Trade: Ryan O'Reilly to St Louis Blues

[LGR4GM]

46 minutes ago, shrader said:

The growth of a certain 21 year old also has a lot to do with the so called winning of the trade.

I don't think Tage will be better than what ROR is. I think he can be a good player but will have less impact. Honestly though, I hope you are right and I am 100% wrong and he surpasses ROR. 

46 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Not for nothing: He's trending toward being an 80-point player this season.

With some distance from the trade, and perhaps in light of the numbers he's posting this season, I am more resolute than ever that there were non-on-ice considerations of which we are ignorant, but which have been talked about here as rumours and/or insider information, that compelled this trade to happen. 

For that reason, I think it's a fool's errand to talk about the Sabres potentially winning that trade in terms of hockey assets. 

JBOT did not move a player of ROR's quality in the manner he did without good cause. (Btw, I'm not saying it was the right decision -- just that a rational GM perceived good cause.) This was a bitter, jagged pill to swallow.

 

That's true. I wonder if he can sustain that for more than 1 season. 

[woods-racer]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't think Tage will be better than what ROR is. I think he can be a good player but will have less impact. Honestly though, I hope you are right and I am 100% wrong and he surpasses ROR. 

The way we win this is not by Tage being better or as good as ROR. He's never going to be a solid second line 2 way center. Those are very hard to get.

If Tage winds up being a  good second or third line winger with a snipers skill that is hard to find AND we get a draft pick that is at least a 3rd line guy I think we broke even. If half of the rumors are true about the baggage ROR is carrying around , then just Tage being a steady 3rd line winger is a win.

[Thorny]

On 2/13/2019 at 10:43 AM, That Aud Smell said:

I think it's misleading to state it that way.

He was doing yeoman's work when aspects of the team were struggling around him, and he's still doing that work now that reinforcements have arrived.

Edit: If you'll allow it: Aragorn (from Lord of the Rings (sorry)) is slaughtering every orc in his path during a lengthy battle, but his fighting unit is ill-suited to the battle and losing. But, lo. A cavalry of men arrives (blowing the horn of ... something) and the tide steadily turns. Aragorn continues to do what he'd been doing. Good guys prevail. Aragorn may not have been the moving force in the turnaround, but he was instrumental to the victory.

Gah. I think I hate myself for that one.  

Love the analogy. 

To shift it slightly while addressing LTS's argument regarding "Aragorn", you can use Frodo instead. His yeoman's work throughout the series isn't flashy, but he's carrying the burden necessary for victory. Once the Gondor armies show up and fight the evil armies and clear a path for Frodo through Mordor, the battle is won. But a very necessary component was trudging along the entire time. 

[erickompositör72]

Where does Gandalf fit into all of this?

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Love the analogy. 

To shift it slightly while addressing LTS's argument regarding "Aragorn", you can use Frodo instead. His yeoman's work throughout the series isn't flashy, but he's carrying the burden necessary for victory. Once the Gondor armies show up and fight the evil armies and clear a path for Frodo through Mordor, the battle is won. But a very necessary component was trudging along the entire time. 

Interesting. But isn't Frodo more of an unheralded bottom 6 forward who does all the little things, the dirty work, kills penalties, blocks shots? ROR is leading his team in points. That seems more like Orc-slaughtering badassery, to me.

Perhaps this warrants its own thread - lol.

[Thorny]

22 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Interesting. But isn't Frodo more of an unheralded bottom 6 forward who does all the little things, the dirty work, kills penalties, blocks shots? ROR is leading his team in points. That seems more like Orc-slaughtering badassery, to me.

Perhaps this warrants its own thread - lol.

No. Frodo is the star. He's the hero of the story. But we've now moved away from ROR ?

I'd be down for a thread.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Thorny

[Scottysabres]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Interesting. But isn't Frodo more of an unheralded bottom 6 forward who does all the little things, the dirty work, kills penalties, blocks shots? ROR is leading his team in points. That seems more like Orc-slaughtering badassery, to me.

Perhaps this warrants its own thread - lol.

Frodo is an elite superstar. Bottom 6 forward???????

Frodo took on the moniker of battling mentally with the ring, Frodo carried the ring nearly 90% of the time, Frodo stepped forward WHILE the group around him squabbled and dedicated his very life to carrying the ring to Mt. Doom and throwing it in to the lava.

In short, Frodo came, Frodo saw, Frodo conquered.

ROR couldn't hold Frodo's jock strap.

In the interest of full disclosure, it did take Frodo 3 seasons. Just sayin...……..;}

Edited February 14, 2019 by Scottysabres

[jame]

8 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

Not for nothing: He's trending toward being an 80-point player this season.

With some distance from the trade, and perhaps in light of the numbers he's posting this season, I am more resolute than ever that there were non-on-ice considerations of which we are ignorant, but which have been talked about here as rumours and/or insider information, that compelled this trade to happen. 

