Jump to content

Montreal Trades Marco Scandella to STL for 2nd and Conditional 4th.


Brawndo

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

want to fix the title?  2nd round pick was for the 2 million in cap retention at the deadline

for comparison-- toronto paid a 1st round pick for 6 million pre-season (bought out)

It should be in the neighborhood of $1.5 million in total cap space that they used on Scandella for the entire season.  I'm selectively rounding here, but he was with them for around a quarter of the season (so $1 million in cap space), and now they're taking on half of the cap hit for the remaining ~quarter of the season (so another $0.5 million in cap dollars).  In terms of real dollars, they took on a little extra because his contract was backloaded and he's making more than $4 million this year.

But whatever the exact numbers are, it's fairly low in exchange for moving a draft pick up 40 or so slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

@GASabresIUFAN, @Curt @LTS and everyone else who was arguing with me about squandering our blueline assets.

@Brawndo and Marc Bergevin have explained it a helluvalot better than I did.

Well dang.  Looks like you were certainly more right about Scandella’s deadline value than me.  Not a great look for me or Botterill.

Also, hope you didn’t interpret our conversations as arguments.  I feel like that word implies some anger or malice.  We were just discussing something that we disagreed about.  We’ll probably do it again, I’ll probably be wrong again, and I’m glad that we have good place here to do it.

Edited by Curt
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Apples and oranges IMHO. 

And while Scandy's salary is $4MM, Montreal isn't retaining a $2MM cap hit -- they are only retaining the prorated portion through the end of the year.  STL has 23 games remaining, which is 28% of the schedule.  28% of Scandy's $4MM salary is $1.12MM.  Montreal retained half of that, which is $556K.

Any respectable GM would have retained that much to get a #2 instead of a #4 for Scandy.  JB just mis-timed the market and mis-evaluated how much Scandy would yield in trade.

He screwed it up.

you're thinking about your math wrong.  all that matters for cap hit is dependent upon where you are at a given-point in the season.  They're retaining the equivalent of a start-of-season $2MM cap hit

 

 

but let's take your other bold statement:  "JB just mis-timed the market and mis-evaluated how much Scandy would yield in trade."

So, what you're saying is that it wasn't important to find players to help fix the PK as early in the season as you could get another team to take on the cap hit?  Wooo-- well if I remove all contexts surrounding my comparables it's no wonder you are confused on player's real values

Edited by triumph_communes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

Apples and oranges IMHO. 

And while Scandy's salary is $4MM, Montreal isn't retaining a $2MM cap hit -- they are only retaining the prorated portion through the end of the year.  STL has 23 games remaining, which is 28% of the schedule.  28% of Scandy's $4MM salary is $1.12MM.  Montreal retained half of that, which is $556K.

Any respectable GM would have retained that much to get a #2 instead of a #4 for Scandy.  JB just mis-timed the market and mis-evaluated how much Scandy would yield in trade.

He screwed it up.

The Sabres are up against the cap.  Montreal is in the bottom 3rd.  So there's more to the decision of taking on money than you're suggesting here.  Also, if they take that money on then, they then can't take on any more in a later deal.  So again, it's not as straightforward as you'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire Botteril Now. He is utterly and completely incompetent.  There is no other GM in the league I wouldn’t rather have. 

4 minutes ago, shrader said:

The Sabres are up against the cap.  Montreal is in the bottom 3rd.  So there's more to the decision of taking on money than you're suggesting here.  Also, if they take that money on then, they then can't take on any more in a later deal.  So again, it's not as straightforward as you'd think.

Botteril the idiot took Froliks salary back. He could easily have retained on Scandella. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the surface, this is a very bad look.  JBot has made a couple of good trades (for Skinner and Jokiharju), but the rest have been inconsequential or awful.

I continue to think he is in way over his head with this part of his GM responsibilities, given that we have previously discussed his poor timing or evaluation of the market for O"Reilly and Kane and now we have this trade as another marker.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

A source of mine told me (months ago) that JBot is perceived by other front offices around the league as "in self-preservation mode;" looks like other GM's are just going to have their way with him.

