Worst trades in Sabres history?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, seer775 said:

If you think of it like Thompson/D - ROR in 2024, sure it's a good deal. The return prior to '20/'21 was a fat nothing.

I'd still rather have ROR (MVP) than Thompson (two solid seasons), but that's me.

And sure, it's a what-if game with ROR because he didn't want to be in Buffalo, but our boys are getting older.........................................................

ROR is getting old too.

The trade is what it is and 20 years from now you look at it like we look at other old deals and we look at the total return. 

I too liked ROR and think he was a perfect 2C with Eichel drafted but I also believe we BLEW IT by not naming him captain and giving it to Eichel instead. ROR really likes to be the main man and that was the beginning of his lost love and thus the eventually necessity to trade him. 

[Rasmus_]

Fuhr, Kane and Bogosian trade.  Lehner.  Those are the ones that popped into my mind.  Im not a Greenway fan, but it's too early I'm told.

Edited January 18 by Rasmus_

[Porous Five Hole]

Trading in the Goathead for the Buffaslug. 

[Stoner]

 

 

[Thorner]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Right, so when younger players are involved you can't evaluate a trade fully until those players reach their prime. Thus the ROR trade was not that bad. 

That doesn’t mean the time component doesn’t remain a factor. You are disregarding it almost completely.

If talent in=talent out, we might break even on that singular front. But having to wait 5 years for it to materialize is a massive negative, especially considering *we weren’t looking to punt back 5 years*. And even in this scenario, the aim of the trade was to field a winning hockey team and that hasn’t happened.

The fact one can completely disregard the fact that as a means to an end (the point of any trade) the trade has spectacularly failed thus far, and it *still* be bad is a testament to its badness

it’s unequivocally bad merely because we unintentionally punted the talent on the team back 5 seasons - don’t really need to go beyond that. Perhaps that doesn’t argue to the level of “worst ever” - fine. But it’s indisputably bad. I’m fine arguing to that standard and leaving it at that, thread title notwithstanding 

Edited January 18 by Thorny

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

That doesn’t mean the time component doesn’t remain a factor. You are disregarding it almost completely.

If talent in=talent out, we might break even on that singular front. But having to wait 5 years for it to materialize is a massive negative, especially considering *we weren’t looking to punt back 5 years*. And even in this scenario, the aim of the trade was to field a winning hockey team and that hasn’t happened.

The fact one can completely disregard the fact that as a means to an end (the point of any trade) the trade has spectacularly failed thus far, and it *still* be bad is a testament to its badness

it’s unequivocally bad merely because we unintentionally punted the talent on the team back 5 seasons - don’t really need to go beyond that. Perhaps that doesn’t argue to the level of “worst ever” - fine. But it’s indisputably bad. I’m fine arguing to that standard and leaving it at that, thread title notwithstanding 

Emphasis on “unintentionally”.

IF the intent were to adjust the timeline, you could make an argument that the trade was positive.  But it was clear that Sobotka and Berglund were intended to help the team in the present while the magic beans took root.  Clearly that was not the result.

It was a lousy trade when judged on intent, leaving out the variables of what the prospect and pick became.

Not Hasek for hot garbage bad, but bad nonetheless.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

Emphasis on “unintentionally”.

IF the intent were to adjust the timeline, you could make an argument that the trade was positive.  But it was clear that Sobotka and Berglund were intended to help the team in the present while the magic beans took root.  Clearly that was not the result.

It was a lousy trade when judged on intent, leaving out the variables of what the prospect and pick became.

Not Hasek for hot garbage bad, but bad nonetheless.

Intent, and desired result. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

That doesn’t mean the time component doesn’t remain a factor. You are disregarding it almost completely.

If talent in=talent out, we might break even on that singular front. But having to wait 5 years for it to materialize is a massive negative, especially considering *we weren’t looking to punt back 5 years*. And even in this scenario, the aim of the trade was to field a winning hockey team and that hasn’t happened.

