Does Garth get back more value at the deadline for Vanek than he gave up?

[mitchy22]

I think we fall a bit short because of the premium we had to pay to not take on Vanek's full salary. (Ironically, that also makes him easier to trade though.)

If you think that isn't a sign of us having a shorthanded GM, then I don't know what to tell you. I feel like we pretty much gave up the extra 2nd purely for the salary we didn't take. I'm not sure we'll get it back even if it adds an extra team or two into the mix.

1st, 2nd, Matt Moulson
vs.
The return:
Slightly more than 1/2 season of Vanek and the potential return. If we end up with a 1st, a good prospect, and something else; it's not anything to get too cranky about. If we get more, great. If we get slightly less, still probably not that big of a deal.

The biggest issue will always be the trades/signings we didn't make to fill the holes in the lineup. When it's obvious that you can't add that much salary, it takes a lot of options off of the table. Edit - Correcting myself. I had thought originally that Vanek had $2.5 million retained, but it's less. Of course, after we trade Vanek, the payroll should look almost exactly like if we kept Matt Moulson all year.

,
Mitch

 

[stranger34]

You could ballpark it, sure, but it's not really a great loss when you consider the gain the Islanders received by getting Vanek. While it's not a great gain, in the grand scheme of things anyway, there was certainly a gain there in terms of production and the chance of resigning a top end talent. That is worth something, what each person values that at will vary greatly.

The other thing is that there is the possibility of other things impacting the value of Moulson had he not been traded. What if he had a career ending injury or was out for the season? Then he'd have no value to the Islanders. While I understand that possibility is probably unlikely and we're operating based off the idea that he's healthy, there is still that possibility that events wouldn't be the same if he played for the Islanders all season.



The only chance of getting a good roster player is if the team is having an issue with their player and they'd like to unload them. Most of us, I think, are in favor of obtaining players in the form of prospects who are very close to NHL ready or are just starting out.

More likely than a career ending injury would have been a career year considering he had 6 goals in 10 games here.

 

[stranger34]

Its like this board is stuck in crazy town, I guess the kool-aid actually does flow. What happened with Satan,PAP, and Blake is irreverent. Snow TRADED Moulson why would anyone think Snow would keep Moulson at the deadline. The only way Moulson would have been an Islander post trade deadline was if he was signed.

Of course we can see what Buffalo gets for Moulson and say we could have got the same. We are an irreverent team as far the playoffs , all 29 (maybe 28 teams ,Rangers) we would be willing to deal with and they would be willing to deal with us. The 3-4 months of Vanek that maintained our position in the bottom 5 is meaningless unless Vanek signs over the summer.

Snow is an idiot but even I have faith Moulson would have been dealt or signed by the deadline

Lol yes! They have really upped the dosage in the kool aid in the wake of the trade. Some of the posts I've seen are literally as you put it... Crazy town.

 

[stranger34]

Of coarse not. We paid for most of a season of Vanek. Other teams are paying for around 30 games of Vanek.

That said, we also got exclusive negotiating rights to Vanek and the 8th year and what playing next to a superstar can look like.

Yeah that 8th year that wasn't utilized.

 

[stranger34]

As much as people dont like Garth he is at a severe disadvantage compared to other GM's. I would say he has one of the worst situations in the NHL. He cant spend money and cannot trade prospects because he might look bad after doing it. Its a lose lose no matter what the poor guy does. Its not his fault that Vanek wants to be in Minnesota! How is that his fault?

Right, but he didn't work within his budget. That's his fault. He could have traded for a player under contract that he could afford. He didn't have to trade for Vanek.

 

[LeapOnOver]

way to rig a question. If you don't count Moulson's opportunity cost then yeah... maybe. but's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the situation.

I think he will get a 1st from a good team which is worse than the Islanders pick. A 2nd, and maybe another piece.

My prediction is he will fall well short of the original Moulson + picks haul but will probably meet or exceed the 1st and 2nd.