My biggest worry. I need to see a rock solid, significant trade from Jason this offseason or I won't believe he is capable of making moves we need going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, freester said:

Botteril the idiot took Froliks salary back. He could easily have retained on Scandella. 

It was done in order to take Frolik.  Yeah, I know you're suggesting that shouldn't have added him at all, but he wanted a forward and he more than likely couldn't retain money and add that forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

you're thinking about your math wrong.  all that matters for cap hit is dependent upon where you are at a given-point in the season.  They're retaining the equivalent of a start-of-season $2MM cap hit

but let's take your other bold statement:  "JB just mis-timed the market and mis-evaluated how much Scandy would yield in trade."

So, what you're saying is that it wasn't important to find players to help fix the PK as early in the season as you could get another team to take on the cap hit?  Wooo-- well if I remove all contexts surrounding my comparables it's no wonder you are confused on player's real values

This is obnoxiously stated.

As to the substance:  first, there is a material difference between living with a $2MM cap hit for the entire season and living with it for 28% of the season.  When you have it for the entire season, it affects your plans and the options available to you for the entire season.  When you only have to live with it for 28% of the season, you've already experienced the first 72%, and you know what you need for the remaining 28%.  In other words:  this was much easier for MTL to live with than it would've been at the beginning of the season.

Second, I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph, but if it's that you think Scandy for Frolik was a better move than Scandy for a #2, I think you are dead wrong.

 

21 minutes ago, shrader said:

The Sabres are up against the cap.  Montreal is in the bottom 3rd.  So there's more to the decision of taking on money than you're suggesting here.  Also, if they take that money on then, they then can't take on any more in a later deal.  So again, it's not as straightforward as you'd think.

If the Sabres are up against the cap to the point where they can't retain a $2MM cap hit for 30% of the season in order to get a 2nd instead of a 4th -- that's also a JB failure.  A team this bad shouldn't also have zero cap flexibility.

I also think there are various moves that are and were then available to free up cap space in a pinch for just such an occasion -- and that's before the Bogo contract termination windfall.

At the end of the day, I think this is another one of those "understandable at the time and the consequences aren't so bad" JB moves that nevertheless add up over time and hinder the achievement of optimal roster construction results.

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Curt said:

Well dang.  Looks like you were certainly more right about Scandella’s deadline value than me.  Not a great look for me or Botterill.

Also, hope you didn’t interpret our conversations as arguments.  I feel like that word implies some anger or malice.  We were just discussing something that we disagreed about.  We’ll probably do it again, I’ll probably be wrong again, and I’m glad that we have good place here to do it.

Debating, perhaps? I certainly wasn’t implying malice or anger, so please don’t take it that way at all. From my end, it was good hockey talk, the type I come to this forum to have.

I don’t expect the news to support my opinions so quickly or strongly very often. And next time I hope it’s one of my pro-Sabre opinions. ?

Edited by dudacek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is obnoxiously stated.

As to the substance:  first, there is a material difference between living with a $2MM cap hit for the entire season and living with it for 28% of the season.  When you have it for the entire season, it affects your plans and the options available to you for the entire season.  When you only have to live with it for 28% of the season, you've already experienced the first 72%, and you know what you need for the remaining 28%.  In other words:  this was much easier for MTL to live with than it would've been at the beginning of the season.

Second, I'm not sure what you're saying in your last paragraph, but if it's that you think Scandy for Frolik was a better move than Scandy for a #2, I think you are dead wrong.

 

If the Sabres are up against the cap to the point where they can't retain a $2MM cap hit for 30% of the season in order to get a 2nd instead of a 4th -- that's also a JB failure.  A team this bad shouldn't also have zero cap flexibility.

I also think there are various moves that are and were then available to free up cap space in a pinch for just such an occasion -- and that's before the Bogo contract termination windfall.