For that reason, I think it's a fool's errand to talk about the Sabres potentially winning that trade in terms of hockey assets. 

JBOT did not move a player of ROR's quality in the manner he did without good cause. (Btw, I'm not saying it was the right decision -- just that a rational GM perceived good cause.) This was a bitter, jagged pill to swallow.

 

Or Botts is not competent or experienced enough to make good decisions

[jame]

38 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Frodo is an elite superstar. Bottom 6 forward???????

Frodo took on the moniker of battling mentally with the ring, Frodo carried the ring nearly 90% of the time, Frodo stepped forward WHILE the group around him squabbled and dedicated his very life to carrying the ring to Mt. Doom and throwing it in to the lava.

In short, Frodo came, Frodo saw, Frodo conquered.

ROR couldn't hold Frodo's jock strap.

In the interest of full disclosure, it did take Frodo 3 seasons. Just sayin...……..;}

ROR as Frodo would work... if a Moronic Gandalf sent him to the undying lands before allowing him to ascend Mount Doom and complete the mission. A foolish Gandalf overreacted to the impact of the ring on Frodo’s mental state and figured that the remaining members of the fellowship could get the job done without him.

[erickompositör72]

18 minutes ago, jame said:

Or Botts is not competent or experienced enough to make good decisions

Can you articulate a little more clearly how this played into dealing ROR? JBotts has spent quite a bit of time in successful NHL front offices, so I don't think experience would be at issue.

Like I said, there is no way to prove or disprove that dealing ROR was not the best thing for the leadership dynamic in the locker room. Are there any other clues from the ROR deal that you can point to that would lead you to believe he is incompetent or inexperienced? Or is it just purely your hunch? (which of course, you're entitled to, but you can't state it as fact)

If this is a key pillar to your criticism of JBott, I would say you're building your stance on something that cannot be known.

[jame]

2 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

Can you articulate a little more clearly how this played into dealing ROR? JBotts has spent quite a bit of time in successful NHL front offices, so I don't think experience would be at issue.

Like I said, there is no way to prove or disprove that dealing ROR was not the best thing for the leadership dynamic in the locker room. Are there any other clues from the ROR deal that you can point to that would lead you to believe he is incompetent or inexperienced? Or is it just purely your hunch? (which of course, you're entitled to, but you can't state it as fact)

If this is a key pillar to your criticism of JBott, I would say you're building your stance on something that cannot be known.

Trading him based on a signing bonus deadline... a good, experienced GM would’ve been capable of convincing an owner about how much that would affect the return and put the team in a hole.

one can easily point to the return Colorado got for Duchene by waiting... well into the season... to trade Duchene.m (and their were similar lockerroom narratives coming out of Colorado at the time).

A good GM knows talent wins, and winning builds culture. Subtracting talent, to build culture, to then win... is a stupid approach. Botts is going to survive by lucking his way in to two additional high talent players.

as to the bolded... yes, absolutely. My position is as unknown as those who use a culture/lockerroom narrative to defend the move.

[Scottysabres]

1 hour ago, jame said:

ROR as Frodo would work... if a Moronic Gandalf sent him to the undying lands before allowing him to ascend Mount Doom and complete the mission. A foolish Gandalf overreacted to the impact of the ring on Frodo’s mental state and figured that the remaining members of the fellowship could get the job done without him.

ROR as Frodo would not work. Frodo resisted the ring. ROR's contract is proof the ring over came him.

[erickompositör72]

45 minutes ago, jame said:

Trading him based on a signing bonus deadline... a good, experienced GM would’ve been capable of convincing an owner about how much that would affect the return and put the team in a hole.

one can easily point to the return Colorado got for Duchene by waiting... well into the season... to trade Duchene.m (and their were similar lockerroom narratives coming out of Colorado at the time).

A good GM knows talent wins, and winning builds culture. Subtracting talent, to build culture, to then win... is a stupid approach. Botts is going to survive by lucking his way in to two additional high talent players.

as to the bolded... yes, absolutely. My position is as unknown as those who use a culture/lockerroom narrative to defend the move.

As long as your acknowledging that. Further, we really don't know what was on the table for any of the deals, nor how far any GM he dealt with could have been pushed, even with the best negotiator. JBott's record with trades strikes me as pretty balanced, which leads me to believe he has a vision he's building, rather than trying to "win" every trade (that's near impossible to do).

Re:the bolded- not sure who you're referring to, or how luck would be involved...?

[jame]

7 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

As long as your acknowledging that. Further, we really don't know what was on the table for any of the deals, nor how far any GM he dealt with could have been pushed, even with the best negotiator. JBott's record with trades strikes me as pretty balanced, which leads me to believe he has a vision he's building, rather than trying to "win" every trade (that's near impossible to do).

Re:the bolded- not sure who you're referring to, or how luck would be involved...?

