Murray has traded a lot of assets in a very short period of time

[Robviously]

We stocked up on assets to use them.  Some of the guys we drafted with extra picks are part of the future moving forward (Girgensons) and others were moved for other players (Zadarov, Compher).  And now the Sabres are in way better shape than they were before the rebuild started.  This is the reason we wanted a rebuild.

[dudacek]

We've gone from purely hoping and praying on future returns, many of them with a low percentage, to certainty and near-certainty on high ceiling pieces.

 

We were all praying Joel Armia would put it all together and become a 25 goal top-6 player, while trying to bury in our subconscious the very real possibility he's a washout. Not only were we worried about his hockey future, but he has every bit the injury concerns that Kane has. We were dreaming of Brendan Lemieux becoming a petulant 3rd liner who can chip in 35 points...within the next four years. We were hoping a late 1st round pick would turn into an NHL player five years down the line. We now have Evander Kane who we know, at worst, is a top-6 player and is very likely a 1st line player with real linemates. How is this bad asset management? Is the risk of him being a headcase really any higher than the rest of those unproven assets amounting to zilch at the NHL level? Kane was a #4 overall pick and has best pedigree, highest ceiling, and most proven NHL production of any piece involved here.

 

We traded our "potential Norris candidate" Myers for a currently equivalent player who had even more hype than Myers at draft time. A couple of years back I wouldn't have traded Myers for Getzlaf straight up, but at some point, you have to let the dream die. He's a 25 year old 6 year pro who has flashed #1 ability, but has also flashed a #6 floor. At what point do we accept he's just a 2nd pairing defenseman? We traded him for a Dman who also belongs on the second pair, is a little younger, and has the same potential which is just as unlikely to be realized. How is this bad asset management?

 

We traded a #1 pick for an unproven goaltender and a cap dump. I hated this trade, and still think it's bad, but that #1 pick is a late 1st rounder and 4-5 years away from even getting a legitimate chance in the NHL. Lehner is going to be our starter next year, and Legwand will provide some nice leadership from the 4th line. Would I rather have spent a 3rd and 7th on Lack? Yes. But Lehner is cost-controlled for 4 more years whereas Lack is a pending UFA, and that matters. This isn't great asset management by any stretch, but one bad deal does not a bad or "wasteful" GM make.

 

We acquired a 1st line center who can play wing and a solid 3rd line winger for Zadorov, Grigorenko, a 2nd round pick and JT Compher. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first: Compher if he ever makes the NHL is a 3rd-4th line forward, Grigorenko had an unworkable contract situation and no real spot on the roster even without the trade, and a 2nd round pick may make an NHL appearance 5 years down the road with a tiny percentage chance to be an impact player. We can be tantalized by Grigorenko's ceiling all we want, but the odds of him reaching that aren't worth considering--his most likely positive outcome is a middle-6 center, which a still significant chance of being a total bust.

 

And then there's Zadorov, the real piece of this trade. We all know his ceiling is incredibly high--huge, good skater, legitimate offensive talent, physical defensive force. All the tools are there. But will he put them together? Showed up to camp out of shape and had to be ridden by coaches and vets to get in shape during the season (a process that took months, which really speaks to how poor his initial condition was), showed up late to meetings, came back late from the all-star break, and had continual brain cramps in the defensive zone during games. Now, each of those things individually can be explained by some combination of youth and inexperience, which hopefully would go away with the right coaching and simply natural maturation. The problem is they all happened to the same guy. Is it enough to lose hope? No, certainly not. But if the cumulative effect of all those things doesn't raise eyebrows and a red flag, you're being emotional rather than objective. What separates good players from great ones? Hockey sense and dedication--the two major questions for Zadorov. The NHL chews up and spits out super talented players every year. Yes, he could eventually turn into a franchise defenseman...but again, it comes down to a matter of likelihood. Zadorov could just as easily be a total bust as he is a #1 defenseman, with the heavy money on something in-between: a second pairing defenseman. If we can work under the assumption that a #1 Dman and a #1 center are roughly equivalent in value to a generic team, how do you consider a possible (and likely not) #1 Dman for a proven #1 center to be bad asset management?

