Official:Trade Brandon Montour to Buffalo for 1st and Guhle

[New Guy]

LHD-RHD

26-62

What lovely symmetry we shall see

[nfreeman]

Welcome @New Guy!

I've been thinking we needed some numerology on the board.

[Tondas]

26 minutes ago, New Guy said:

LHD-RHD

26-62

What lovely symmetry we shall see

I love it when a palindrome comes together.

[bob_sauve28]

Am I wrong to see this as a very good trade for us? Not supergreat, but very good 

[Huckleberry]

4 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Am I wrong to see this as a very good trade for us? Not supergreat, but very good 

I think we are all pretty excited about this one, don't think anyone expected it.

[ddaryl]

great trade iMO.. and NHL expereiced D capable of playing top lines and 20 minutes a game for 1st and Guhle... You don't get a young player like this for less IMO

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Am I wrong to see this as a very good trade for us? Not supergreat, but very good 

No you are not wrong. We took a failing prospect who was 6th on our LHD depth chart and a late rd 1st rd pick who could be 3 to 4 years from contributing (if at all) and acquired a proven top 4 NHL RHD, which we need, who is only 24 and is under contract and control. He also has a reasonable cap hit if only 3.387.

He is not great in his own end which is an issue and didn’t really fit ANA’s system long-term.  They are also a budget team and likely didn’t want to pay him after next season and have good prospects coming up.

Here he is a good fit for PH’s system in that he passes well, is a great skater and also has a good shot.  At 24, I think he can still improve defensively.

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[WildCard]

 

[Doohickie]

Very captain-like assessment.

[French Collection]

I like the trade, Sabres know what they are getting, while Guhle may end up not being a top 4 Dman and the pick is the wild card.

I think Montour has upside, given a good role and proper coaching. He will be playing in front of family and friends and also trying for a big contract next season.

[jame]

Solid trade. Fair amount of risk/reward.

It will be interesting to see where/how they try to fit Montour in. Burke nailed it in describing him as unpredictable... and having that be a great trait when it's viewed through the prism of your opponent, but a terrible trait when understood in terms of your teammates, especially your D partner. 

Dahlin-Montour probably won't work because of that. More likely it's McCabe-Montour or Scandella-Montour in the near term. Which probably puts Risto on the trade block this summer.

I'm surprised how many people love this trade... given how much hate there is for Murray's tenure. This is a Tim Murray trade, minus the additional tertiary asset.

 

[WildCard]

Just now, jame said:

I'm surprised how many people love this trade... given how much hate there is for Murray's tenure. This is a Tim Murray trade, minus the additional tertiary asset.

How so?

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, jame said:

Solid trade. Fair amount of risk/reward.

It will be interesting to see where/how they try to fit Montour in. Burke nailed it in describing him as unpredictable... and having that be a great trait when it's viewed through the prism of your opponent, but a terrible trait when understood in terms of your teammates, especially your D partner. 

Dahlin-Montour probably won't work because of that. More likely it's McCabe-Montour or Scandella-Montour in the near term. Which probably puts Risto on the trade block this summer.

I'm surprised how many people love this trade... given how much hate there is for Murray's tenure. This is a Tim Murray trade, minus the additional tertiary asset.

 

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

[SDS]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

How so?

 

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

I don't speak for jame, but the strusture is very XGMTM-like. Prospect and a 1st rounder to get better today. Now, that isn't atypical, but he tried to get better players in here faster and thus did this alot and it didn't pan out all that well.

[sabills]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

I'm surprised how many people love this trade... given how much hate there is for Murray's tenure. This is a Tim Murray trade, minus the additional tertiary asset.

 

 

6 minutes ago, WildCard said:

How so?

 

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

 

I could see the argument being made that this is trading away assets to speed up the process of rebuilding, which I think is at least somewhat valid.

[jame]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

How so?

The last 8 months, the fan based... largely in lock step with Botts... railed against Murray's spending of futures for young, prime aged, NHL talent. And praised the direction Botts was taking (acquiring picks, build through draft). This move is essentially 1st, Armia, Lemiuex for Kane. Just kind of shows that Botts has acquired some teflon without actually accomplishing anything.

I like this move. I recognize the flaws Montour has. He's not a true top pairing guy. He's a guy who needs to be "partnered up". But I like the deal... I don't overvalue late 1sts and mid tier prospects. I'd rather convert coin flips to prime aged certainty every time.

Montour is a much better fit for our system than say Jake McCabe. And that gives him much more value to us. But in a systemless vaccuum, they are relatively equal. How would everyone like the trade if it was viewed in those terms? Brandon Montour is to puck moving defensemen what Jake McCabe is to stay at home defensemen....

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

Futures for young talent.

This is essentially 1st, Lemieux, Armia for Kane.... same trade.

[GASabresIUFAN]

10 minutes ago, WildCard said:

How so?

 

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

A 1st rd pick and a prospect for a young vet.  

That said.  This is nothing like a TM trade.  First this player is healthy (unlike Lehner, Bogo and Kane).  This player isn’t being cast off from his team for being injured or a problem in the locker room unlike Kane, Lehner or ROR.  Also he doesn’t with a huge cap hit unlike Kane, Bogo and ROR.  

Also this isn’t Jbot sacrificing the teams future to rush a rebuild.  This is a considered trade for an asset which we don’t have in our system (puck moving RHD) at the cost of a failing prospect and a late rd 1st that likely won’t contribute for 3-4 years.

and no Jame; Guhle and a late 1st is not a 1st, Armia, and Lemieux for Kane.