The fact one can completely disregard the fact that as a means to an end (the point of any trade) the trade has spectacularly failed thus far, and it *still* be bad is a testament to its badness

it’s unequivocally bad merely because we unintentionally punted the talent on the team back 5 seasons - don’t really need to go beyond that. Perhaps that doesn’t argue to the level of “worst ever” - fine. But it’s indisputably bad. I’m fine arguing to that standard and leaving it at that, thread title notwithstanding 

That makes the argument/discussion complicated. 

Any time you trade older for younger (or established for prospect) you have a time component involved. There's very few immediate on both sides trades. 

Given what you say above you'd be against trading Eichel, Reinhart and Risto as well since those were all for futures (aside from Tuch) and those deals then set the organization back another 5 years right?  But really, what was the alternative?

I personally give a little acceptance or forgiveness in any forced trade scenarios. Hasek wanted out, ROR wanted out, Eichel wanted out. You never get full value when a deal HAS to be done. Rarely anyway. But sometimes the deal has to happen. A deal that doesn't need to be done but is a choice, like Marcus Foligno, is far worse in terms of grading imo. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

That makes the argument/discussion complicated. 

Any time you trade older for younger (or established for prospect) you have a time component involved. There's very few immediate on both sides trades. 

Given what you say above you'd be against trading Eichel, Reinhart and Risto as well since those were all for futures (aside from Tuch) and those deals then set the organization back another 5 years right?  But really, what was the alternative?

I personally give a little acceptance or forgiveness in any forced trade scenarios. Hasek wanted out, ROR wanted out, Eichel wanted out. You never get full value when a deal HAS to be done. Rarely anyway. But sometimes the deal has to happen. A deal that doesn't need to be done but is a choice, like Marcus Foligno, is far worse in terms of grading imo. 

I’ll say this for the 50th time, it *wasn’t a futures trade*. You can only disregard the time component willingly if you are MAKING A FUTURES TRADE ie time isn’t a consideration because the aim is to trade now, for later. That’s what you are conflating.

I still agree we can and should wait to see how the talent unfolds over time as part of our analysis: but that’s not at the expense of the time factor no longer being a key variable 

Trading Eichel was still a choice. Yet another factor of context you are willingly choosing to ignore: Eichel demanded a trade under the prism of Adams wanting to rebuild. The rebuild was a choice. It was still a choice to trade Eichel 

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

I’ll say this for the 50th time, it *wasn’t a futures trade*. You can only disregard the time component willingly if you are MAKING A FUTURES TRADE ie time isn’t a consideration because the aim is to trade now, for later. That’s what you are conflating.

I still agree we can and should wait to see how the talent unfolds over time as part of our analysis: but that’s not at the expense of the time factor no longer being a key variable 

Trading Eichel was still a choice. Yet another factor of context you are willingly choosing to ignore: Eichel demanded a trade under the prism of Adams wanting to rebuild. The rebuild was a choice. It was still a choice to trade Eichel 

I don't understand what you are arguing so vehemently for. All trades are choices. But both Eichel and ROR wanted out so there was pressure to make a deal but ultimately they are both still choices. I really don't see the difference. 

[Quint]

I still don't understand the trades for Ben Bishop and Johnny Boychuk. I know it was for cap reasons but it seems like gross mismanagement that the Sabres had to do this in the first place. They didn't play one minute for our team. The return the Sabres got on the Reinhart deal, although incomplete, seems to be bad to me at this stage. I'm not counting on Levi making it (we'll see)  and Kulich, although he has a rocket, seems to be a one-note Johnny, like an Olofsson. As mentioned, the Hasek forced trade for Kozlov and what turned out to be Keith Ballard was really poor, but like many bad trades the Sabres have made, they have turned high draft choices to stale mediocrity by bad choices.

It might not be the worst but my least favorite trade was Peter McNab for Andre Savard.