 

Both of the big trades has been quantity and questions for quality and certainty. The ceiling of the questions moved out is not higher than the proven performance of the pieces brought in, hence many pieces for fewer pieces. What we moved out is more easily replaceable than what we brought in is obtainable. Picks/prospects get dealt regularly, top line players in their prime do not. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a quantity-for-quality trade turned out in favor of the team getting quantity? "The team that gets the best player won the trade" has become a saying because history shows it to be true far more often than not, and this result happens because quantity is more easily replaced than quality. You can get 2nd and 3rd line players in free agency, you almost never get 1st line players that way. It's the exact same reason that great teams re-tool around their core rather than shipping out their core to retain peripheral players. Building a team works the same way as this--acquire core pieces at the expense of the periphery.

 

Build the core, protect the core, compete for the Cup. Worry about the rest later.

Nice post Blue.

Requited love is feeding the muse.

Can't wait to see what you come up, with when you actually see Ryno in Blue and Gold.

Edited June 28, 2015 by dudacek

[woods-racer]

TrueBlue and Liger,

 

To me you have done a wonderful job of describing the fine line a GM walks between having the Penguins or the  Blackhawks. They take educated risks and rely on scouts and try their best to yield a winner while maintaining the core. Both teams have done that. Heck, LA has done that and didn't even make the playoffs this year.

 

To me there are just to many variables in the recent trade acquisitions to not believe that there needs to be a significant amount of "luck" involved for them to turn into wins on the ice.

 

Wasn't it Chi Chi Rodriguez that has the quote " I practiced that shot every day to get that lucky"?

 

When these new trades come in and prove that GMTM has practiced every day to get "that lucky", I will be a believer.

 

BTW, I feel like a ray of sunshine compared to what GoDD, PA, and Yuri might be typing...where are they?

[North Buffalo]

 

DeLuca and KTD i appreciate both of your thoughtfulness on this subject. I agree balance is the word and acknowledging that some of what Murray is doing is risky, but calculated and only part of the strategy is probably correct. That doesnt mean it should not be questioned. The koolaid crowd drives me up the wall as much as the sky is falling crowd can be a bit much too, balance.

[Kelly the Dog]

DeLuca and KTD i appreciate both of your thoughtfulness on this subject. I agree balance is the word and acknowledging that some of what Murray is doing is risky, but calculated and only part of the strategy is probably correct. That doesnt mean it should not be questioned. The koolaid crowd drives me up the wall as much as the sky is falling crowd can be a bit much too, balance.

No question it should not be questioned. ;)

 

It could be a huge error. Kane could blow up. Lehner is a madman. Oreilly may never be worth the money. We are all betting on his pretty good reputation as a talent evaluator. But even the best ones miss 50% of the time. Guys like RoR are pretty low risk.

[bunomatic]

We've gone from purely hoping and praying on future returns, many of them with a low percentage, to certainty and near-certainty on high ceiling pieces.

 

We were all praying Joel Armia would put it all together and become a 25 goal top-6 player, while trying to bury in our subconscious the very real possibility he's a washout. Not only were we worried about his hockey future, but he has every bit the injury concerns that Kane has. We were dreaming of Brendan Lemieux becoming a petulant 3rd liner who can chip in 35 points...within the next four years. We were hoping a late 1st round pick would turn into an NHL player five years down the line. We now have Evander Kane who we know, at worst, is a top-6 player and is very likely a 1st line player with real linemates. How is this bad asset management? Is the risk of him being a headcase really any higher than the rest of those unproven assets amounting to zilch at the NHL level? Kane was a #4 overall pick and has best pedigree, highest ceiling, and most proven NHL production of any piece involved here.

