The ROR Beatification Station and Exclusion Zone (Discussion of ROR trade goes here!) Part 2

[Rowley Birkin]

Continued from The ROR Beatification Station and Exclusion Zone (Discussion of ROR trade goes here!)

DON'T FLAME, DON'T TROLL, DON'T BE AN ASSHAT!
Violators will be banned from this thread!

Toronto has 3 forwards making more than Jack Eichel, bad example.

It's a perfect example.

Toronto top 6F = ~47m.

Sabres top 6F with Skinner & ROR = ~45m (I'm giving Reinhart 8m per).

That figure doesn't account for having to pay Olofsson either.

Toronto lost a first round pick to shed just one year of Marleau. Have to assume it costs even more than that to lose Okposo.

Toronto also don't have a Dahlin to pay.

Click to read more...

 

[Rowley Birkin]

The divisional playoff format is very stupid.

I don't disagree but it changes nothing as far as this argument is concerned.

Toronto aren't built to win when it matters.

 

[OkimLom]

Eh? You think the Skinner trade was bad?!

You can debate the extension (I didn't like it either) but the trade was hands down a 'win' for Botts.

I think it was a bad trade for the long term. Value-wise, for the the type of player he is, it was a win for Buffalo.

We did the trade FOR that extension, so the extension and the value of the extension needs to be included as well. Otherwise, trading Pu, and 3 quality draft picks for 1 season of Skinner is far from a win. How we handled that extension should be a part of the discussion. We struck out on every single aspect of that contract, especially with how bad the rest of the team is.

It's not the home run some people believe it is.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

Have a spreadsheet

ROR and Skinner would have presented zero long term issues on the cap... even post Reinhart, Dahlin, etc extensions.

all it would've required was a semi competent manager....

It would require paying the rest of the team next to nothing.

 

[OkimLom]

Only truly 'successful' team listed there is Chicago - their big contracts were 3F & 2D - further proving my point.

Can you please let me know of the parameters you want to use when discussing 'successful teams' and 'loaded up their top 6' then next time?

 

[Fezzy126]

I think it was a bad trade for the long term. Value-wise, for the the type of player he is, it was a win for Buffalo.

We did the trade FOR that extension, so the extension and the value of the extension needs to be included as well. Otherwise, trading Pu, and 3 quality draft picks for 1 season of Skinner is far from a win. How we handled that extension should be a part of the discussion. We struck out on every single aspect of that contract, especially with how bad the rest of the team is.

It's not the home run some people believe it is.

Disagree with the bolded, I would trade a 3rd and a middling prospect for a single 40 goal season every year.

In fact, every year we see contenders throw around bigger packages than this one at the deadline to acquire a rental for the last few weeks of the season and a shot at a cup run. The value of the trade is ridiculously good, irregardless of the extension.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

I think it was a bad trade for the long term. Value-wise, for the the type of player he is, it was a win for Buffalo.

We did the trade FOR that extension, so the extension and the value of the extension needs to be included as well. Otherwise, trading Pu, and 3 quality draft picks for 1 season of Skinner is far from a win. How we handled that extension should be a part of the discussion. We struck out on every single aspect of that contract, especially with how bad the rest of the team is.

It's not the home run some people believe it is.

All fair points.

I didn't hate the Skinner extension but I don't like it either. I think JB was in a corner as far as negotiations were concerned. I guess it's fair to blame him for getting cornered in the first place...

I guess the point I'm ultimately trying to make here is that you have to factor Skinner in as part of the ROR return if dealing in common sense. It will never be a good trade... But if Skinner is a long term contributor to success (he NEEDS to be) , if TT & Johnson develop as hoped... the trade won't be bad either. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

Can you please let me know of the parameters you want to use when discussing 'successful teams' and 'loaded up their top 6' then next time?

Success = winning Stanley cups.

Everything else should ultimately be considered as failure.

Sorry but I thought this was a given...

 

[OkimLom]

Disagree with the bolded, I would trade a 3rd and a middling prospect for a single 40 goal season every year.

In fact, every year we see contenders throw around bigger packages than this one at the deadline to acquire a rental for the last few weeks of the season and a shot at a cup run. The value of the trade is ridiculously good, irregardless of the extension.

Like I said, the value of the trade of Skinner for Pu + 3 draft picks is a good trade.

We were not a contender, far from it. I'm just talking about one year (with the assumption Skinner heads somewhere else). Any team making those big packages understand the risk, but it's 100% worthwhile if it gets you closer to the Stanley Cup.

Sure for that season, you won the trade, but going forward, you don't have a goal scorer, and you lost 4 assets (a developing prospect, and a 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and a 6th rounder). You have nothing to show for it, your prospect pool is bare as it is.

