseatsaud]

Dale McCourt