Edited February 25, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

 

I don't speak for jame, but the strusture is very XGMTM-like. Prospect and a 1st rounder to get better today. Now, that isn't atypical, but he tried to get better players in here faster and thus did this alot and it didn't pan out all that well.

 

1 minute ago, jame said:

The last 8 months, the fan based... largely in lock step with Botts... railed against Murray's spending of futures for young, prime aged, NHL talent. And praised the direction Botts was taking (acquiring picks, build through draft). This move is essentially 1st, Armia, Lemiuex for Kane. Just kind of shows that Botts has acquired some teflon without actually accomplishing anything.

I like this move. I recognize the flaws Montour has. He's not a true top pairing guy. He's a guy who needs to be "partnered up". But I like the deal... I don't overvalue late 1sts and mid tier prospects. I'd rather convert coin flips to prime aged certainty every time.

Montour is a much better fit for our system than say Jake McCabe. And that gives him much more value to us. But in a systemless vaccuum, they are relatively equal. How would everyone like the trade if it was viewed in those terms? Brandon Montour is to puck moving defensemen what Jake McCabe is to stay at home defensemen....

I mean it makes sense, I can definitely see the comparison to the deal. People were upset with GMTM for rushing moves though. This doesn't have the feel of that though IMO because the team is in a different spot

[jame]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

 

I mean it makes sense, I can definitely see the comparison to the deal. People were upset with GMTM for rushing moves though. This doesn't have the feel of that though IMO because the team is in a different spot

That's a fair differentiator

[jame]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

A 1st rd pick and a prospect for a young vet.  

That said.  This is nothing like a TM trade.  First this player is healthy (unlike Lehner, Bogo and Kane).  This player isn’t being cast off from his team for being injured or a problem in the locker room unlike Kane, Lehner or ROR.  Also he doesn’t with a huge cap hit unlike Kane, Bogo and ROR.  

Also this isn’t Jbot sacrificing the teams future to rush a rebuild.  This is a considered trade for an asset which we don’t have in our system (puck moving RHD) at the cost of a failing prospect and a late rd 1st that likely won’t contribute for 3-4 years.

First bold: Ask yourself why this player is being cast off then?

Second bold: All of Tim Murray's big trades can be described in exactly those terms. 

[That Aud Smell]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

I like this move. I recognize the flaws Montour has. He's not a true top pairing guy. He's a guy who needs to be "partnered up". But I like the deal... I don't overvalue late 1sts and mid tier prospects. I'd rather convert coin flips to prime aged certainty every time.

Montour is a much better fit for our system than say Jake McCabe. And that gives him much more value to us. But in a systemless vaccuum, they are relatively equal. How would everyone like the trade if it was viewed in those terms? Brandon Montour is to puck moving defensemen what Jake McCabe is to stay at home defensemen....

Futures for young talent.

This is essentially 1st, Lemieux, Armia for Kane.... same trade.

I didn't really follow along on the JBOT teflon business.** But this ^^^ part of the take makes a lot of sense to me.

** There's only so many ways to structure a trade in terms of assets going which way for what/whom. Sabre fans complained about XGMTM's trades of prospects and picks for NHL prime-aged players because ... it didn't produce a winning team. We will complain likewise about JBOT's moves if they similarly fail.

[Samson's Flow]

Just now, jame said:

First bold: Ask yourself why this player is being cast off then?

Second bold: All of Tim Murray's big trades can be described in exactly those terms. 

the first bold - The Anaheim team as a whole is headed into a re-building phase, and while Montour is young, he only has 1 year before an RFA payday that a re-building team isn't going to want to pay for. If you are expecting to compete in the next few years (like the Sabres expect to) then that fits perfectly in the competitive window.

Anaheim is trading him to align their team to the expected competitive window, which is why a 21 yr old defenseman and a RD1 pick is more valuable to them.

[...]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I mean it makes sense, I can definitely see the comparison to the deal. People were upset with GMTM for rushing moves though. This doesn't have the feel of that though IMO because the team is in a different spot

Also, the Kane trade was designed, in part, to aid The Tank.  In a vacuum, this trade is relatively common, so, you can say even Darcy would make a trade like this.  But when the details and context are factored in, this definitely smells like something JBot would do, for the reasons noted in the thread and elsewhere - which is not to say GMTM or any other GM wouldn't do this deal, just that there really is no surprise here.

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

First bold: Ask yourself why this player is being cast off then?

Second bold: All of Tim Murray's big trades can be described in exactly those terms. 

Montour is being traded because of money pure and simple.  Ana is a budget team, already was long-term contracts with D for over 15 mill and 2 prospects, Larsson and Pettersson, with similar skill sets ready for NHL duty.  

[Samson's Flow]

Just now, That Aud Smell said:

I didn't really follow along on the JBOT teflon business.** But this ^^^ part of the take makes a lot of sense to me.

** There's only so many ways to structure a trade in terms of assets going which way for what/whom. Sabre fans complained about XGMTM's trades of prospects and picks for NHL prime-aged players because ... it didn't produce a winning team. We will complain likewise about JBOT's moves if they similarly fail.

I think Sabres fans complained because of the cavalier nature in which XGMTM spent the currency of picks & prospects that the team had worked so hard to build up. multiple picks for Hudson Fashing, 1st rounder for Lehner, multiple assets for Will Carrier - these were all drunk uncle in Vegas spending habits.

I think it is different in the JBott has communicated how much he values the picks and assets we have, and seems more measured in his use of them.