The extension sucks. It's top dollar, it's for 8 years, and it has a NMC. We're not getting out from under this contract, and we have so many holes on this team that need filling and young players needing raises.

 

[sabremike]

Success = winning Stanley cups.

Everything else should ultimately be considered as failure.

Sorry but I thought this was a given...

So if Ottawa has a miraculous run where they make the playoffs and lose in the cup final their season was a failure?

 

[Rowley Birkin]

So if Ottawa has a miraculous run where they make the playoffs and lose in the cup final their season was a failure?

Incredibly unlikely to happen - luck would need to play the biggest factor.... but if it doesn't ultimately lead them to winning the Cup in the future - then yes.

Although the 05/07 Sabres teams were great to watch along with everything else - the first thought about them is always 'they should have won a cup'....

 

[Jame]

It would require paying the rest of the team next to nothing.

No it would not.

All it would require is using QOs and Bridges as intended for teams operating near the cap. While cutting the # of dumb mid tier contracts added in half.

 

[Jame]

Continued from The ROR Beatification Station and Exclusion Zone (Discussion of ROR trade goes here!)




It's a perfect example.

Toronto top 6F = ~47m.

Sabres top 6F with Skinner & ROR = ~45m (I'm giving Reinhart 8m per).

That figure doesn't account for having to pay Olofsson either.

Toronto lost a first round pick to shed just one year of Marleau. Have to assume it costs even more than that to lose Okposo.

Toronto also don't have a Dahlin to pay.

There are so many ways to skin this cat... here's one:
Mitts: QO, then Bridge
Okposo buyout last 2 years
Girgs and Erod gone
Larsson Extended (Beagle Contract)
Olof 3 x 5.0, followed big move if he earns it
Asplund becomes Girgs/Larsson like depth on slightly higher than QO type
Arttu becomes a regular
Risto traded in final year
Montour mid tier long term deal 5x5
Dahlin mega contract
Joki and Pilut go Bridge, then long term
Trade some final year meh (Hutton, McCabe)

You don't have to believe each of these are the right moves
You don't have to believe each of these moves are possible
What you should understand is that keeping top talent is the priority of every GM, and you figure the rest out.

Cap/Skinner is NOT an excuse anyone should use to lessen the blow of the ROR trade.

 

[Djp]

No it would not.

All it would require is using QOs and Bridges as intended for teams operating near the cap. While cutting the # of dumb mid tier contracts added in half.

I agree with you for the most part.

I think Dahlin would get a 2 yr bridge before a high contract. The bridge takes him to the end of ROR then some of ROR space then goes to the high contract.

At the time of 2021 ED buffalo could entice Seattle to take KO before buying him out. Thry pribably Trade Risto for stuff before the ED.

Come 2021 buffalo May have around $5M in cap space.if Dahlin is signed to a high contract and KO is bought out would make thingstight against the cap.

If you keep Cozens in CHL next year then he has his ELC and then a 3 yr bridge take him to the end of Skinners contract.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

There are so many ways to skin this cat... here's one:
Mitts: QO, then Bridge
Okposo buyout last 2 years
Girgs and Erod gone
Larsson Extended (Beagle Contract)
Olof 3 x 5.0, followed big move if he earns it
Asplund becomes Girgs/Larsson like depth on slightly higher than QO type
Arttu becomes a regular
Risto traded in final year
Montour mid tier long term deal 5x5
Dahlin mega contract
Joki and Pilut go Bridge, then long term
Trade some final year meh (Hutton, McCabe)

You don't have to believe each of these are the right moves
You don't have to believe each of these moves are possible
What you should understand is that keeping top talent is the priority of every GM, and you figure the rest out.

Cap/Skinner is NOT an excuse anyone should use to lessen the blow of the ROR trade.

View attachment 307205

Firstly - I appreciate the effort put into your spreadsheet.

I am taking the bolded as your key point here & I am not arguing against this.

As for your projection - I see this as a best case scenario where everything goes right:

-all young players develop as hoped
-all players accept team friendly contracts
-and so on.

I'm reality this probably doesn't happen. The continued lack of success, the high taxes, Buffalo being an unglamorous destination will all work against us. The likelyhood is that you have to trade for roster players, you have to dip into the UFA market - you're always going to be paying more than you hope for some players.

Look at TB as an example - they arguably have a better situation than anyone with their good drafting & player development, team friendly contracts in large part due to location, but even they still have contracts they would prefer to be rid of.

