Trade: Myers, Stafford, Armia, Lemieux, + Low 1st for Kane, Bogosian, and Kasdorf

[beerme1]

Bogo is really off after his injury that kept him out a long time. He will straighten himself out. I thought he was getting back on track 2 or 3 games ago with a nice breakaway that he didn't score on but watching him live last night, no he is still not right.

 

I believe in both him and Kane long term for us. Don't care what Myers or Staff do. They're gone. 

[Thwomp!]

The Myers-Bogosian aspect is pretty much what was expected, I think. They both look like the same guys they've been for seven pro seasons.

 

Although I've been disappointed with Kane thus far, it's not like you were getting an unquestioned star for the likes of a Stafford rental, a likely bust in Armia, a likely bottom six player in Lemieux and a late 1st.

 

This whole thing could end up being a swing and a miss, but it's a swing I'd like to take every time it's available.

 

This trade helped bring us Jack Eichel. I'm ok if the pieces involved don't exactly match up. I still do hold out hope.

 

I would still make the trade, although I'll likely always think we gave up an asset too much to make it happen.  It's a weird trade because there is the outside factor of the tank resulting in Eichel, which this trade helped accomplish.  I'd like Kane and Bogo to come around, but that hope is fading a bit. 

[nfreeman]

The Myers-Bogosian aspect is pretty much what was expected, I think. They both look like the same guys they've been for seven pro seasons.

 

Although I've been disappointed with Kane thus far, it's not like you were getting an unquestioned star for the likes of a Stafford rental, a likely bust in Armia, a likely bottom six player in Lemieux and a late 1st.

 

This whole thing could end up being a swing and a miss, but it's a swing I'd like to take every time it's available.

 

Definitely.

 

Bogo is really off after his injury that kept him out a long time. He will straighten himself out. I thought he was getting back on track 2 or 3 games ago with a nice breakaway that he didn't score on but watching him live last night, no he is still not right.

 

I believe in both him and Kane long term for us. Don't care what Myers or Staff do. They're gone. 

 

Me too.

[Thwomp!]

Bogo is really off after his injury that kept him out a long time. He will straighten himself out. I thought he was getting back on track 2 or 3 games ago with a nice breakaway that he didn't score on but watching him live last night, no he is still not right.

 

I believe in both him and Kane long term for us. Don't care what Myers or Staff do. They're gone. 

 

Well just looking at who we got and how they've performed the short term has not been promising, leading me to be less optimistic about the long term prospects.  At this point, Kasdorf may be the best long term prospect we got in the trade  :ph34r:

[nfreeman]

I would still make the trade, although I'll likely always think we gave up an asset too much to make it happen.  It's a weird trade because there is the outside factor of the tank resulting in Eichel, which this trade helped accomplish.  I'd like Kane and Bogo to come around, but that hope is fading a bit. 

 

Are you saying you wouldn't have made the trade if the price the Sabres paid was the price the Jets were demanding?  Or are you saying that you think the Jets would've taken less in exchange? 

 

If it's the former, I disagree, but I think your view is certainly reasonable.

 

If it's the latter, I disagree and generally object to this sentiment (which many here have expressed from time to time, about this and other trades).  No one here has any idea what the Jets would've taken, and many if not most here consistently overvalue the Sabres' assets in terms of what they would bring back in trade.  The Roy-for-Malkin proposals haunt me to this day.  All we know is what the Jets did accept, and it's quite likely that if GMTM had offered less, the Jets would've shopped around for a better deal and perhaps found it.

[Thwomp!]

Are you saying you wouldn't have made the trade if the price the Sabres paid was the price the Jets were demanding?  Or are you saying that you think the Jets would've taken less in exchange? 

 

If it's the former, I disagree, but I think your view is certainly reasonable.

 

If it's the latter, I disagree and generally object to this sentiment (which many here have expressed from time to time, about this and other trades).  No one here has any idea what the Jets would've taken, and many if not most here consistently overvalue the Sabres' assets in terms of what they would bring back in trade.  The Roy-for-Malkin proposals haunt me to this day.  All we know is what the Jets did accept, and it's quite likely that if GMTM had offered less, the Jets would've shopped around for a better deal and perhaps found it.

 

I'm not saying either of those things.  I'm saying that my first impression was that it was a lot to give up, probably too much.  Given current conditions, the trade is not aging well from the Sabres perspective either, which was what I told myself would happen so that it seemed more palatable at the time.

 

Overall, the package we gave up is obviously what it took to get it done.  A market trade.  Unfortunately Murray may have his thumb on the scale a bit when it's a player(s) he really wants.