 

We traded our "potential Norris candidate" Myers for a currently equivalent player who had even more hype than Myers at draft time. A couple of years back I wouldn't have traded Myers for Getzlaf straight up, but at some point, you have to let the dream die. He's a 25 year old 6 year pro who has flashed #1 ability, but has also flashed a #6 floor. At what point do we accept he's just a 2nd pairing defenseman? We traded him for a Dman who also belongs on the second pair, is a little younger, and has the same potential which is just as unlikely to be realized. How is this bad asset management?

 

We traded a #1 pick for an unproven goaltender and a cap dump. I hated this trade, and still think it's bad, but that #1 pick is a late 1st rounder and 4-5 years away from even getting a legitimate chance in the NHL. Lehner is going to be our starter next year, and Legwand will provide some nice leadership from the 4th line. Would I rather have spent a 3rd and 7th on Lack? Yes. But Lehner is cost-controlled for 4 more years whereas Lack is a pending UFA, and that matters. This isn't great asset management by any stretch, but one bad deal does not a bad or "wasteful" GM make.

 

We acquired a 1st line center who can play wing and a solid 3rd line winger for Zadorov, Grigorenko, a 2nd round pick and JT Compher. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first: Compher if he ever makes the NHL is a 3rd-4th line forward, Grigorenko had an unworkable contract situation and no real spot on the roster even without the trade, and a 2nd round pick may make an NHL appearance 5 years down the road with a tiny percentage chance to be an impact player. We can be tantalized by Grigorenko's ceiling all we want, but the odds of him reaching that aren't worth considering--his most likely positive outcome is a middle-6 center, which a still significant chance of being a total bust.

 

And then there's Zadorov, the real piece of this trade. We all know his ceiling is incredibly high--huge, good skater, legitimate offensive talent, physical defensive force. All the tools are there. But will he put them together? Showed up to camp out of shape and had to be ridden by coaches and vets to get in shape during the season (a process that took months, which really speaks to how poor his initial condition was), showed up late to meetings, came back late from the all-star break, and had continual brain cramps in the defensive zone during games. Now, each of those things individually can be explained by some combination of youth and inexperience, which hopefully would go away with the right coaching and simply natural maturation. The problem is they all happened to the same guy. Is it enough to lose hope? No, certainly not. But if the cumulative effect of all those things doesn't raise eyebrows and a red flag, you're being emotional rather than objective. What separates good players from great ones? Hockey sense and dedication--the two major questions for Zadorov. The NHL chews up and spits out super talented players every year. Yes, he could eventually turn into a franchise defenseman...but again, it comes down to a matter of likelihood. Zadorov could just as easily be a total bust as he is a #1 defenseman, with the heavy money on something in-between: a second pairing defenseman. If we can work under the assumption that a #1 Dman and a #1 center are roughly equivalent in value to a generic team, how do you consider a possible (and likely not) #1 Dman for a proven #1 center to be bad asset management? 

 

Both of the big trades has been quantity and questions for quality and certainty. The ceiling of the questions moved out is not higher than the proven performance of the pieces brought in, hence many pieces for fewer pieces. What we moved out is more easily replaceable than what we brought in is obtainable. Picks/prospects get dealt regularly, top line players in their prime do not. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a quantity-for-quality trade turned out in favor of the team getting quantity? "The team that gets the best player won the trade" has become a saying because history shows it to be true far more often than not, and this result happens because quantity is more easily replaced than quality. You can get 2nd and 3rd line players in free agency, you almost never get 1st line players that way. It's the exact same reason that great teams re-tool around their core rather than shipping out their core to retain peripheral players. Building a team works the same way as this--acquire core pieces at the expense of the periphery. 

 

Build the core, protect the core, compete for the Cup. Worry about the rest later.

This was a great post and I agree. Well said.