The point I am arguing is that Botts simply wouldn't have gone after Skinner had he not traded ROR away. Especially given how conservative he is & how he appears to value cap flexibility (very few long term contracts on the team with many expiring this summer).

Going back to the bolded - yes it was a bad trade & Botts should never have moved ROR - at least without a proven replacement in place. This isn't even debatable.

If Skinner is a long term contributor over the course of his deal & TT / Johnson develop into contributing players it definitely softens the blow. That doesn't mean it makes it right.

 

[Jame]

Firstly - I appreciate the effort put into your spreadsheet.

I am taking the bolded as your key point here & I am not arguing against this.

As for your projection - I see this as a best case scenario where everything goes right:

-all young players develop as hoped
-all players accept team friendly contracts
-and so on.

It's not a best case scenario. It's a simple scenario.

I'm reality this probably doesn't happen. The continued lack of success, the high taxes, Buffalo being an unglamorous destination will all work against us. The likelyhood is that you have to trade for roster players, you have to dip into the UFA market - you're always going to be paying more than you hope for some players.

In reality this is one of many ways that what should've happened, could've happened

Look at TB as an example - they arguably have a better situation than anyone with their good drafting & player development, team friendly contracts in large part due to location, but even they still have contracts they would prefer to be rid of.

Yes, look at tampa a team with far more great players, and lots of good players... and they've had to get rid of... wait for it.... NONE of their great players.

The point I am arguing is that Botts simply wouldn't have gone after Skinner had he not traded ROR away.

This point is only relevant in the context of Botts being a moron...

"Hey, uh... Skinner wants to come to Buffalo and I literally can't trade him anywhere else... do you want him?"
"Sorry, I have ROR, Eichel and Reinhart... and they are literally the only good top 9 forwards I have.... but I can't add Skinner, because... I'm dumb"

Especially given how conservative he is & how he appears to value cap flexibility (very few long term contracts on the team with many expiring this summer).

This again, is only a defense of Botts in the context of him being a moron. Not in capably building a team.

Going back to the bolded - yes it was a bad trade & Botts should never have moved ROR - at least without a proven replacement in place. This isn't even debatable.

Then stop adding false nuggets of positivity like "if we didn't trade ROR we wouldn't have Skinner".

If Skinner is a long term contributor over the course of his deal & TT / Johnson develop into contributing players it definitely softens the blow. That doesn't mean it makes it right.

f*** no, it does not soften the blow... that's the point. Skinner has NOTHING to do with the ROR trade. And NOTHING short of winning in the playoffs softens the blow of trading a franchise player.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

It's not a best case scenario. It's a simple scenario.

In reality this is one of many ways that what should've happened, could've happened.

It assumes everything goes perfectly & nothing goes badly.

Yes, look at tampa a team with far more great players, and lots of good players... and they've had to get rid of... wait for it.... NONE of their great players.

Tampa have done the whole thing better than anyone.

Yet they benefit massively from their perceived status as a perennial contender, plus their location - both where they are geographically & the favourable tax rates. These things help them massively & allow them to sign players to contracts which we simply couldn't.

Yet despite this - even they are going to hit the cap crunch some time soon. Its inevitable....

Those NMC/NTCs are going to hurt them. The only thing which might save them are dumb GMs of other teams bailing them out... But get enough NMCs on you books in exchange for all the below market value cap hits...& eventually it will catch up with you.

They still don't have a cup to show for it either.

This point is only relevant in the context of Botts being a moron...

"Hey, uh... Skinner wants to come to Buffalo and I literally can't trade him anywhere else... do you want him?"
"Sorry, I have ROR, Eichel and Reinhart... and they are literally the only good top 9 forwards I have.... but I can't add Skinner, because... I'm dumb"

LOL Yes - I bet that is exactly how the negotiations went down. Word for word...

In your own head at least.

Then stop adding false nuggets of positivity like "if we didn't trade ROR we wouldn't have Skinner".

It's true. You can't disprove it.

I don't really care about positivity in the past tense - I've moved on. It was a bad trade but can't be undone. So let go.

I'm sure that some of you guys will still be here in ten years time regurgitating the same BS & patting each other on the backs for it.

The only positivity I'm looking for is from players who could contribute to the Sabres future success.

And NOTHING short of winning in the playoffs softens the blow of trading a franchise player.

Winning the Cup is the ultimate goal. Who is to know if ROR would ultimately have done it with the Sabres or not. As said above though - he can't help the Sabres do it now so why focus so much time & energy on it?

 

[Jame]

It assumes everything goes perfectly & nothing goes badly.

Hogwash...