Edited January 19 by Quint

[Doohicksie]

When they traded Gritty to Minnesota for @PASabreFan it was a disaster.  We're still stuck with @PASabreFan's cap hit, and Gritty eventually signed with Philly where his career really took off.

[SwampD]

17 minutes ago, Quint said:

I still don't understand the trades for Ben Bishop and Johnny Boychuk. I know it was for cap reasons but it seems like gross mismanagement that the Sabres had to do this in the first place. They didn't play one minute for our team. The return the Sabres got on the Reinhart deal, although incomplete, seems to be bad to me at this stage. I'm not counting on Levi making it (we'll see)  and Kulich, although he has a rocket, seems to be a one-note Johnny, like an Olofsson. As mentioned, the Hasek forced trade for Kozlov and what turned out to be Keith Ballard was really poor, but like many bad trades the Sabres have made, they have turned high draft choices to stale mediocrity by bad choices.

It might not be the worst but my least favorite trade was Peter McNab for Andre Savard.

Boychuk was already retired when we traded for him. I suggest you let that one marinate.

[Thorner]

14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't understand what you are arguing so vehemently for. All trades are choices. But both Eichel and ROR wanted out so there was pressure to make a deal but ultimately they are both still choices. I really don't see the difference. 

Both trades of choice, I agree 

It doesn’t mean both were trades made with the same goal in mind, with the same intent. Your argument seems based on removing as much context as possible whereas I’m simply pointing out that the ROR trade failed by the prism of what it was attempting to accomplish 

Edited January 19 by Thorny

[shrader]

56 minutes ago, Quint said:

I still don't understand the trades for Ben Bishop and Johnny Boychuk. I know it was for cap reasons but it seems like gross mismanagement that the Sabres had to do this in the first place. They didn't play one minute for our team. The return the Sabres got on the Reinhart deal, although incomplete, seems to be bad to me at this stage. I'm not counting on Levi making it (we'll see)  and Kulich, although he has a rocket, seems to be a one-note Johnny, like an Olofsson. As mentioned, the Hasek forced trade for Kozlov and what turned out to be Keith Ballard was really poor, but like many bad trades the Sabres have made, they have turned high draft choices to stale mediocrity by bad choices.

It might not be the worst but my least favorite trade was Peter McNab for Andre Savard.

They took Ballard with their own pick. The one from the Hasek trade wound up being traded to move up and take Dan Paille. 

[PerreaultForever]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Both trades of choice, I agree 

It doesn’t mean both were trades made with the same goal in mind, with the same intent. Your argument seems based on removing as much context as possible whereas I’m simply pointing out that the ROR trade failed by the prism of what it was attempting to accomplish 

Just to be clear, I'm not "removing context" for the sake of arguing and one upmanship, if I remove anything it's to try to stay on the main point of the argument and not to get lost in nuance and tangents. like they tell the dumb hockey players, keep it simple. 

What was the ROR trade attempting to accomplish in your opinion?

I think it was trying to accomplish getting a Debbie Downer who didn't want to be here out of the locker room and getting as much as possible for him before his bonus kicked in (as the owner requested). Don't think there was a better offer out there and in the end we got one star player and one maybe regular D man so it wasn't a total failure, especially with hands being tied as they were. 

Do you think they were trying to accomplish something else?

[mjd1001]

44 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Just to be clear, I'm not "removing context" for the sake of arguing and one upmanship, if I remove anything it's to try to stay on the main point of the argument and not to get lost in nuance and tangents. like they tell the dumb hockey players, keep it simple. 

What was the ROR trade attempting to accomplish in your opinion?

I think it was trying to accomplish getting a Debbie Downer who didn't want to be here out of the locker room and getting as much as possible for him before his bonus kicked in (as the owner requested). Don't think there was a better offer out there and in the end we got one star player and one maybe regular D man so it wasn't a total failure, especially with hands being tied as they were. 

Do you think they were trying to accomplish something else?