 

Also, I'm hoping Kane and Bogo improve because my impression is that Murray would be hard-pressed to part with either of them very easily since they're "his" guys and he brought them in.

[nfreeman]

I'm not saying either of those things.  I'm saying that my first impression was that it was a lot to give up, probably too much.  Given current conditions, the trade is not aging well from the Sabres perspective either, which was what I told myself would happen so that it seemed more palatable at the time.

 

Overall, the package we gave up is obviously what it took to get it done.  A market trade.  Unfortunately Murray may have his thumb on the scale a bit when it's a player(s) he really wants.

 

Also, I'm hoping Kane and Bogo improve because my impression is that Murray would be hard-pressed to part with either of them very easily since they're "his" guys and he brought them in.

 

I agree with all of this, and I'm not trying to be argumentative (although I may be kidding myself there), but if you still think (i.e. you said "I'll likely always think...") that the Sabres gave up too much, doesn't that necessarily mean that you think one of the 2 possibilities I posted?

 

No big deal either way, of course. 

[Thwomp!]

I agree with all of this, and I'm not trying to be argumentative (although I may be kidding myself there), but if you still think (i.e. you said "I'll likely always think...") that the Sabres gave up too much, doesn't that necessarily mean that you think one of the 2 possibilities I posted?

 

No big deal either way, of course. 

 

Ok, poor wording on my part.  The trade seemed like a lot to give up at the time and the current circumstances are not helping it be viewed more favorably.  I'm open to changing my mind on it, but again, based on current circumstances, my view of the trade is mostly negative except for the helping the tank aspect.  I just have a negative view of the trade at this point in time, leading me to make that statement.  It was intended to be a more qualitative statement than quantitative, in other words.

[Mustache of God]

This trade helped bring us Jack Eichel. I'm ok if the pieces involved don't exactly match up. I still do hold out hope.

 

I can't agree more with this. This trade helped solidify the tank and I believe that AZ would have beat us to the bottom if this trade didn't allow us to ice another AHL scrub to replace Stafford. Had the trade not happened Stafford would have gone hot the last 10 games of the season, netting 8 GWGs completely us over and then would have walked in FA.

[Robviously]

I can't agree more with this. This trade helped solidify the tank and I believe that AZ would have beat us to the bottom if this trade didn't allow us to ice another AHL scrub to replace Stafford. Had the trade not happened Stafford would have gone hot the last 10 games of the season, netting 8 GWGs completely ###### us over and then would have walked in FA.

This isn't a great argument because not making this trade doesn't mean we couldn't have offloaded Stafford and Myers in other deals.  We know other teams were interested in Myers (Detroit was rumored for a long time) and most playoff teams would have been OK renting Stafford for the duration of the season.

[Weave]

This isn't a great argument because not making this trade doesn't mean we couldn't have offloaded Stafford and Myers in other deals.  We know other teams were interested in Myers (Detroit was rumored for a long time) and most playoff teams would have been OK renting Stafford for the duration of the season.

 

Trading with any other team would not have gotten us the combination of good players *AND* a hole in the roster big enough to drive a tank.  That only happens with a deal for Kane.  The argument he makes is a perfectly good one.  It's a have your cake and eat it too trade.

[Doohickie]

Trading with any other team would not have gotten us the combination of good players *AND* a hole in the roster big enough to drive a tank.  That only happens with a deal for Kane.  The argument he makes is a perfectly good one.  It's a have your cake and eat it too trade.

 

Sure it could have.  Trade Staff for a prospect on the verge of the NHL, let him ripen in Rochacha.

[Weave]

Sure it could have.  Trade Staff for a prospect on the verge of the NHL, let him ripen in Rochacha.

 

What prospect would we have gotten for Staph that would work out to Evander Kane level?  I doubt it was out there.

[Robviously]

What prospect would we have gotten for Staph that would work out to Evander Kane level?  I doubt it was out there.

"Evander Kane level" isn't much of a level so far.  He looks like an OK 2nd line winger.  

 

And Bogosian is an OK 2nd pair defenseman.

 

We traded FIVE of our best trade pieces for this?  One or both of these guys is going to have to step up because the early returns on this trade are pretty lame.  And I say this as an idiot who bought an Evander Kane t-shirt right before the season so that I could wear it to Opening Night.  I wanted this to work.

[Doohickie]

What prospect would we have gotten for Staph that would work out to Evander Kane level?  I doubt it was out there.

 

I was thinking more like a Stafford level player.  I'm sure we could have picked up a promising RW prospect for Staff from a team that was looking for someone for a playoff run.

[Thorny]

The Myers-Bogosian aspect is pretty much what was expected, I think. They both look like the same guys they've been for seven pro seasons.

