Worst trades in Sabres history?

[Thorny]

33 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly St. Louis needed to shed salary as part of it, hence the two veterans who they didn't deem essential to their future. Sabres took what they could get. A body to take ROR's place (or so they thought), some futures and a throw in they thought could help defensively. They may have said any BS at the time, but I really doubt they thought they were "improving". Just getting the best they could. 

Fortunately, Tage has made the deal palatable. If he'd been a bust then I'd say it was the worst trade ever for sure, but he's not. 

If they made the trade without any regards to competitiveness in the moment and purely in an effort to ditch ROR, it was even worse lol 

It’s like they can’t make a bad trade- either you don’t care that the aims were a dereliction of duty (we were indeed trying to win at the time, in the macro) or you admit the aim was to win and that the trade pushed back the talent 6 years on that front and you just don’t care 

And then, you’ve deemed the situation unsalvageable therefore nothing we did mattered anyways therefore any deal was inconsequential therefore the deal wasn’t bad

You understand that the exact logic of your argument could be applied to, and defend, trading Tage Thompson right now for a 1st round pick, should that pick turn into a player of equal ability in 6 years? It proves your argument faulty by way of example: 

1) we need to wait for talent to develop when futures are involved, ie, we need to see what that pick becomes before we compare talent in / talent out 

2)You explained that it didn’t matter if the ROR trade didn’t result in winning because the aim was namely to ditch a sad sack. Presumably as long as current results aren’t important to the GM, then, and our aims in dealing Thompson, or whoever you want to use in the example, is purely to be rid of the asset, mission accomplished 

3)If the aim is to win, and you accept that, trading Thompson away for a pick and an old vet in a deal that DOESN’T result in winning *still doesn’t matter* because we weren’t winning when we had him, anyways 

Edited January 19 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

23 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Your memory is how Blues fans view the ROR trade.

?

What's the difference? At the time I didn't like it, but I'm trying to look back on it objectively. 

Since they won a cup I'd guess Blues fans actually think it was their best trade ever and they couldn't care less about Tage Thompson. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If they made the trade without any regards to competitiveness in the moment and purely in an effort to ditch ROR, it was even worse lol 

It’s like they can’t make a bad trade- either you don’t care that the aims were a dereliction of duty (we were indeed trying to win at the time, in the macro) or you admit the aim was to win and that the trade pushed back the talent 6 years on that front and you just don’t care 

And then, you’ve deemed the situation unsalvageable therefore nothing we did mattered anyways therefore any deal was inconsequential therefore the deal wasn’t bad

You understand that the exact logic of your argument could be applied to, and defend, trading Tage Thompson right now for a 1st round pick, should that pick turn into a player of equal ability in 6 years? It proves your argument faulty by way of example: 

1) we need to wait for talent to develop when futures are involved, ie, we need to see what that pick becomes before we compare talent in / talent out 

2)You explained that it didn’t matter if the ROR trade didn’t result in winning because the aim was namely to ditch a sad sack. Presumably as long as current results aren’t important to the GM, then, and our aims in dealing Thompson, or whoever you want to use in the example, is purely to be rid of the asset, mission accomplished 

3)If the aim is to win, and you accept that, trading Thompson away for a pick and an old vet in a deal that DOESN’T result in winning *still doesn’t matter* because we weren’t winning when we had him, anyways 

Well there's a lot in there and it can get circular but let me just start with saying I have no idea why this topic is such a bee in your bonnet? 

I never liked the trade, but in the whole history of the team I think there was worse. Trading away Foligno was a more damaging trade imo.

So to 1, 2,3 above, 

1) Historically, looking at all trades, you do have to consider time when you evaluate them. 

2) Never said it didn't matter, but their hands were tied. Sometimes you need to subtract. ROR left them no choice but to subtract.

3) The  aim should always be to "win" but the timeline for when management wants to win doesn't always mesh with fans.

There's always two aspects to every trade: The immediate, and the long term. In the immediate, we got killed in the ROR deal. In the long term we did okay and pretty good all things considered. You have to look at Eichel the same way. In the immediate Vegas won big time. In the long term, well, that still remains to be seen but generally people were happier with that deal than the ROR one but unless the picks turn into studs we will have lost that trade worse as Tuch isn't as good as Tage and Krebs isn't as good as Johnson by all early indications. Yet somehow, people at the time here thought we won the Eichel deal didn't they.

