Gripes about the Neuvirth trade

[Husko]

Murray saw a player he liked a got him.

Did he win the trade? Maybe not, oh well. The days of winning every trade we make because we're so shrewd and take value over targeting specific players are over. If you want that, become a fan of whoever Darcy becomes the new GM of. It's not a bad model, maximizing assets, but it's definitely not the Murray model. He's going to target players he wants, and lose some value sometimes if that's what it takes to get them. I'm ready to see how this approach works.

 

[Paxon]

I wasn't hot on the trade and I don't think anyone could argue it's good value, but it's nothing to get upset over. Halak's rights were traded for a 4th, so you could say at worst his value was a 4th, but probably more like a 3rd at the deadline. That means two 3rds for Neuvirth and the elusive Klesla. Kelsla would have helped the Amerks substantially. Neuvirth gives us two goalies to work with next season. It was a trade made for the sake of practicality more than anything. I wouldn't have done it, but in the grand scheme of things it made sense and also doesn't matter.

To put the value in perspective, Bishop was had for a 4th and Conacher. Bernier was traded for Frattin, Scrivens, and a 2nd. I think most anyone here would have easily preferred spending a bit more to get a goalie of Bernier or Bishop's caliber. Those deals aren't necessarily available all of the time but I'm sure a comparable one would be out there sometime between this past deadline and the 2015 offseason.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

There's 1 side "omg horrible"
And there's another side "whatever ts a third maybe he plays"

I think it's an Enroth either finishes in the top 15 for goalies or gets the boot after next season and neuvirth is Murray's first attempt on a replacement while the youngsters develop. Stick me in the whatever it's a third camp. Just as much shot Neuvirth becomes a contributor as Johnny pick 60 does.

 

[CaptPantalones]

I'll wait to reserve judgement when he plays more then 2 games

 

[UnleashRasmus]

I'd rather have a 26 year old goaltender who is starving for the opportunity for a starting job, versus a 28 year old goalie with more talent who doesn't give it his all. Sure we gave up the third, but how many other picks do we have before that pick. We'll be fine. You have to take chances and Murray is doing that.

 

[Moskau]

Tack on another 2 or 3 years to the rebuild because of this trade. What a mess Murray created.

 

[krt88]

Our 3rd will likely be either pick #61 or #62 next year. You can definitely get a quality prospect there. The trade was just bad. Neuvirth will most likely bolt after this season so we moved a decent pick and a better goalie who could have returned a 2nd or 3rd+4th on his own for a worse goalie with just one year left before free agency and had to take a cap dump in return. Halaks rights alone returned a 4th. So he easily would have gotten a 3rd or most likely a 2nd at the deadline. It's pretty much 2nd+3rd for one full year of Neuvirth. Murray lost the trade. It isn't a major deal but it was poor asset management. I would have demanded a 2nd for Halak and just rolled with Enroth/Hackett until 15-16.

How many freakin draft picks do we really need? Look at the last two drafts, you have:
2012, signed or likely to be
Grig, Gergs, McCabe, Kea, Ullmark
2013 signed or likely to be:
Ristolainen, Zhardov, Compher, Carrier, Fasching
Maybe signing in future:
Hurley, Bailey, Baptiste

You'll run out of contracts if we don't move a few picks here or there

 

[paulmm3]

This trade being good or bad is all about how Neuvirth turns out and if we re-sign him after next year. I lived in DC 2011-2013 and constantly used to rip my Capitals-fan housemates for how horrible Neuvirth was. That said, I also think Tim Murray knows way more about evaluating goaltender talent than I ever will. So I don't think we can really evaluate this at least until after next season.

Our 3rd next year will be right on the 2nd/3rd border in a very strong draft, so it's not nothing, but it's also not that much. Wayne Simmonds, Brandon Pirri, Jason Zucker, Tomas Tatar, Nikita Kucherov, Jujhar Khaira, and Adam Pelech have all gone right around there recently, but so have a lot more prospects I've never heard of.

 

[haseoke39]

I'm just going to point out that the conversation really turned to us acting like the Caps did us a favor just taking Halak off our hands and now we're all just saying was Neuvirth worth a third. There's no exact science to figuring out what Halak's fair value should have been, but in a deadline when a freaking dozen goaltenders changed hands, I think it's a really overly generous assumption that Halak had no value. Especially when Washington was in the thick of a playoff hunt and started Halak all down the stretch.