[Rasmus_]

A lot of the assets he's traded aside from Lemieux were not drafted by his regime. I'm not implying that he should or should not have moved those pieces.  That being said, the team today is a hell of a lot closer that it would have been without the trades.  Kane, O'Reilly, Reinhart, Eichel, Bogosian, Lehner, Deslauriers, Fasching, are all in their 25 season or lower.  Add in Ristolainen, Girgensons, McCabe, Pysyk, Foligno, Larsson, Ennis.  The team needs to get these talents to gel, and needs to add a bit more depth on the back end.  Lehner needs to get healthy over the concussion concerns, but really, you add in what he's added and you see that for the most part there's a lot of top end talent.  He had to finish bottoming out what Regier brought half way down.  But, DR honestly wouldn't have gone all in.  TM has stuck to his guns whether good or bad.  The draft after round 1 was a bit heavy on defense, but that's what was played to him.  I would have preferred a Tomek or Ahl pick splintered in, but we'll see.  Every GM, or Scouting director misses on picks.  (See Cornel).  But for the most part, this team is at least in the "Exciting, poised to be making noise in the Eastern conference again", type of situation.   He'll retool!  Get O'Reilly signed and this team is pretty damn exciting heading into July 1.  There are still situations where cap crunches are coming.  See LA, Chicago, and a few various others.  

[OCinBuffalo]

It has now become evident to me that the 2010-14 Sabres were a rare instance...where the sum of the parts >>> the whole.

 

All the parts we traded...created far more parts than they were worth, or that we ever expected. In fact, they created too many parts, or assets. Murray said something like "WTF am I going to do with 5, 2nd round picks?".

 

Ultimately, this is a case of having too many assets. As many said/knew: We could never have drafted 17 players in the 1st and 2nd over 3 years. That's Baby-Town Frolics.

 

What I like is: Murray has gotten the best player out of every trade. With the O'Reilly trade, the best 2 players, right now, out of the trade.

 

I'm not about to cry about paying high prices when we had more than enough assets to get all of these deals to "yes". If you check out Sabresprospects.com, Zadorov was the only #1 prospect we lost. Granted Grigorenko and Compher were #2s, but, by how much?

 

It's folly to suggest that somehow the deepest prospect pool in the NHL, suddenly became the thinnest because of these trades.

Edited June 28, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[bunomatic]

The reason we had the deepest prospect pool in the league is because we had the shittiest team 2 years running. All the people we moved out over the last 2 or 3 seasons gave us that. Murray essentially flipped what we had in a deep prospect pool into a working N.H.L. roster. I take what we have today any day and all day long. Prospects are wealth on paper, the  players he brought in are money in the bank.

[GoPre]

Kind of fun to surf other teams message boards and see what their fans have to say about the Sabres, especially the Bruins. Their board is about to explode! Many expressing their want for the Bruins to be in the Sabres shoes right now. Rather entertaining. 

[Robviously]

The reason we had the deepest prospect pool in the league is because we had the shittiest team 2 years running. All the people we moved out over the last 2 or 3 seasons gave us that. Murray essentially flipped what we had in a deep prospect pool into a working N.H.L. roster. I take what we have today any day and all day long. Prospects are wealth on paper, the  players he brought in are money in the bank.

More than that, there was some thought on this board 1-2 years ago that we were trading for too many prospects and picks.  At some point we were going to need to get actual players.  That's what this is (finally).

 

All the prospects and picks were currency, and we finally spent it after stockpiling for years.

Kind of fun to surf other teams message boards and see what their fans have to say about the Sabres, especially the Bruins. Their board is about to explode! Many expressing their want for the Bruins to be in the Sabres shoes right now. Rather entertaining. 

You can thank Suffering and The Tank for that.  We were miserable for years to get to this point.

 

Everyone wants to be the guy at the beach with a six-pack but no one wants to do crunches every morning.

[LGR4GM]

And the Sabres still need another scoring winger and top 4 D.

I disagree on the winger with how many players we have in our top 6 right now, ROR, Eichel, Kane, Moulson, Ennis, Zemgus, Reinhart.

 

I disagree about the winger thing. As for top 4 defenders, we could add one but I think we have a decent top 4.   Risto, Bogo, Gorges, Pysyk

[WildCard]

More than that, there was some thought on this board 1-2 years ago that we were trading for too many prospects and picks.  At some point we were going to need to get actual players.  That's what this is (finally).