I think some of us are arguing this topic by did the trade acheive the intended result?  Some are arguing was it good at the moment? and some by was it good in the long term.

My point of saying the ROR trade wasn't bad at all is because i judge a trade over the long term, and in my mind, this team was not winning anything improtant with him here (they proved they could be really really bad with him on the roster) and now the team is better for having Tage on it than not.

If you want to say the trade was bad at the time because you gave up the best player at the time....or that it didn't do what you intended it to do...fine. There is an argument for that. But when I came to read this topic, I look at it from where we are now. Again, if the trade wasn't made you would not likely have won much anyway (my opinion based on a few years of results with him here), and by now Tage is certainly the better player at the moment.

[Weave]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Just to be clear, I'm not "removing context" for the sake of arguing and one upmanship, if I remove anything it's to try to stay on the main point of the argument and not to get lost in nuance and tangents. like they tell the dumb hockey players, keep it simple. 

What was the ROR trade attempting to accomplish in your opinion?

I think it was trying to accomplish getting a Debbie Downer who didn't want to be here out of the locker room and getting as much as possible for him before his bonus kicked in (as the owner requested). Don't think there was a better offer out there and in the end we got one star player and one maybe regular D man so it wasn't a total failure, especially with hands being tied as they were. 

Do you think they were trying to accomplish something else?

Regarding ypur last question, yes.  They were trying to improve the team now, hence the inclusion of Sobotka and Sad Pants.

[Quint]

3 hours ago, shrader said:

They took Ballard with their own pick. The one from the Hasek trade wound up being traded to move up and take Dan Paille. 

Two lousy draft choices. With few exceptions over their history, the Sabres have always been bad at drafting. Hard to say what they're worse at, trading or drafting.

Edited January 19 by Quint

[shrader]

5 minutes ago, Quint said:

Two lousy draft choices. With few exceptions over their history, the Sabres have always been bad at drafting. Hard to say what they're worse at, trading or drafting.

They traded Ballard before he even played a single game. That was a part of a three way deal that landed Drury. Was he really a bad draft pick?

[PerreaultForever]

46 minutes ago, Weave said:

Regarding ypur last question, yes.  They were trying to improve the team now, hence the inclusion of Sobotka and Sad Pants.

I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly St. Louis needed to shed salary as part of it, hence the two veterans who they didn't deem essential to their future. Sabres took what they could get. A body to take ROR's place (or so they thought), some futures and a throw in they thought could help defensively. They may have said any BS at the time, but I really doubt they thought they were "improving". Just getting the best they could. 

Fortunately, Tage has made the deal palatable. If he'd been a bust then I'd say it was the worst trade ever for sure, but he's not. 

[Marvin]

10 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly St. Louis needed to shed salary as part of it, hence the two veterans who they didn't deem essential to their future. Sabres took what they could get. A body to take ROR's place (or so they thought), some futures and a throw in they thought could help defensively. They may have said any BS at the time, but I really doubt they thought they were "improving". Just getting the best they could. 

Fortunately, Tage has made the deal palatable. If he'd been a bust then I'd say it was the worst trade ever for sure, but he's not. 

Your memory is how Blues fans view the ROR trade.

[Thorner]

33 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly St. Louis needed to shed salary as part of it, hence the two veterans who they didn't deem essential to their future. Sabres took what they could get. A body to take ROR's place (or so they thought), some futures and a throw in they thought could help defensively. They may have said any BS at the time, but I really doubt they thought they were "improving". Just getting the best they could. 

Fortunately, Tage has made the deal palatable. If he'd been a bust then I'd say it was the worst trade ever for sure, but he's not. 