I mean, like kind of absurdly generous. I wouldn't act like the Blues did a favor to us taking Miller off our hands, and Halak really isn't that much worse. If Miller's top ten, Halak is probably top twenty.

For my money, I think Halak's value substantially exceeds Neuvirth's, even with the extra year on his contract.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

How could Halaks value to the Sabres exceed Neuvirths? One will be signing a contract with another team in 2 month, one will be a Buffalo Sabre contributing next season.

That's completely ridiculous. There is no contest. The value of a pending FA is obviously way lower than a player still under contract, regardless of the talent.

I wouldn't trade Drew Stafford for UFA Sidney Crosby. It's bad value. Exclusive negotiating rights are overrated.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I'm just going to point out that the conversation really turned to us acting like the Caps did us a favor just taking Halak off our hands and now we're all just saying was Neuvirth worth a third. There's no exact science to figuring out what Halak's fair value should have been, but in a deadline when a freaking dozen goaltenders changed hands, I think it's a really overly generous assumption that Halak had no value. Especially when Washington was in the thick of a playoff hunt and started Halak all down the stretch.

I mean, like kind of absurdly generous. I wouldn't act like the Blues did a favor to us taking Miller off our hands, and Halak really isn't that much worse. If Miller's top ten, Halak is probably top twenty.

For my money, I think Halak's value substantially exceeds Neuvirth's, even with the extra year on his contract.

That's ridiculous. Halak had next to 0 value to the Sabres. What the Caps did with him is irrelevant, the Sabres weren't going to do **** with him then he was going to walk. Odds of Halak becoming something with the Sabres = odds of Klesla becoming something with the Sabres; odds of a third becoming something for the Sabres < odds of Neuvirth becoming something with the Sabres. Now it's only a question of whether or not Neuvirth can beat out Enroth. I believe Murray is already planning on parting ways with Enroth. Meaning Neuvirth could end up the starter for 3 seasons or more. If he does then the trade is probably a win for Buf because that third is probably AHL fodder anyway.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. The best odds in my opinion is that this was 4 assets that end up meaning nothing to anyone in 3 years. Nothing got traded for No one.

 

[slip]

Tack on another 2 or 3 years to the rebuild because of this trade. What a mess Murray created.

You almost had me there.

 

[Sean McG]

Halak had very little trade value... there was a 100% chance he was going to leave as a pending UFA, because for a goalie of his stature and age, there wasn't a worse situation he could go to. Murray turned that and a third round pick into a recently turned 26-year old goalie who has shown flashes of being a NHL starter. It blows my mind how upset some people are over this trade.

In the McNabb + two 2nd's for Deslauriers and Fasching deal, a lot of people said they were going to trust Murray's judgement and accepted the fact he went out and got some guys he liked... what's the difference with this trade? Clearly he, or people he trusts, like Neuvirth and think he could be something.

It's opportunity cost. I'd far rather have another Baptiste in the system than an extra backup for our tank years. I don't see why we need someone to challenge Enroth either, it's not like we're trying to win now. I don't think we should be doing anything in goal, FWIW, until the tank is over.

And he's only a "1B" because we don't have any kind of "1". I think you could count the team's he'd be able to start on with one hand, maybe less.

The bolded is a ridiculous way to look at it. It looks like the Sabres hit on a nice prospect with a third round pick, so trading a third rounder is giving up the chance at "another Baptiste"? You could just as easily devalue a third round pick by saying "We don't want another Gauthier-Leduc/Sundher/MacKenzie/Fienhage/[take your pick of a 3rd rounder that hasn't panned out] in the system."

 

[Oakstream]

I'll wait to reserve judgement when he plays more then 2 games

This.

 

[Jacob582]

Halak had very little trade value... .

There has been no report of this or even a hint, but I still wonder whether TM gave his word to the Blues not to trade Halak to the west.

I just can't imagine that Doug Armstrong would want to trade for Miller and have Halak end up with lets say the Wild, who they could have ended up facing in the first round of the playoffs.

If this is the case his trade value would be lowered with less potential buyers.

 

[ZeroPT*]

There has been no report of this or even a hint, but I still wonder whether TM gave his word to the Blues not to trade Halak to the west.