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

Back to the question...I think Snow will get a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick back. Whether it's a veteran who was drafted 1st his draft year, or a prospect, the return will be the same. May not end up being what we needed and could quite possibly end up backfiring, but I think the end result won't be know for quite some time when young players are included.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I'm saying no, but not because he wouldn't be able to do so. I just think it won't happen due to something 'Vanek-specific' between now and then.

 

[JetsMetsIsles]

Why do people think Moulson would have gotten us a first. He wouldnt have gotten us a second. Who would be crazy enough to give up a first?

 

[stranger34]

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

Back to the question...I think Snow will get a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick back. Whether it's a veteran who was drafted 1st his draft year, or a prospect, the return will be the same. May not end up being what we needed and could quite possibly end up backfiring, but I think the end result won't be know for quite some time when young players are included.

Where did I say anything about being here post 7/1. If you and some of the other posters still after all this time can't wrap your head around the moulson opportunity cost factor then no amount of logic will sway you. I actually feel bad for some of you.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

Back to the question...I think Snow will get a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick back. Whether it's a veteran who was drafted 1st his draft year, or a prospect, the return will be the same. May not end up being what we needed and could quite possibly end up backfiring, but I think the end result won't be know for quite some time when young players are included.

Are we giving up Vanek if we trade him? After all he's a FREE AGENT.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

I'm saying no, but not because he wouldn't be able to do so. I just think it won't happen due to something 'Vanek-specific' between now and then.

Need more input. lol

I could see his recent mea culpa in Newsday torpedoing his value some, if that's what you mean. He didn't do us any favors by telling the world he wants to taste free agency. It basically told any potential buyers he will treat them the same way.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

Back to the question...I think Snow will get a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick back. Whether it's a veteran who was drafted 1st his draft year, or a prospect, the return will be the same. May not end up being what we needed and could quite possibly end up backfiring, but I think the end result won't be know for quite some time when young players are included.

Boy your dense.

Moulson was an asset of the New York Islanders, when he was traded his value was 60 some odd games of hockey. The was a part of the deal along with a 1st and 2nd to acquire Vanek.

So in comparing what the Islanders get for Vanek to what they paid, that has to be taken into consideration. What that value is can be debated. Whether or not to include it cannot.

When Moulson is traded from Buffalo, we may get an indication in terms of picks/prospects what 25 games of Moulson is worth. But you can't ignore it.

 

[IslandersFan17]

To put a homer spin on things.

1) Vanek contributed to one of the best lines in all of hockey. Had the Islanders had goaltending this trade would have been a total win on that alone.

2) Moulson has not been anything special on the Sabers and is not out with an injury and might not get the type of return the Sabers once were expecting. Not for nothing, they aren't a high scoring team and they have cap space, if Moulson was that good why not try an keep him?

3) Picks could always be iffy. Heck, lets say the Islanders do end up giving the Sabers the pick in 2015 and it ends up being high. Then said high pick ends up being a bust (it happens)... Meanwhile the Islanders absolutely nail the pick they will most likely will get back for Vanek.

Ultimately, this is more about the quality than the quantity. To many people are focused on how much is coming back instead of how well the assets will be managed.

i.e. if Snow can swing a deal that would get Toffoli and a conditional first rounder. We keep this years pick, draft a forward who ends up being a blue chipper and use the pick we received in a trade for a defender or goalie.

The Sabers having their own pick and whatever they get for Moulson absolutely flop on their picks. Not for nothing, the Islanders moved a 2007 first rounder as part of a package for Ryan Smyth. Which ultimately ended up being Alex Plante. To be fair only Pacioretty and Perron were quality players to go after Plante but still the point remains the same. You need to maximize your return by turning the coal into a diamond.

If years down the road the Islanders win the cup in part because of the pieces we received for Vanek I doubt anymore will rue the day we didn't recoup "value" we gave up.