At the end of the day, I think this is another one of those "understandable at the time and the consequences aren't so bad" JB moves that nevertheless add up over time and hinder the achievement of optimal roster construction results.

 

no, you just want to hate on Botterill

The price of cap space, especially at deadline time when teams are desperate, is a premium in a hard cap league that's had enough years for all the teams to build-up on their contracts

 

but go ahead and change the title of the thread and still exclude the 50% retained tidbit...

Edited by triumph_communes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

no, you just want to hate on Botterill

The price of cap space, especially at deadline time when teams are desperate, is a premium in a hard cap league that's had enough years for all the teams to build-up on their contracts

but go ahead and change the title of the thread and still exclude the 50% retained tidbit...

What?

Do you think JB has done a good job overall as GM of the Sabres? 

Would you rather have what MTL got for Scandy or what the Sabres got for him?

Please provide examples of premium prices that have been traded for cap space at the deadline.

Also, I didn't change the thread title.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

If the Sabres are up against the cap to the point where they can't retain a $2MM cap hit for 30% of the season in order to get a 2nd instead of a 4th -- that's also a JB failure.  A team this bad shouldn't also have zero cap flexibility.

I also think there are various moves that are and were then available to free up cap space in a pinch for just such an occasion -- and that's before the Bogo contract termination windfall.

At the end of the day, I think this is another one of those "understandable at the time and the consequences aren't so bad" JB moves that nevertheless add up over time and hinder the achievement of optimal roster construction results.

I don't remember the specifics at the time of the trade, but injuries also factor into this.  I know there have been stretches this year were there were also a handful of guys on standard IR.  Those count to the cap in full, there's no relief there.  We can question the follow-up move all we want, but I think it's safe to assume that this trade was made in order to bring in Frolik.  If this was done in the heart of that injury run, they very well could not have taken on a penny of salary.  We can fault the GM all we want, but the blame for injuries can't be placed on mim.

You're saying retaining salary for 30% of the season, but they traded Scandella with around half of the year left to go.  So if you're suggesting they take on that money at that point, that's additional money to the cap and every penny adds up quickly when things are tight.  Retaining money at that moment was going to bring on some significant limitations moving forward.  It may very well have been too much.

Now, should they have held onto him longer and potentially maximize the return?  It's easy to answer that one today in a vaccuum and ignore all the variables.  I want to wait and see how the deadline shakes out before I pass judgement on this one.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shrader said:

I don't remember the specifics at the time of the trade, but injuries also factor into this.  I know there have been stretches this year were there were also a handful of guys on standard IR.  Those count to the cap in full, there's no relief there.  We can question the follow-up move all we want, but I think it's safe to assume that this trade was made in order to bring in Frolik.  If this was done in the heart of that injury run, they very well could not have taken on a penny of salary.  We can fault the GM all we want, but the blame for injuries can't be placed on mim.

You're saying retaining salary for 30% of the season, but they traded Scandella with around half of the year left to go.  So if you're suggesting they take on that money at that point, that's additional money to the cap and every penny adds up quickly when things are tight.  Retaining money at that moment was going to bring on some significant limitations moving forward.  It may very well have been too much.

Now, should they have held onto him longer and potentially maximize the return?  It's easy to answer that one today in a vaccuum and ignore all the variables.  I want to wait and see how the deadline shakes out before I pass judgement on this one.

But wasn't Botterill's being able to handle the cap on of the attractions.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Claude Balls said:

You mean another player who gets traded away from Buffalo performs better for his new team? Color me shocked. 

This has been far from universally true.  But the environment here is definitely not conducive to showing off a players best side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marco Scandella was not better in Montreal than he was here this year.

Botterill sold low in a buyer's market in a desperate bid to acquire a serviceable forward, who then failed to meet expectations.

Bergevin acquired an under-priced asset because he could afford it, and bet he could sell it for more when the seller's market improved. Plus he got a chance for the Habs and Scandella to get to know one another and he will probably re-sign him this summer.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...