 

All the prospects and picks were currency, and we finally spent it after stockpiling for years.

You can thank Suffering and The Tank for that.  We were miserable for years to get to this point.

 

Everyone wants to be the guy at the beach with a six-pack but no one wants to do crunches every morning.

Exactly

[Taro T]

We've gone from purely hoping and praying on future returns, many of them with a low percentage, to certainty and near-certainty on high ceiling pieces.

 

We were all praying Joel Armia would put it all together and become a 25 goal top-6 player, while trying to bury in our subconscious the very real possibility he's a washout. Not only were we worried about his hockey future, but he has every bit the injury concerns that Kane has. We were dreaming of Brendan Lemieux becoming a petulant 3rd liner who can chip in 35 points...within the next four years. We were hoping a late 1st round pick would turn into an NHL player five years down the line. We now have Evander Kane who we know, at worst, is a top-6 player and is very likely a 1st line player with real linemates. How is this bad asset management? Is the risk of him being a headcase really any higher than the rest of those unproven assets amounting to zilch at the NHL level? Kane was a #4 overall pick and has best pedigree, highest ceiling, and most proven NHL production of any piece involved here.

 

We traded our "potential Norris candidate" Myers for a currently equivalent player who had even more hype than Myers at draft time. A couple of years back I wouldn't have traded Myers for Getzlaf straight up, but at some point, you have to let the dream die. He's a 25 year old 6 year pro who has flashed #1 ability, but has also flashed a #6 floor. At what point do we accept he's just a 2nd pairing defenseman? We traded him for a Dman who also belongs on the second pair, is a little younger, and has the same potential which is just as unlikely to be realized. How is this bad asset management?

 

We traded a #1 pick for an unproven goaltender and a cap dump. I hated this trade, and still think it's bad, but that #1 pick is a late 1st rounder and 4-5 years away from even getting a legitimate chance in the NHL. Lehner is going to be our starter next year, and Legwand will provide some nice leadership from the 4th line. Would I rather have spent a 3rd and 7th on Lack? Yes. But Lehner is cost-controlled for 4 more years whereas Lack is a pending UFA, and that matters. This isn't great asset management by any stretch, but one bad deal does not a bad or "wasteful" GM make.

 

We acquired a 1st line center who can play wing and a solid 3rd line winger for Zadorov, Grigorenko, a 2nd round pick and JT Compher. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first: Compher if he ever makes the NHL is a 3rd-4th line forward, Grigorenko had an unworkable contract situation and no real spot on the roster even without the trade, and a 2nd round pick may make an NHL appearance 5 years down the road with a tiny percentage chance to be an impact player. We can be tantalized by Grigorenko's ceiling all we want, but the odds of him reaching that aren't worth considering--his most likely positive outcome is a middle-6 center, which a still significant chance of being a total bust.

 

And then there's Zadorov, the real piece of this trade. We all know his ceiling is incredibly high--huge, good skater, legitimate offensive talent, physical defensive force. All the tools are there. But will he put them together? Showed up to camp out of shape and had to be ridden by coaches and vets to get in shape during the season (a process that took months, which really speaks to how poor his initial condition was), showed up late to meetings, came back late from the all-star break, and had continual brain cramps in the defensive zone during games. Now, each of those things individually can be explained by some combination of youth and inexperience, which hopefully would go away with the right coaching and simply natural maturation. The problem is they all happened to the same guy. Is it enough to lose hope? No, certainly not. But if the cumulative effect of all those things doesn't raise eyebrows and a red flag, you're being emotional rather than objective. What separates good players from great ones? Hockey sense and dedication--the two major questions for Zadorov. The NHL chews up and spits out super talented players every year. Yes, he could eventually turn into a franchise defenseman...but again, it comes down to a matter of likelihood. Zadorov could just as easily be a total bust as he is a #1 defenseman, with the heavy money on something in-between: a second pairing defenseman. If we can work under the assumption that a #1 Dman and a #1 center are roughly equivalent in value to a generic team, how do you consider a possible (and likely not) #1 Dman for a proven #1 center to be bad asset management? 

