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

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is this a Tim Murray trade? 

I believe the caveat was without the tertiary asset, so a late first for a 22-year old Lehner, a late first and Lemieux for a 24 year old Kane or Zadorov, Comphet and an early second for ROR at 25?

you can argue the relative value of the players involved, or that the trade makes more sense timing wise given the age of Jack now.

But philosophically it’s the same minus the extra asset

 

[jame]

1 minute ago, Samson's Flow said:

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.

Why would a rebuilding team not want to pay a 25 year old defensemen? 

Montour is a huge risk taker, and when his style is reigned in, it becomes less effective. Anaheim rcognizes their cap scenario, age, etc require them to shift their game to a defensive model, as they rebuild. The reason Anaheim trades Montour is because they recognize they won't be good enough to sustain his risk/reward style, and he doesn't fit the necessary systematic changes they need to make to compete while they rebuild.

Buffalo, however, is building an uptempo team that Montour seems ideal for.

[shrader]

1 minute ago, ... said:

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.

That Kane trade was not made from a position of depth.  Guhle is moved today thanks in part to an evolving pool of defensemen.  They have at least two guys currently in the NHL who are approach being ready for the NHL in Pilut and Borgen.  They had nothing of the sort when they made the Kane deal, and on top of that, sending out two prospects along with the pick, as opposed to just one (and that's of course, ignoring the Myers-Bogosian component of that trade).

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I believe the caveat was without the tertiary asset, so a late first for a 22-year old Lehner, a late first and Lemieux for a 24 year old Kane or Zadorov, Comphet and an early second for ROR at 25?

you can argue the relative value of the players involved, or that the trade makes more sense timing wise given the age of Jack now.

But philosophically it’s the same minus the extra asset

 

So except for its differences, it's the same thing?  That's an odd statement to make.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Why would a rebuilding team not want to pay a 25 year old defensemen? 

All rebuilds are not at the same point. Montour is perfect for our window, but Anaheim is just beginning their tear down and they need 2-3 years for it to turn around

[Samson's Flow]

Just now, jame said:

Why would a rebuilding team not want to pay a 25 year old defensemen? 

Montour is a huge risk taker, and when his style is reigned in, it becomes less effective. Anaheim rcognizes their cap scenario, age, etc require them to shift their game to a defensive model, as they rebuild. The reason Anaheim trades Montour is because they recognize they won't be good enough to sustain his risk/reward style, and he doesn't fit the necessary systematic changes they need to make to compete while they rebuild.

Buffalo, however, is building an uptempo team that Montour seems ideal for.

I think you answered your initial question in the bulk of your post.

Montour's play style didn't align with how a Randy Carlisle team plays, where as he fits ideally with a Housley uptempo attacking defense. Anahiem recognized that isn't the type of player they want to invest in, and acted accordingly.

[jame]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

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.  

Montour is under contract next year for 3.3

This was not a budget/cap trade at all.

Montour was traded because of the system based changes Anaheim needs to make to remain competitive/playoff capable during their aging roster turnover/rebuild.

Just now, Samson's Flow said:

I think you answered your initial question in the bulk of your post.

Montour's play style didn't align with how a Randy Carlisle team plays, where as he fits ideally with a Housley uptempo attacking defense. Anahiem recognized that isn't the type of player they want to invest in, and acted accordingly.

Correct. It was meant to counter a false  cap/rebuild argument.

[Samson's Flow]

Just now, WildCard said:

All rebuilds are not at the same point. Montour is perfect for our window, but Anaheim is just beginning their tear down and they need 2-3 years for it to turn around

Right, in 2-3 years Montour would be 27 years old and a few years into his new contract (RFA in 2020), and Anaheim will just be bringing in their "new" core of young players at that time. By the time they are expecting to compete again, Montour is nearing 30 years old and his play is declining or he's off the team after playing meaningless seasons in ANA.

[jame]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

All rebuilds are not at the same point. Montour is perfect for our window, but Anaheim is just beginning their tear down and they need 2-3 years for it to turn around

Anaheim is not doing a tear down

[Doohickie]

15 minutes ago, sabills said:

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.

Here's the thing:  XGMTM's players he brought in did not speed up the rebuilding process.  The difference, one would hope, is that JBot does a better job of filling the needs of the team with the pieces he's obtained.

[Samson's Flow]

3 minutes ago, jame said:

Correct. It was meant to counter a false  cap/rebuild argument.

You know it is possible for other people to be right every once in a while? JFC...

1 minute ago, jame said:

Anaheim is not doing a tear down

 

[dudacek]

This is exactly the type of trade Botterill said he would make: a first for a player who should have a long-term future with the Sabres.

I liked the Murray trades then because I like trades that add a core piece without giving one up. Unfortunately Murray’s corr pieces didn’t work out that way. In my view it was the player that was wrong, not the philosophy.

Sabres fans mostly hate the Murray trades because the team stayed bad.