His one and only major move is the ROR and it was a total disaster trade. He got mediocre futures (look at the Duchene haul, the ROR trade pales in comparison)... and he took on two colossally stupid cap dumps. Of course, once again his awful decision making is mitigated by the craziest stroke of luck ever (a player walking away from 4 years of cap waste....

Dahlin = luck (winning lottery)

Skinner = luck (full NMC Clause allowed him to dictate Toronto or Buffalo or nowhere)

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

Which part of the Duchene trade outside the 1st is amazing? I'm honestly asking, I haven't looked at the trade since it occurred. 

[erickompositör72]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which part of the Duchene trade outside the 1st is amazing? I'm honestly asking, I haven't looked at the trade since it occurred. 

2019 third round pick, forward prospect Shane Bowers (drafted 28th overall, currently playing at BU), AHL goaltender Andrew Hammond

Nothing to really hang their hat on, at this point.

This shines a light on jame's negative bias, no?

[dudacek]

Which one of you is Wormtongue?

[jame]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Which part of the Duchene trade outside the 1st is amazing? I'm honestly asking, I haven't looked at the trade since it occurred. 

Samuel Girard was a blue chip prospect. Comparison wise, it would’ve been like us getting Jordan Kyrou or Robert Thomas.

They got / we got

Girard >>>>>>> Nothing

Kamenev = Thompson

Ottawa protected 1st >>> St Louis Protected 1st

Bowers >>>> Nothing

2nd rounder = 2nd rounder

3rd rounder > Nothing

Hammond cap dump > Sobotka cap dump

Nothing >>>> 4 years of Berglund contract

 

Botts didn’t even land on the same planet as Colorado... 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by jame

[jame]

1 hour ago, erickompositör72 said:

2019 third round pick, forward prospect Shane Bowers (drafted 28th overall, currently playing at BU), AHL goaltender Andrew Hammond

Nothing to really hang their hat on, at this point.

This shines a light on jame's negative bias, no?

Nope. 

[erickompositör72]

2 hours ago, jame said:

Nope. 

I actually made a mistake about the details of the 3-way deal. COL did end up getting more than we got for ROR.

I hereby withdraw this as an exhibit illustrating your negative bias, but I do not cede that you are without such bias!

[nfreeman]

5 hours ago, jame said:

Trading him based on a signing bonus deadline... a good, experienced GM would’ve been capable of convincing an owner about how much that would affect the return and put the team in a hole.

While I think the necessity of trading ROR is a legitimate question (one which I do not agree with your answer, but still legitimate), the above is where I think you are on pretty shaky ground.  I think it’s very unusual for a team in the Sabres’ situation with ROR’s bonus to eat the bonus and then trade him.  I think at least 26 NHL owners, and maybe all of them, would instruct the GM to either keep him or trade him before the bonus is due.  

[Eleven]

I do want to know why I'm  supposed to discard the Sabres' ten game winning streak from earlier in the season but credit the Blues' eight game winning streak that lifted them from last place into a playoff spot.  Someone please explain.  

[jame]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

While I think the necessity of trading ROR is a legitimate question (one which I do not agree with your answer, but still legitimate), the above is where I think you are on pretty shaky ground.  I think it’s very unusual for a team in the Sabres’ situation with ROR’s bonus to eat the bonus and then trade him.  I think at least 26 NHL owners, and maybe all of them, would instruct the GM to either keep him or trade him before the bonus is due.  

Really? It’s almost like you don’t think NHL buyouts exist.

owners flush huge amounts of money down the toilet all the time, when it’s in the best interest of the team. There is not much material difference between pay a huge signing bonus and then trading a player because that money bought you a better outcome for your Team (trade value), and paying a huge buyout because that money bought you a better outcome for your team (cap space)

[nfreeman]

43 minutes ago, jame said:

Really? It’s almost like you don’t think NHL buyouts exist.

owners flush huge amounts of money down the toilet all the time, when it’s in the best interest of the team. There is not much material difference between pay a huge signing bonus and then trading a player because that money bought you a better outcome for your Team (trade value), and paying a huge buyout because that money bought you a better outcome for your team (cap space)

There's one huge difference:  the outcome in a buyout is known, while the outcome in paying the bonus and then trading the player (i.e. whether you'll be able to get a better trade) is unknown.

Can you cite any examples of paying a big bonus to a player and then trading him?

And your first sentence is an excellent example of why many people here have had issues with you -- and why you are likely to find yourself in time out again soon.

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

I do want to know why I'm  supposed to discard the Sabres' ten game winning streak from earlier in the season but credit the Blues' eight game winning streak that lifted them from last place into a playoff spot.  Someone please explain.  

Because most (nearly all of) their underlying metrics have been better all season long than what the Sabres had during their streak. And most of those same metrics were predicting more success than they were having when they were firmly in lottery territory. Many here have said they improved when their goaltending improved; I suspect their overall PDO had been abnormally low, too.

The Sabres' underlying metrics did not support a 10-game win streak. By that measure, they were playing pretty well, IIRC, but not *that* well. That run was magical.