 

Both of the big trades has been quantity and questions for quality and certainty. The ceiling of the questions moved out is not higher than the proven performance of the pieces brought in, hence many pieces for fewer pieces. What we moved out is more easily replaceable than what we brought in is obtainable. Picks/prospects get dealt regularly, top line players in their prime do not. Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a quantity-for-quality trade turned out in favor of the team getting quantity? "The team that gets the best player won the trade" has become a saying because history shows it to be true far more often than not, and this result happens because quantity is more easily replaced than quality. You can get 2nd and 3rd line players in free agency, you almost never get 1st line players that way. It's the exact same reason that great teams re-tool around their core rather than shipping out their core to retain peripheral players. Building a team works the same way as this--acquire core pieces at the expense of the periphery. 

 

Build the core, protect the core, compete for the Cup. Worry about the rest later.

Excellent post.

[LGR4GM]

Kind of fun to surf other teams message boards and see what their fans have to say about the Sabres, especially the Bruins. Their board is about to explode! Many expressing their want for the Bruins to be in the Sabres shoes right now. Rather entertaining. 

Well Boston just made some insane trades and then went to the draft floor and drafted some crap.  If I were a boston fan I would pissed about almost everything they have done. 

[GoPre]

Well Boston just made some insane trades and then went to the draft floor and drafted some crap.  If I were a boston fan I would pissed about almost everything they have done. 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Word is out Hamilton may have been a problem in the locker room. Boston claims they tried to keep Hamilton by offering 5 million a year, but apparently that wasn't enough. Rumor is Hamilton told Boston which teams he'd sign w/ and which ones he wouldn't. Maybe Arizona was on the not signing list? Now the Coyotes may still have declined whatever Hamilton + offer from Boston. But yeah, poor drafting/trades was a terrible start for GM Sweeney. The Bruins may be in for a few very bad seasons. 

[dudacek]

Couldn't agree more. Word is out Hamilton may have been a problem in the locker room. Boston claims they tried to keep Hamilton by offering 5 million a year, but apparently that wasn't enough. Rumor is Hamilton told Boston which teams he'd sign w/ and which ones he wouldn't. Maybe Arizona was on the not signing list? Now the Coyotes may still have declined whatever Hamilton + offer from Boston. But yeah, poor drafting/trades was a terrible start for GM Sweeney. The Bruins may be in for a few very bad seasons. 

 

Couldn't happen to a nicer team. I'm going to like looking down on them and TO in the standings.

And it is going to feel real weird to be fighting with Tampa and Florida of all teams for control of the division in two or three years.

Edited June 28, 2015 by dudacek

[stinky finger]

And some don't have prob with Kane, hope you are right. Lerner, if and a big if, watched him in Ottowa before he got hurt, imo, will be a very good goaltender, if his head is ok, much better than Lack... Just saying the risk is worth a discount... Murray needs to get his cake and eat it too at a fair price, not a Westchester, NY price

GMTM is not only making Buffalo more attractive to potential FA's but also GM's around the league. I say the latter in a positive light.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well Boston just made some insane trades and then went to the draft floor and drafted some crap. If I were a boston fan I would pissed about almost everything they have done.

Want some funsies? Go read a Bruins forum. It's basically the apocalypse and nobody has any idea what they're doing.

[tom webster]

IMO, what you have described regarding the Hawks is "balance." They manipulate the roster balancing talent and cap space. Paying the mega stars, filling in the roster with veterans as you said and keeping the pipe line constantly flowing with the pool of prospects. When I said "balance" this is more of what I had in mind. It's really a balance of contracts in today's NHL. Long term deals, flexible veteran contracts and entry level contracts.   

 

I misunderstood then. We appear to be on the same page.

[GoPre]

Here's one from a Bruins message board. Almost feel bad for them.....wait, no I don't. 

 

What, the ****, is the plan?