 

[redbull]

Heard on radio that Snow has set the price for Vanek, wants three assets in return and wants to move him by Friday. Pierre LeBrun was the one who mentioned it and also said Snow's phone has been ringing off the hook, but GMs don't like the current asking price.

Lebrun also speculates he's not sure if the availability of Cammalleri and Moulson (scoring wingers) will drive the price down for Vanek.

McKenzie seems to think (video on NHL.com) that Vanek won't get done before the Olympics because the cap hit is too high for most teams. Wonder if Snow would be willing to take an asset back (and cap space) to hopefully get a better return (which I seriously doubt)

 

[LetsGoIslanders]

No, but he'll come close.

That's really not the point though. I'm stunned when I see people slamming Snow for the trade. We saw a Stanley Cup winning first line for the first time since the dynasty years. A line that could beat Detroit in the conference finals, a line that could challenge Chicago in the finals. The Vanek trade was a calculated risk, and unfortunately it probably (unless Thomas comes back in the summer) won't work out.

Vanek can go to Minny with Nino. Given Minnesota's management, Florida will win a cup before the Wild.

 

[stranger34]

No, but he'll come close.

That's really not the point though. I'm stunned when I see people slamming Snow for the trade. We saw a Stanley Cup winning first line for the first time since the dynasty years. A line that could beat Detroit in the conference finals, a line that could challenge Chicago in the finals. The Vanek trade was a calculated risk, and unfortunately it probably (unless Thomas comes back in the summer) won't work out.

Vanek can go to Minny with Nino. Given Minnesota's management, Florida will win a cup before the Wild.

If it was a risk then where was the reward? He was never going to sign that lowball offer and the islanders were never winning the cup this year with or without him.

 

[Islanderfan17]

If it was a risk then where was the reward? He was never going to sign that lowball offer and the islanders were never winning the cup this year with or without him.

I honestly don't think it had anything to do with the offer, remember this is a guy who turned down serious $ to get out of Buffalo. Vanek wants to test free agency and see what he gets, and I honestly can't blame him. I think Garth gave him a relatively fair deal in terms of his value, but Vanek wants to see who pursues him and what they will give.

 

[MaryChristine*]

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

Back to the question...I think Snow will get a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick back. Whether it's a veteran who was drafted 1st his draft year, or a prospect, the return will be the same. May not end up being what we needed and could quite possibly end up backfiring, but I think the end result won't be know for quite some time when young players are included.

Talk about faulty logic.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

It is funny to see people trying to divorce Moulson from the Vanek trade based on him being "gone." He had value, and will yield value for Buffalo. To dismiss him as valueless when evaluating the ultimate return for Vanek is almost hypocritical because Vanek too was "gone" for Buffalo, using the logic seen in this thread. We gave up a pending UFA plus a 1st and a 2nd for a pending UFA. If one pending UFA is deemed without value simply because he was walking July 1st, then what's that make the other pending UFA who will be walking July 1st? Worthless? Hell no, Snow will get what should be a pick, a prospect, and a player in return. That's value, and likely Moulson will yield a 1st. In the end we will likely end up having sent two firsts and a second to Buffalo for Vanek. Can Garth get the equivalent for Thomas? In 2 days we will know.

 

[Baeron]

It is funny to see people trying to divorce Moulson from the Vanek trade based on him being "gone." He had value, and will yield value for Buffalo. To dismiss him as valueless when evaluating the ultimate return for Vanek is almost hypocritical because Vanek too was "gone" for Buffalo, using the logic seen in this thread. We gave up a pending UFA plus a 1st and a 2nd for a pending UFA. If one pending UFA is deemed without value simply because he was walking July 1st, then what's that make the other pending UFA who will be walking July 1st? Worthless? Hell no, Snow will get what should be a pick, a prospect, and a player in return. That's value, and likely Moulson will yield a 1st. In the end we will likely end up having sent two firsts and a second to Buffalo for Vanek. Can Garth get the equivalent for Thomas? In 2 days we will know.

