Gripes about the Neuvirth trade

[PlamsUnlimited]

It's way too early to tell if this trade is a loser.

I think Neuvirth will be a decent starter next year.

He absolutely can. He's pretty good. Got buried via holtby and boomhauer or whatever the backups name is

 

[Ethan Edwards]

He absolutely can. He's pretty good. Got buried via holtby and boomhauer or whatever the backups name is

I've seen Neuvirth as much as any out-of-towner who catches occasional Caps games, so while I can't give an insightful review, I've heard the same thing from Cap fans I know. He was never given a full and fair shake to be THE GUY in DC, and according to them, that's what he needs to succeed. That's their take.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

It's laughable that some posters feel that Halak could have returned more.

He was an Ok goalie who is an upcoming UFA. What was he going to return? Further, look when he was traded in the day on deadline day. Late. Do you think Murray just hung around waiting to take calls on Halak? If there was a better offer don't you think he would have made the deal?


What likely happened is that he had offers for Halak in the form of picks. Murray wanted an actual player instead so he made a deal for the player he liked.

I would much rather send Halak and a pick to get a goalie to compete for a starting job than to trade Halak for pick. Or trade his rights for a 4th rounder.

 

[joshjull]

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.

If you actually think we weren't going to get another NHL goalie for next season. Or that a competition in goal isn't part of the plan for next season. Then you're even more confused than I thought or don't pay attention to Murray and his stated intentions. Tanking or not they needed and were going to get a NHL goalie for next year so the need was addressed. You address needs as options become available.

Murray is developing the roster for next year and as part of that he acquired a NHL goalie. One he sees potential in and one he thinks has a shot at being our starter down the line.

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.

They didn't. You're just not very good at evaluating trades like these. Mainly because things that were important to the trades happening and add value from Murray's pov are not even considered in your narrow focus.

Your organizational need for an AHL defenseman means you'll take our worst contract off our hands for nothing?

Or how about we added a dman that would have instantly become our best AHL dman and been a workhorse in the AHL. Thus making a big upgrade to the team in our organization that was trying to make the playoffs and do some damage if they got there. I can say without hesitation he would have made enough of a difference to propel the Amerks to the 2nd round. Thus giving our young prospects more valuable playoff experience. THAT is the reason Murray wanted Klesla. To help get the Amerks into the playoffs and then help them do damage when they get there. Murray wants a strong farm team and wanted to give them some tools and reinforcements for the playoffs. That without question has value. But not to you and I'm 100% certain this never entered you mind when evaluating the trade.

Your organizational need for size means you'll overpay for mid-level prospects that have it?

We added a young power forward prospect whose stock keeps rising and has top 6 power forward upside. But to you he will forever be a 4th round pick not worthy of excitement. We also added a big tough top 6 AHL winger in Deslaurier who would initially be an Amerk reinforcement. But down the line he would be a nice addition to the bottom 6 and his some offensive upside with just one year of development at forward under his belt. But to you he is either not worth mentioning or when he is he is dissmissed as nothing more than a AHLer. All for a d-prospect that isn't in our plans (McNabb) and two 2nd rounders.

Your organizational need for a 26 year old backup means you'll give us the better goaltender for our playoff run for free?

Or how about we acquired a goalie that Murray is high on, feels could be our goalie of the future and is signed for next year. Him being signed for next season has good amount of value despite your protesting otherwise. You don't actually think he was acquired to be a backup? Also why do mention him being 26 as if thats some sort of indictment of a goalie?

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

Again you're just not very good at evaluating these trades because of how narrowly and simplistically you look at them. You also take the worst possible description you can think of to describe each player we acquire. Then take the best possible evaluation of the assets we moved out to compare. You also ignore the context for why the trades were made in the first place and why that adds value. Also you ignore other trades that may have impacted what Murray wanted to target in a trade. Then you complain about how the trades were horrible without even understand the rational behind them or what the goals were.


I can only imagine the vitriol from you when Murray makes bigger trades to address needs if these ones have you in a tizzy.

 

[Dutchess]

We're the worst team in the NHL by a mile and a half with a stockpile of young talent and someone gripes that we MAYBE could've gotten an extra third or a prospect of that level instead of Neuvirth? smdh

 

[Jacob582]

We're the worst team in the NHL by a mile and a half with a stockpile of young talent and someone gripes that we MAYBE could've gotten an extra third or a prospect of that level instead of Neuvirth? smdh

We've been brainwashed by Darcy that we need to sell our UFA's and stockpile draft picks. Many of us have not embraced that we can be "buyers" yet. (We got Tallinder for Riley Boychuk. How come we couldn't get Neuvirth for Sydlowski?)

 

[wunderpanda]

Didn't have an issue, always liked Noidberg and Klesla, have no expectation that a 3rd or 4th round pick becomes a contributing member of the organization and assumed Halak wouldn't have stayed here anyway, but I can see how people would question Murray's decision.

Klesla was a cap dump, pretty useless after his concussion but I wasn't aware of that until checking the Yotes board. Their familiarity with his decline makes me consider that he wouldn't have been much help anyway and surely not worth a 3rd.

Noidberg had opportunities, but the Caps went and got Vokoun for whatever reason. Then Holtby & Grubauer moved past him on the depth chart, he has had injury issues and before he could redeem himself was shipped off for Halak. Perhaps the extra year on his deal makes up the difference between Halak & a 4th, but Murray targeting such a maligned player and over paying for him seems a justifiable enough reason for someone to have a concern.

If the plan next year is to ice another putrid team then a goalie is nowhere on the list of needs, could lose just as well with Enroth and Hackett. Right now it looks like a 3 headed monster, won't know how it shakes out for a while, maybe there isn't a future here for Hackett, or Enroth get shipped out, maybe all three are gone next year.

It wouldn't be about winning a trade or what Darcy would do either, it's about the judgement of a first time GM and his murky plan for the upcoming season.