It's not to get younger, because they traded Hamilton.
It's not to go for it, because they traded Lucic. 
It's not to create cap flexibility, because they overpaid for McQuaid. 
It's not to lose next year, because they kept Julien. 
It's not to trade their way back into contention because they just used their best trade currency (picks).


Why is there not a Fire Neely/Sweeney thread yet?

[Peter]

Let me preface my comments by saying that I like TM. I am happy that he is our GM.

 

Nevertheless, I agree with the overall thesis of the OP.

 

Tim has paid (in my opinion) premium pricing in his trades. We certainly accumulated assets to use to improve the team, but I think that we had a lot more leverage in both the Lehner and ROR trades.

 

Lehner may end up being good, but his track record in the NHL does not justify the 21st pick in the draft. The goalie market this year and in recent years does not support the 21st pick in the draft. We also did Uncle Brian a huge favor by taking on salary.

 

ROR is a good two way player, but appears (I hope not) to have a cap on his offensive production. We also are taking on the risk (whatever that percentage may be) of not being able to extend him beyond this year. Also, if we do extend him, it will have a ripple effect on the rest of the roster and cap in a few years. McGinn also has one year left on his deal and a history of back problems. In fact, his back issues limited him to 19 games this past year. I wish we could have used the 21st pick (instead of Zadorov) in the ROR deal. I also do not like having to "throw in" Compher on top of Zadorov.

 

As some have said, if we win the Stanley Cup in the next few years, not many will care what we gave up. Forgetting about what his salary will be and what we gave up for him for the moment, the Sabres are clearly stronger down the middle with ROR than without. Lehner is a question mark. We can hope that he will reach the potential that Tim sees in him by giving him the minutes he needs and providing him the goalie whisperer (Irbe - presuming he continues to be the goalie coach). Mcginn's back and contract also are question marks. Let's hope his back issues are cleared up.

 

We now have fewer assets than before. Tim is going to have to be more circumspect in his trades. At the same time, he probably has a bit of a reputation in the league for willing to pay a premium for players he is fixated on. He is going to have to show that those days are over.

 

Side note: it will be interesting to see if and when Tim acquires any other Russian players. I have a feeling that he falls within that camp of NHL executives who are not fans of Russians. What is that adage that some use - none but certainly not more than one?

 

Another side note: I have this impression (my opinion) that teams negotiate with Tim by insisting on "throw ins" at the last moment (e.g., Compher and Lemieux). That is a negotiating tactic that some attempt to use in the business world to take advantage of the other side's anxiousness to close the deal after thinking the parties already have agreed to terms. I hope that stops. Tim may have to call people's bluffs in future negotiations.

 

Just my two cents.

[Doohickie]

I think he overpaid

I think this is precisely what he was brought in for. When Darcy was acquiring all these picks he was lauded for getting ready capital to be used when needed later. It's later. Time to convert the capital into on-ice assets.

 

The fact that GMTM is overpaying doesn't concern me. DR won every trade and never built a team. I think Murray is assembling a more effective team than Darcy could ever dream up.

[dejeanneret]

Lehner is simple: Murray determined Lehner is more valuable to him than any player he could pick at 21.

And while I question the concussion as well, Murray does have a medical staff, NHL research, personal and professional experience, and sport history to help evaluate the potential outcome of this injury.

I would guess that, while a gamble, the degree of the gamble falls well in favor of Murray and the Sabres.

Murray is like an abstract artist, you have to step back and take in the totality of his work. There have been individual moves that I would question, or wonder about, but when I look at what the Murray "big picture", it makes complete sense.

Completely agree. Those that can see big picture aren't micromanaging this. Love what Murray has done and can't wait for FA.

[North Buffalo]

Completely agree. Those that can see big picture aren't micromanaging this. Love what Murray has done and can't wait for FA.

Really, Lerner head issues even med staff are unsure of implications both shortbrun and long run, it will be hard to tell both for Lerner's sake and the Sabres which is why taking a risk on him is fine, overpaying was foolish and TM needs to become a better negotiator. That being said he has been able to adapt and now his Uncle owes him one. Murray if smart keeps that chit in his pocket and uses it well.