Deals are funny things. I look at Philly this year and they basically gave Hayes away and they are a better team. But at the same time they had tried to give Sanheim away and he turns around and becomes their best D man. Figure that one out in terms of GM idiocy or genius. 

Maybe sometimes it's just dumb luck. 

[Quint]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

They traded Ballard before he even played a single game. That was a part of a three way deal that landed Drury. Was he really a bad draft pick?

You should become a professional Sabres historian/fact checker. I'm in awe.

Edited January 19 by Quint

[Pimlach]

5 hours ago, Doohickie said:

When they traded Gritty to Minnesota for @PASabreFan it was a disaster.  We're still stuck with @PASabreFan's cap hit, and Gritty eventually signed with Philly where his career really took off.

@PASabreFan has a big cap hit but he is a generational mascot prospect that should unseat Sabretooth in the next few years. 

[Pimlach]

23 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well there's a lot in there and it can get circular but let me just start with saying I have no idea why this topic is such a bee in your bonnet? 

I never liked the trade, but in the whole history of the team I think there was worse. Trading away Foligno was a more damaging trade imo.

So to 1, 2,3 above, 

1) Historically, looking at all trades, you do have to consider time when you evaluate them. 

2) Never said it didn't matter, but their hands were tied. Sometimes you need to subtract. ROR left them no choice but to subtract.

3) The  aim should always be to "win" but the timeline for when management wants to win doesn't always mesh with fans.

There's always two aspects to every trade: The immediate, and the long term. In the immediate, we got killed in the ROR deal. In the long term we did okay and pretty good all things considered. You have to look at Eichel the same way. In the immediate Vegas won big time. In the long term, well, that still remains to be seen but generally people were happier with that deal than the ROR one but unless the picks turn into studs we will have lost that trade worse as Tuch isn't as good as Tage and Krebs isn't as good as Johnson by all early indications. Yet somehow, people at the time here thought we won the Eichel deal didn't they.

Deals are funny things. I look at Philly this year and they basically gave Hayes away and they are a better team. But at the same time they had tried to give Sanheim away and he turns around and becomes their best D man. Figure that one out in terms of GM idiocy or genius. 

Maybe sometimes it's just dumb luck. 

ROR was speaking out of frustration of another losing season in a poorly run organization.  To my knowledge he didn’t force the trade, he just said what he felt at the time.  It is known that Boterill did not want to move him. 
 

Terry told Boterill to get the trade done before ROR’s contract bonus kicked in.    St Louis dumped the troubled and inconsistent Berglund and his bad contract, the worn out Sobotka, their 3rd best rated prospect at the time (Tage), and their #1. 

[shrader]

49 minutes ago, Quint said:

You should become a professional Sabres historian/fact checker. I'm in awe.

I knew the college players really well at that point because it was essentially my life. 

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well there's a lot in there and it can get circular but let me just start with saying I have no idea why this topic is such a bee in your bonnet?

I don’t know this means. I’m just having fun arguing my case on an interesting topic - I thought that’s what this place was for. Your question is “I have no idea why you are obsessed with this.”

I don’t need to engage with you if these are the types of reactions I’m triggering by discussing it. I digress 

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

?

What's the difference? At the time I didn't like it, but I'm trying to look back on it objectively. 

Since they won a cup I'd guess Blues fans actually think it was their best trade ever and they couldn't care less about Tage Thompson. 

They view it as the ripoff of the century.  They unloaded two pieces of dead weight for a 1C without giving up anything significant.  Tage Thompson getting good now still does not change the fact that dumping O'Reilly was an idiotic move that lead to more years of sub-mediocrity.

[Thorny]

43 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

ROR was speaking out of frustration of another losing season in a poorly run organization.  To my knowledge he didn’t force the trade, he just said what he felt at the time.  It is known that Boterill did not want to move him. 
 

Terry told Boterill to get the trade done before ROR’s contract bonus kicked in.    St Louis dumped the troubled and inconsistent Berglund and his bad contract, the worn out Sobotka, their 3rd best rated prospect at the time (Tage), and their #1. 