If they made the trade without any regards to competitiveness in the moment and purely in an effort to ditch ROR, it was even worse lol 

It’s like they can’t make a bad trade- either you don’t care that the aims were a dereliction of duty (we were indeed trying to win at the time, in the macro) or you admit the aim was to win and that the trade pushed back the talent 6 years on that front and you just don’t care 

And then, you’ve deemed the situation unsalvageable therefore nothing we did mattered anyways therefore any deal was inconsequential therefore the deal wasn’t bad

You understand that the exact logic of your argument could be applied to, and defend, trading Tage Thompson right now for a 1st round pick, should that pick turn into a player of equal ability in 6 years? It proves your argument faulty by way of example: 

1) we need to wait for talent to develop when futures are involved, ie, we need to see what that pick becomes before we compare talent in / talent out 

2)You explained that it didn’t matter if the ROR trade didn’t result in winning because the aim was namely to ditch a sad sack. Presumably as long as current results aren’t important to the GM, then, and our aims in dealing Thompson, or whoever you want to use in the example, is purely to be rid of the asset, mission accomplished 

3)If the aim is to win, and you accept that, trading Thompson away for a pick and an old vet in a deal that DOESN’T result in winning *still doesn’t matter* because we weren’t winning when we had him, anyways 

Edited January 19 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

23 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Your memory is how Blues fans view the ROR trade.

?

What's the difference? At the time I didn't like it, but I'm trying to look back on it objectively. 

Since they won a cup I'd guess Blues fans actually think it was their best trade ever and they couldn't care less about Tage Thompson. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If they made the trade without any regards to competitiveness in the moment and purely in an effort to ditch ROR, it was even worse lol 

It’s like they can’t make a bad trade- either you don’t care that the aims were a dereliction of duty (we were indeed trying to win at the time, in the macro) or you admit the aim was to win and that the trade pushed back the talent 6 years on that front and you just don’t care 

And then, you’ve deemed the situation unsalvageable therefore nothing we did mattered anyways therefore any deal was inconsequential therefore the deal wasn’t bad

You understand that the exact logic of your argument could be applied to, and defend, trading Tage Thompson right now for a 1st round pick, should that pick turn into a player of equal ability in 6 years? It proves your argument faulty by way of example: 

1) we need to wait for talent to develop when futures are involved, ie, we need to see what that pick becomes before we compare talent in / talent out 

2)You explained that it didn’t matter if the ROR trade didn’t result in winning because the aim was namely to ditch a sad sack. Presumably as long as current results aren’t important to the GM, then, and our aims in dealing Thompson, or whoever you want to use in the example, is purely to be rid of the asset, mission accomplished 

3)If the aim is to win, and you accept that, trading Thompson away for a pick and an old vet in a deal that DOESN’T result in winning *still doesn’t matter* because we weren’t winning when we had him, anyways 

Well there's a lot in there and it can get circular but let me just start with saying I have no idea why this topic is such a bee in your bonnet? 

I never liked the trade, but in the whole history of the team I think there was worse. Trading away Foligno was a more damaging trade imo.

So to 1, 2,3 above, 

1) Historically, looking at all trades, you do have to consider time when you evaluate them. 

2) Never said it didn't matter, but their hands were tied. Sometimes you need to subtract. ROR left them no choice but to subtract.

3) The  aim should always be to "win" but the timeline for when management wants to win doesn't always mesh with fans.

There's always two aspects to every trade: The immediate, and the long term. In the immediate, we got killed in the ROR deal. In the long term we did okay and pretty good all things considered. You have to look at Eichel the same way. In the immediate Vegas won big time. In the long term, well, that still remains to be seen but generally people were happier with that deal than the ROR one but unless the picks turn into studs we will have lost that trade worse as Tuch isn't as good as Tage and Krebs isn't as good as Johnson by all early indications. Yet somehow, people at the time here thought we won the Eichel deal didn't they.

Deals are funny things. I look at Philly this year and they basically gave Hayes away and they are a better team. But at the same time they had tried to give Sanheim away and he turns around and becomes their best D man. Figure that one out in terms of GM idiocy or genius. 

Maybe sometimes it's just dumb luck.