I just can't imagine that Doug Armstrong would want to trade for Miller and have Halak end up with lets say the Wild, who they could have ended up facing in the first round of the playoffs.

If this is the case his trade value would be lowered with less potential buyers.

There doesn't need to be a report of anything. Its common sense, their were 2 teams who would have been suitable for halak and they were Washington and Minny, the latter picked up bryz and we needed to take on a cap dump from Washington.

 

[joshjull]

It's opportunity cost. I'd far rather have another Baptiste in the system than an extra backup for our tank years. I don't see why we need someone to challenge Enroth either, it's not like we're trying to win now. I don't think we should be doing anything in goal, FWIW, until the tank is over.

And he's only a "1B" because we don't have any kind of "1". I think you could count the team's he'd be able to start on with one hand, maybe less.

Joshjull EDIT: I brought this discussion here from the Isles 1st thread.

That right there is a big part of the problem. You don't seem to realize that we have moved on from the trade every asset for max value phase. We are now starting to make targeted trades to address organizational needs or to acquire a specific player or players.

You also don't seem to understand that we needed another NHL goalie for next year to battle with Enroth for playing time. Creating a culture of competition means battles at every position. You can't just hand the starting job to Enroth. Its counter to what the are trying to do. Neuvirth and Enroth will both be 26 to start next season, were both drafted in 2006 and are both just outside their prime years. It sets up nicely for a battle for playing time.

Another problem you seem to have is you can't see the bigger picture on why certain trades are made. All of your trade evaluations are incredibly narrow and simplistic in focus. For example, you refuse to factor the impact of one trade on another or look at the reason the trade was made in the first place. For you its is value, value, value and no other factors are considered. Thus your reaction to this trade and the Fasching/Deslaurier trade.

Neuvirth and Klesla were acquired because they were organizational needs at the time of the trade. We needed a dman for Rochester because McNabb was traded and we needed a goalie for the following season. But to you acquiring players we needed organizationally holds no value which is an utterly ridiculous way to look at or evaluate a trade. You basically ignore Murray's focus when he made the trade in your evaluation. You did the same thing with the Fasching/Deslaurier trade. They were players Murray wanted and he traded what he needed, within reason, to get them. When trades like these are made max value isn't going to happen nor is it the focus.

Going forward you may want to expand the criteria you use to evaluate trades or you will be getting angry quite a bit over the next few years. Because targeted trades will be more and more common.

 

[ZeroPT*]

100000% agree with joshjull on this one

Perfectly put

 

[DazedandConfused]

Yeh, I'm too lazy to type that much. But those are my thoughts on the trades. There;s going to be more of these types of trades coming to, buckle up.

 

[Mattykerr91]

Hi guys, this is my first ever post, in my opinion if neuvirth can become the number 1 goalie and lead us to last place, I believe that would be worth a 3rd round pick??? Don't you??

 

[Zman5778]

Because targeted trades will be more and more common.

And I think part of this idea is that Murray won't always extract maximum trade value out of these "targets" like Darcy so often did.

It always seemed like Darcy wanted (needed?) to win trades in the court of public opinion. Murray doesn't care in this regard....as long as the value isn't too skewed towards us getting screwed, he'll make a deal for a necessary part.

The Des/Fasching trades and Neuvirth trades are examples of this. Were they maximum value on what we gave up? I would say no. Did we outrageously overpay for what we got? Again, I'd say no. I think Murray gave up a little extra to get what he perceived to be needs in our system (an NHL-ready goalie for next year, help on the farm this year PLUS more "truculence").

You're right -- Murray is going to make more of these trades. He's going to target specific things (right now, I'd bet on high-end talent) and he's likely going to give up more than what many fans might feel comfortable with.

 

[Jacob582]

we have moved on from the trade every asset for max value phase. We are now starting to make targeted trades to address organizational needs or to acquire a specific player or players.

And I think part of this idea is that Murray won't always extract maximum trade value out of these "targets" like Darcy so often did.

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is why many fans have expressed disdain for this trade.

For several years we have been in sell mode - getting assets for our UFA's. The goal was to get as many draft picks and prospects.

We became "buyers" on a couple of the trades TM made. It's hard to change focus from Darcy's tear-down/sell mode.

Didn't Ted Black say the same thing? (enough tearing down, it's time to start building)

 

[jrb2590]

All I have to say is remember when the Avs got fleeced when they traded for semyon varlamov? Or when Cbj got ridiculed because they traded for the sieve none as brobovsky?