 

Although I've been disappointed with Kane thus far, it's not like you were getting an unquestioned star for the likes of a Stafford rental, a likely bust in Armia, a likely bottom six player in Lemieux and a late 1st.

 

This whole thing could end up being a swing and a miss, but it's a swing I'd like to take every time it's available.

 

This is pretty much where I am at, particularly the bolded. That part is significant to me because it was worth taking the swing (even if it results in a miss) because I will be able to stomach what we could lose by doing so. We could very well end up "losing" the trade (although it helping with our tank is nothing to sneeze at), and early returns are it is working out better for the Jets. But Stafford was a pending UFA; the current Stafford is having a decent season, par for the course for him, heading for a mid-40's point finish. Now he is certainly a useful player, but the current Stafford is no longer part of that trade. We traded a rental, he is on a completely new contract now. 

 

Armia doesn't look promising, Lemieux is of a dime-a-dozen ilk, max upside is a bottom-6 player. And we also traded a pick. I can stand losing those things.

 

That brings us to Myers. Good player? Yes. Are the Jets getting the better end of the trade right now because of Myers? Yes. But my view is that I can stomach losing him in order to take the swing that we did. If Myers was a budding star the trade could potentially be one that I would regret, but he seems to be pretty much locked in to what he is at this point: a good, ideally second pairing defenseman. We could end up losing the trade, and I would still be okay with taking the swing that we did, because of what we gave up.

 

Obviously I would rather "win" the trade, and I am not ruling that out, or giving up on Bogosian or Kane. The Jets are getting the better end of the trade right now, and if that's something that doesn't change, it won't be the end of the world.

 

If Murray wasn't the type to make this trade, he probably also wouldn't have been the type to make the O'Reilly trade. And we know how that one is working out. Sometimes, you can't win them all.

[dudacek]

Five of our best trade pieces? Isn't that hyperbole?

Myers for sure, but the others were the equivalent of four second rounders

[Robviously]

Five of our best trade pieces? Isn't that hyperbole?

Myers for sure, but the others were the equivalent of four second rounders

Not really.  Myers is obviously a guy a lot of teams would want (and did want).  Stafford was the perfect rental player.  Lemieux was having a breakout season and is putting up even better numbers this year.  Armia was having a good season in the AHL.  And the draft pick was a first round pick in a stacked draft.  

 

I'd say that's five assets most teams would really like to get back in a trade.  How many other assets did we have that (a) it would actually hurt to part with and (b) might actually be able to get us something good in return?  [And I'm not including guys who are untouchable like Risto, Reinhart, Girgensons, etc.]  

 

After the trades for Kane, Bogo, Lehner, ROR, and McGinn, we don't have a lot of ammunition left for trades.  This is why the big idea on our board this week is "Can we get Drouin for Ennis?"  [Answer: Yes, but only if Tampa Bay is completely insane.]

[Thorny]

Not really.  Myers is obviously a guy a lot of teams would want (and did want).  Stafford was the perfect rental player.  Lemieux was having a breakout season and is putting up even better numbers this year.  Armia was having a good season in the AHL.  And the draft pick was a first round pick in a stacked draft.  

 

I'd say that's five assets most teams would really like to get back in a trade.  How many other assets did we have that (a) it would actually hurt to part with and (b) might actually be able to get us something good in return?  [And I'm not including guys who are untouchable like Risto, Reinhart, Girgensons, etc.]  

 

After the trades for Kane, Bogo, Lehner, ROR, and McGinn, we don't have a lot of ammunition left for trades.  This is why the big idea on our board this week is "Can we get Drouin for Ennis?"  [Answer: Yes, but only if Tampa Bay is completely insane.]

 

Well that's the rub, then, innit? We didn't trade 5 of our best trade assets, just 5 of the best of the ones we were willing to give up. Those two things are quite different. Armia, Lemieux and Stafford would have fetched 2nd rounders.

 

In regards to lumping together the two big trades, we got the 2 best players in the ROR trade, and likely the 2nd and 3rd best players in the Kane trade, considering Stafford was a rental. If we lose the Kane trade, the amount we won the ROR trade by looks to be a lot more than what we lost the Kane trade by. It was good asset management on the whole.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Thorny

[Randall Flagg]

I feel like this trade will be forgotten by both fan bases 5 years from now, despite how big it felt at the time.

[Thorny]

I feel like this trade will be forgotten by both fan bases 5 years from now, despite how big it felt at the time.

 

Nope, this never happens.

 

Cory Hodgman and Zack Morris are in the midst of great careers and this is just one example of a trade where the players included are never forgotten.