[#freejame]

Just now, jame said:

Anaheim is not doing a tear down

How much of that is because they can’t get rid of their large, veteran contracts (Perry, Kesler, Getzlaf)? They just resigned Silferberg, but he’s a good piece for a rebuild. I think if you gave them the option of tearing it down, they would. They just can’t.

[Taro T]

29 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.

 

A 1st & a prospect that seems to have stagnated for a 2nd pairing D isn't a Tim Murray trade.  Throw in a 2nd or Nylander &  that's TM to a T.

[sabills]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Here's the thing:  XGMTM's players he brought in did not speed up the rebuilding process.  The difference, one would hope, is that JBot does a better job of filling the needs of the team with the pieces he's obtained.

Sure, but that was the PLAN. Noone knows if Montour will work out either.

[jame]

Just now, IrwinNelson said:

How much of that is because they can’t get rid of their large, veteran contracts (Perry, Kesler, Getzlaf)? They just resigned Silferberg, but he’s a good piece for a rebuild. I think if you gave them the option of tearing it down, they would. They just can’t.

Right. So their approach is going to be to stay afloat and make playoff appearances (revenue), while rebuilding on the fly. They will not do a tear down. The reason you trade a young Montour, is not because of timing, or cap or any of that... it's because they are going to pivot to a defensive model, playing low scoring, mistake free hockey... and Montour just doesn't fit that style at all.

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

A 1st & a prospect that seems to have stagnated for a 2nd pairing D isn't a Tim Murray trade.  Throw in a 2nd or Nylander &  that's TM to a T.

Minutae

Multi futures from the top rung of our future assets.... 

[WildCard]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

Anaheim is not doing a tear down

Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are 

[LGR4GM]

26 minutes ago, jame said:

.

Futures for young talent.

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

But that isn't the trade. I get that you qualified it with a minus 1 asset thing but that makes the entire trade completely different. 

[nfreeman]

10 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I believe the caveat was without the tertiary asset, so a late first for a 22-year old Lehner, a late first and Lemieux for a 24 year old Kane or Zadorov, Comphet and an early second for ROR at 25?

you can argue the relative value of the players involved, or that the trade makes more sense timing wise given the age of Jack now.

But philosophically it’s the same minus the extra asset

 

Well, I think Armia and, more importantly, the perceived (by WPG) spread of Myers over Bogo have to be considered part of the consideration for Kane -- which in turn supports those who disagree that this is a TM-style move.

I think whoever posted upthread that this is more of a measured JB move than a max-out-the-credit-card TM move -- i.e. a LOT of picks and prospects for a good player who is somewhat proven in the NHL but still young -- is right.

[Samson's Flow]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is exactly the type of trade Botterill said he would make: a first for a player who should have a long-term future with the Sabres.

I liked the Murray trades then because I like trades that add a core piece without giving one up. Unfortunately Murray’s corr pieces didn’t work out that way. In my view it was the player that was wrong, not the philosophy.

Sabres fans mostly hate the Murray trades because the team stayed bad.

I can speak only for myself when I say I liked the "big" trades that GMTM made, the Kane, ROR ones got key "star" players for secondary pieces.

It was all his other trades where he threw our surplus of picks and prospects away for one prospect that was "his guy", when none of those guys (Lehner, Fashing, Carrier, etc.) were even close to a difference making player. His overspending for average players crippled our depth and forced the Sabres to rely on Eichel/ROR/Kane to try to carry the team.

[#freejame]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are 

They’ve gotta have a partner to move those pieces though. It’s going to handcuff them pretty significantly.

[French Collection]

9 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

I think you answered your initial question in the bulk of your post.

Montour's play style didn't align with how a Randy Carlisle team plays, where as he fits ideally with a Housley uptempo attacking defense. Anahiem recognized that isn't the type of player they want to invest in, and acted accordingly.

For the record Carlyle is gone as Bob Murray has assumed the coaching duties since Feb.10th.

I agree that Montour and Carlyle probably did not mesh that well philosophically.

[jame]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are 

So you expect Kesler, Perry, and Getzlaf to be traded in the next hour? Or you expect them to wave their NMCs soon?

What do you think a tear down is?

Edited February 25, 2019 by jame

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

Right. So their approach is going to be to stay afloat and make playoff appearances (revenue), while rebuilding on the fly. They will not do a tear down. The reason you trade a young Montour, is not because of timing, or cap or any of that... it's because they are going to pivot to a defensive model, playing low scoring, mistake free hockey... and Montour just doesn't fit that style at all.

Minutae

Multi futures from the top rung of our future assets.... 

It's not minutae.  It's the difference in still having one of the LA 2nds, Lemieux, & Compher or Zadorov still available to use or trade or have the cupboards bare.

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are 

But none of those guys have been traded (or is likely to be).

[dudacek]

Just now, nfreeman said:

 

I think whoever posted upthread that this is more of a measured JB move than a max-out-the-credit-card TM move -- i.e. a LOT of picks and prospects for a good player who is somewhat proven in the NHL but still young -- is right.

Yes. I was trying to say the same thing