Absolutely agree. Actually, I don't think that we'll know in two days. Basically, when it comes to the Olympics, the only question is who takes the risk of TV getting hurt. Thomas' value will be highest right after the tournament, provided he does not get hurt. Heck, it's even possible that Snow might have a deal in hand on Friday but they'll only announce it after the games, which means that the price should be somewhat higher, but with Snow bearing the risk of those three games.

All in all, the trade can be broken down loke this:

We gave up
- 1st in 2014/2015
- 2nd 2015
- some $$$ in wages.

We get back
- The difference in trading value between MM and TV come deadline day
- The better player during 35 games
- Exclusive negotiation rights
- Media coverage

Lot more "intangibles" on our side -> hard to value.

 

[simbo042]

I don't think he'll get equal value, but he could get something 'more' valuable to us... if that makes sense.

Like for example, if he ends up getting back Gibson/Andersen and a 2nd/3rd for Vanek.

Obviously, a 1st(potentially a high 1st), a 2nd and Moulson(another 1st?) is greater value than Gibson/Andersen and a 2nd/3rd, but the 2nd package is arguably of more importance to us.

This is what I'm hoping for. Seeing if Garth can somehow swing a deal that gets us our goaltender of the future, or the present AND future. If that happens, I really won't care if it's considered 'less' than what we originally gave up.

I look at it this way too. The Vanek move doesn't look like it's paid off in terms of getting him to stay but it has given us a taste of a league dominating first line and showcased Vanek for a future trade. What we need is a deal for players, not a deal for picks, and I think Garth knows this.

Analysiing the loss in pick places and potential deals to get us the best draft selection is interesting but futuile. We need to address the team deficiencies in the short term with players, if Vanek fetches picks I'd like to see them flipped for players come the draft.

This is also why I'm not that bothered about Moulson, he wasn't really a piece for the future. Snow has traded picks and a UFA to try and get some leverage for a player trade. (At least I hope so! )

As for the Buffalo 2014/2015 first choice, we should probably draft a forward in the top ten this year and leave next year to take care of itself...

 

[Chrisinroch]

Lmao, there you go again with your faulty logic. You and maybe one other person on here are the only ones who still count Moulson as being "given up". Even the boys at NBC, who are usually idiots, don't include Moulson in the value because he's a FREE AGENT. What don't you understand about the definition of that? Why do you insist Moulson would still be an Islander after July 1st if he wasn't traded? Why do you even post on these boards if you can't grasp that?

You don't want to include Moulson's lost value because he was gonna be a FA, then why do you think that Vanek has any value at the trade deadline?

When the Isles traded Moulson, they gave up all rights to trading him for value at the deadline
When the Isles acquired Vanek, they got all rights to trading him for value at the deadline.
It is the same thing.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Boy your dense.

Moulson was an asset of the New York Islanders, when he was traded his value was 60 some odd games of hockey. The was a part of the deal along with a 1st and 2nd to acquire Vanek.

So in comparing what the Islanders get for Vanek to what they paid, that has to be taken into consideration. What that value is can be debated. Whether or not to include it cannot.

When Moulson is traded from Buffalo, we may get an indication in terms of picks/prospects what 25 games of Moulson is worth. But you can't ignore it.

No, you are right, if we include Moulson's value for the last 25 games (if he is traded) then it's fair to include him in the equation for whether we get back the same amount. Just some people here tend to think we should get Vanek's worth, Moulson's worth, and a 1st and a 2nd.

Funny though, last time I checked we weren't allowed to "call each other names" haha....

 

[disles1]

Bump. Any change on the thought process after the Buffalo trade last night?? I would be happy if Garth can get a similar return for Vanek & AMAC. Maybe he will package them together to get a better return? But a prospect , a 1st in 2015 a 3rd and two roster players is not bad. Buffalo seems to know what they are doing to turn their team around.....let's see what Garth can do.....

Don't screw it up Garth !

 

[A Pointed Stick]

The best case scenario is he breaks even, IMO.