Johansson at 4.5 when you still have ROR is not everything going perfectly, it is a dumb Botts signing, that is still baked in
Larsson at 3.0 for 4 years is not everything going perfectly, that would be plugging Lazar/Asplund in on QOs for that role
Olofsson at 3 x 5.0 taking him to UFA in his prime, is not everything going perfectly
Giving Dahlin 10 per, when he's had a regressive sophmore year, is not everything going perfectly
Montour at 5 per is a risky investment, that could go very badly
Ullmark at 4 per long term is a risky investment, that could go very badly

 

[Icicle]

Did he really make a chart that required us to 1) buyout Okposo 2) Trade away Risto+McCabe for picks only and 3) Depend on the miracle trades of Jokiharju and the Dahlin lottery pick from happening (which wouldn't have been the case without trading away ROR) just to fit Skinner+ROR under the cap for a couple of years? And he's saying this disproves the fantasy? Oooweee, the bar of reality has been set lower than video game GM standards.

 

[Jame]

Did he really make a chart that required us to 1) buyout Okposo 2) Trade away Risto+McCabe for picks only and 3) Depend on the miracle trades of Jokiharju and the Dahlin lottery pick from happening (which wouldn't have been the case without trading away ROR) just to fit Skinner+ROR under the cap for a couple of years? And he's saying this disproves the fantasy? Oooweee, the bar of reality has been set lower than video game GM standards.

1. There's zero reason not to buyout the last 2 years of Okposo's contract. It saves cap space in the final 2 years of his deal at a dead space charge of only 1.0 million

2. How many defensemen have we acquired for "picks only", i lost count... the reality is these are very basic roster management moves

3a. Keeping ROR would have had zero impact on Dahlin. We already won the lottery before we traded him.

3b. Keeping ROR has zero impact on trading Nylander for Jokijarju

Back to ignore for you

 

[sabremike]

It assumes everything goes perfectly & nothing goes badly.



Tampa have done the whole thing better than anyone.

Yet they benefit massively from their perceived status as a perennial contender, plus their location - both where they are geographically & the favourable tax rates. These things help them massively & allow them to sign players to contracts which we simply couldn't.

Yet despite this - even they are going to hit the cap crunch some time soon. Its inevitable....

Those NMC/NTCs are going to hurt them. The only thing which might save them are dumb GMs of other teams bailing them out... But get enough NMCs on you books in exchange for all the below market value cap hits...& eventually it will catch up with you.

They still don't have a cup to show for it either.



LOL Yes - I bet that is exactly how the negotiations went down. Word for word...

In your own head at least.



It's true. You can't disprove it.

I don't really care about positivity in the past tense - I've moved on. It was a bad trade but can't be undone. So let go.

I'm sure that some of you guys will still be here in ten years time regurgitating the same BS & patting each other on the backs for it.

The only positivity I'm looking for is from players who could contribute to the Sabres future success.



Winning the Cup is the ultimate goal. Who is to know if ROR would ultimately have done it with the Sabres or not. As said above though - he can't help the Sabres do it now so why focus so much time & energy on it?

Because the guilty party responsible for this move (which has effectively destroyed both our present and near term future) is still in charge and in a position to inflict even more damage upon our team and it's ridiculous he hasn't faced the consequences for his incompetence.

 

[Gabrielor]

Did he really make a chart that required us to 1) buyout Okposo 2) Trade away Risto+McCabe for picks only and 3) Depend on the miracle trades of Jokiharju and the Dahlin lottery pick from happening (which wouldn't have been the case without trading away ROR) just to fit Skinner+ROR under the cap for a couple of years? And he's saying this disproves the fantasy? Oooweee, the bar of reality has been set lower than video game GM standards.

Wait, is this actually real???

You seriously think trading ROR got us Dahlin???????

 

[Icicle]

Wait, is this actually real???

You seriously think trading ROR got us Dahlin???????

Oh right, Buffalo sucked bad enough to get Dahlin with ROR.... That franchise veteran presence he provided

 

[Icicle]

And the Franchise/Captain was here for that too. Stupid Botts should have traded him too. You heard here first @Icicle wanted Botts to trade Eichel, HE WAS HERE FOR THR LAST PLACE FINISH, READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!






It's almost like it wasn't the good player's fault, but the trash around them and the coaching.

That Selke player who didn't make another team any better until they had a coaching and goalie change too. As-if--- yes, it could have been coaching. But saying that ROR is the reason they struggled last year is silly. We also had bad coaching then too.

 

[Jim Carr's Rug]

Honest question:
Has there been a trade in recent years that has a comparable negative impact as the ROR trade had on the Sabres?
And as a follow up:
Did the GM retain his job for longer than 2 years after said trade?