[#freejame]

Not really.  Myers is obviously a guy a lot of teams would want (and did want).  Stafford was the perfect rental player.  Lemieux was having a breakout season and is putting up even better numbers this year.  Armia was having a good season in the AHL.  And the draft pick was a first round pick in a stacked draft.  

 

I'd say that's five assets most teams would really like to get back in a trade.  How many other assets did we have that (a) it would actually hurt to part with and (b) might actually be able to get us something good in return?  [And I'm not including guys who are untouchable like Risto, Reinhart, Girgensons, etc.]  

 

After the trades for Kane, Bogo, Lehner, ROR, and McGinn, we don't have a lot of ammunition left for trades.  This is why the big idea on our board this week is "Can we get Drouin for Ennis?"  [Answer: Yes, but only if Tampa Bay is completely insane.]

At the end of the day, Lemieux had zero value to us as he refused to sign. I disagree with Stafford being the perfect rental, he's got limited playoff success. Armia was in his second American season and was still very meh.  

 

Bogo was never supposed to be the offensive defenseman that Myers was supposed to be and I think a lot of fans are expecting that from him. At the end of the day, we traded a high upside offensive-defenseman, a player who refused to play for us, a player who can't translate to the American game, an inconsistent rental player, and our lowest possible first round pick for a player who has 30 goal upside (and has gotten there before), a more two-way defenseman with top four upside, and a big bodied goalie. 

 

We needed goal scoring and GMTM saw an opportunity to get us a 30 goal scorer and a potential all-world in Jack Eichel.  

[Robviously]

Well that's the rub, then, innit? We didn't trade 5 of our best trade assets, just 5 of the best of the ones we were willing to give up. Those two things are quite different. Armia, Lemieux and Stafford would have fetched 2nd rounders.

 

In regards to lumping together the two big trades, we got the 2 best players in the ROR trade, and likely the 2nd and 3rd best players in the Kane trade, considering Stafford was a rental. If we lose the Kane trade, the amount we won the ROR trade by looks to be a lot more than what we lost the Kane trade by. It was good asset management on the whole.

When I say "trade assets" I mean assets we could trade to help the core we're building around, not the most valuable things we have. And it does matter how we use them because you only get to make a couple of trades like that before your cupboard is pretty empty. If we traded five good assets for two OK players, that's a lousy job.

At the end of the day, Lemieux had zero value to us as he refused to sign. I disagree with Stafford being the perfect rental, he's got limited playoff success. Armia was in his second American season and was still very meh.  

Bogo was never supposed to be the offensive defenseman that Myers was supposed to be and I think a lot of fans are expecting that from him. At the end of the day, we traded a high upside offensive-defenseman, a player who refused to play for us, a player who can't translate to the American game, an inconsistent rental player, and our lowest possible first round pick for a player who has 30 goal upside (and has gotten there before), a more two-way defenseman with top four upside, and a big bodied goalie. 

We needed goal scoring and GMTM saw an opportunity to get us a 30 goal scorer and a potential all-world in Jack Eichel.

 

Lemieux refusing to sign with us doesn't drop his value to zero. His value is whatever other teams are willing to pay and I'll bet more than one team wanted him (and still would). You'd still be in a position to get good value for him.

[Thorny]

When I say "trade assets" I mean assets we could trade to help the core we're building around, not the most valuable things we have. And it does matter how we use them because you only get to make a couple of trades like that before your cupboard is pretty empty. If we traded five good assets for two OK players, that's a lousy job.

Lemieux refusing to sign with us doesn't drop his value to zero. His value is whatever other teams are willing to pay and I'll bet more than one team wanted him (and still would). You'd still be in a position to get good value for him.

 

Maybe we rate the asset values differently. I didn't and don't see Stafford, Lemieux and Armia as "good" assets. I don't think you were going to get more than a 2nd round pick for any of them. I don't think a 2nd round pick is good value, really. You weren't going to get a first for any of the three. Armia's value is mostly shot, Lemiuex's upside is that of a dime a dozen player, and Stafford was a rental.

At the time of the trade, a Stafford rental, Armia and Lemieux equal out to Bogosian's value at the time. That's a rental and two middling prospects for a top-4 D.

 

The trade was at it's core: Myers for Kane. That's really what it boils down to, when we break it down.

[dudacek]

So the single unsubstantiated tweet that Lemieux's dad didn't like the Sabres initial contract offer has become unchallenged proof that he was never going to sign here has it?

 

The Sabres got two above-average NHLers with a pedigree that suggested they might be more.

The Jets got one of the above and four rolls of the dice.

 

Jets are winning so far.