Neuvirth may be a little older than those guy but I'm willing to give him a chance even though I wasn't thrilled with the trade at the time. Another thing is that we could always trade neuvirth again next year if we wanted to

 

[haseoke39]

That right there is a big part of the problem. You don't seem to realize that we have moved on from the trade every asset for max value phase. We are now starting to make targeted trades to address organizational needs or to acquire a specific player or players.

You also don't seem to understand that we needed another NHL goalie for next year to battle with Enroth for playing time. Creating a culture of competition means battles at every position. You can't just hand the starting job to Enroth. Its counter to what the are trying to do. Neuvirth and Enroth will both be 26 to start next season, were both drafted in 2006 and are both just outside their prime years. It sets up nicely for a battle for playing time.

Another problem you seem to have is you can't see the bigger picture on why certain trades are made. All of your trade evaluations are incredibly narrow and simplistic in focus. For example, you refuse to factor the impact of one trade on another or look at the reason the trade was made in the first place. For you its is value, value, value and no other factors are considered. Thus your reaction to this trade and the Fasching/Deslaurier trade.

Neuvirth and Klesla were acquired because they were organizational needs at the time of the trade. We needed a dman for Rochester because McNabb was traded and we needed a goalie for the following season. But to you acquiring players we needed organizationally holds no value which is an utterly ridiculous way to look at or evaluate a trade. You basically ignore Murray's focus when he made the trade in your evaluation. You did the same thing with the Fasching/Deslaurier trade. They were players Murray wanted and he traded what he needed, within reason, to get them. When trades like these are made max value isn't going to happen nor is it the focus.

Going forward you may want to expand the criteria you use to evaluate trades or you will be getting angry quite a bit over the next few years. Because targeted trades will be more and more common.

We can agree to disagree on whether we need to have a goalie tandem or not, but the broader point isn't really germane, I think. Addressing organizational needs and paying fair value aren't incompatible ideas. I'm as glad as the next guy that we want to have more competition for spots (whether that's really something we should be doing in goal at this point is a slightly different debate - I'm of the mind that if you're trying to tank while developing your roster, goaltending should be the last thing you shore up, not the first). I'm as glad as the next guy that we're adding size.

But that doesn't mean that all concepts of value go out the window. If it does, every other GM in the league is going to lick his lips looking at us. Your organizational need for an AHL defenseman means you'll take our worst contract off our hands for nothing? Your organizational need for size means you'll overpay for mid-level prospects that have it? Your organizational need for a 26 year old backup means you'll give us the better goaltender for our playoff run for free? It's good to be addressing needs, but if I was other GMs and I thought I could get you to regularly overpay just by offering something that fits a mold for you, I'd be very excited to do business.

 

[Ethan Edwards]

Murray saw a player he liked a got him.

Did he win the trade? Maybe not, oh well. The days of winning every trade we make because we're so shrewd and take value over targeting specific players are over. If you want that, become a fan of whoever Darcy becomes the new GM of. It's not a bad model, maximizing assets, but it's definitely not the Murray model. He's going to target players he wants, and lose some value sometimes if that's what it takes to get them. I'm ready to see how this approach works.

I'll wait to reserve judgement when he plays more then 2 games

That's ridiculous. Halak had next to 0 value to the Sabres. What the Caps did with him is irrelevant, the Sabres weren't going to do **** with him then he was going to walk. Odds of Halak becoming something with the Sabres = odds of Klesla becoming something with the Sabres; odds of a third becoming something for the Sabres < odds of Neuvirth becoming something with the Sabres. Now it's only a question of whether or not Neuvirth can beat out Enroth. I believe Murray is already planning on parting ways with Enroth. Meaning Neuvirth could end up the starter for 3 seasons or more. If he does then the trade is probably a win for Buf because that third is probably AHL fodder anyway.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. The best odds in my opinion is that this was 4 assets that end up meaning nothing to anyone in 3 years. Nothing got traded for No one.

Good points on both sides, but I read these analyses and stopped as they pretty much nailed it IMO. As stated, it's no longer a regime of "winning" trades. Still a nice concept, and nobody wants to get fleeced, but it's far more about making an evaluation on a player and going out and getting him. I like it, either in principle or because it's a refreshing change. Time will tell if it's effective.