I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that Botterill didn’t want to move ROR - in fact I think it’s the opposite. @Brawndowould definitely know but I believe there were rumours Botterill had at least been entertaining the idea for a while. Regardless, I don’t believe it was ever convincingly stated that Pegula was the impetus behind the move overall: we merely know he was firm on it being done *before* the bonus. But that could easily be under the prism of it necessarily needing to be done as decided by the GM. Ie, “Fine, trade him, but I’m sure as heck not paying that dude his bonus if he isn’t even on my team. …now how about another foot rub, Kev.” 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

ROR was speaking out of frustration of another losing season in a poorly run organization.  To my knowledge he didn’t force the trade, he just said what he felt at the time.  It is known that Boterill did not want to move him. 
 

Terry told Boterill to get the trade done before ROR’s contract bonus kicked in.    St Louis dumped the troubled and inconsistent Berglund and his bad contract, the worn out Sobotka, their 3rd best rated prospect at the time (Tage), and their #1. 

You SURE about the bolded?

Botterill famously said that if the Sabres were to win the Dahlin lottery it would make retooling (not positive of the exact word he used and too tired to bother looking it up at this point in time) much easier to do.  That seemed cryptic to yours truly when it was said, but when O'Reilly was dealt, it sure seemed a lot clearer what he'd meant by that.

[Marvin]

11 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You SURE about the bolded?

Botterill famously said that if the Sabres were to win the Dahlin lottery it would make retooling (not positive of the exact word he used and too tired to bother looking it up at this point in time) much easier to do.  That seemed cryptic to yours truly when it was said, but when O'Reilly was dealt, it sure seemed a lot clearer what he'd meant by that.

Moreover, actual reporters were hearing from GMs that O'Reilly was available before that season's trade deadline.

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Moreover, actual reporters were hearing from GMs that O'Reilly was available before that season's trade deadline.

And those rumors were discussed here quite a bit.  With most of us expecting those rumors were complete BS.  (So much for that belief.)

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that Botterill didn’t want to move ROR - in fact I think it’s the opposite. @Brawndowould definitely know but I believe there were rumours Botterill had at least been entertaining the idea for a while. Regardless, I don’t believe it was ever convincingly stated that Pegula was the impetus behind the move overall: we merely know he was firm on it being done *before* the bonus. But that could easily be under the prism of it necessarily needing to be done as decided by the GM. Ie, “Fine, trade him, but I’m sure as heck not paying that dude his bonus if he isn’t even on my team. …now how about another foot rub, Kev.” 

 

30 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You SURE about the bolded?

Botterill famously said that if the Sabres were to win the Dahlin lottery it would make retooling (not positive of the exact word he used and too tired to bother looking it up at this point in time) much easier to do.  That seemed cryptic to yours truly when it was said, but when O'Reilly was dealt, it sure seemed a lot clearer what he'd meant by that.

The comment about Boterill not wanting to trade ROR came from Rivet and Peters in the recent thread here that highlighted one of  episodes.  That is where I believe I heard it.   

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

You SURE about the bolded?

Botterill famously said that if the Sabres were to win the Dahlin lottery it would make retooling (not positive of the exact word he used and too tired to bother looking it up at this point in time) much easier to do.  That seemed cryptic to yours truly when it was said, but when O'Reilly was dealt, it sure seemed a lot clearer what he'd meant by that.

“Tear it down to the studs” 

32 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

 

The comment about Boterill not wanting to trade ROR came from Rivet and Peters in the recent thread here that highlighted one of  episodes.  That is where I believe I heard it.   

Rivet and Peters? Well that settles it.

Botterill must have begged to trade him 

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don’t know this means. I’m just having fun arguing my case on an interesting topic - I thought that’s what this place was for. Your question is “I have no idea why you are obsessed with this.”

I don’t need to engage with you if these are the types of reactions I’m triggering by discussing it. I digress 

Nah, you just seem very passionate about this one topic. 

[Brawndo]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that Botterill didn’t want to move ROR - in fact I think it’s the opposite. @Brawndowould definitely know but I believe there were rumours Botterill had at least been entertaining the idea for a while. Regardless, I don’t believe it was ever convincingly stated that Pegula was the impetus behind the move overall: we merely know he was firm on it being done *before* the bonus. But that could easily be under the prism of it necessarily needing to be done as decided by the GM. Ie, “Fine, trade him, but I’m sure as heck not paying that dude his bonus if he isn’t even on my team. …now how about another foot rub, Kev.” 

Botterill was taking calls on Him at the TDL but they didn’t get a deal done. St Louis was pushing hard at that point