Well, the way I see it is, Murray fell in love with players that he scouted as a scout. The Evander Kane trade was not a good use of assets, and up until the past 80 games or so, Kane was a pretty big disappointment. I don't think that anybody values Kane the way some on here do. Team chemistry is a really important component of a deep playoff run, and, while guys like Paul Guastad, Andrew Ladd, Martin Hanzal are inferior players, they are all also viewed pretty as reliable team guys with good character. Evander Kane, whether it's valid or not, does not have that reputation. More goes into it than just, "I have a feeling," but it's generally around the point that I don't think the Sabres will get good value out of Kane because he isn't the type of player that is typically sought after at the deadline. There a good chance the Sabres are going to be pretty disappointed with the return.
At the time of the trade, we traded a soon to be UFA in Stafford, a 1st round pick, a 2011 1st round pick in Armia that was on the brink of being a bust as he was very underwhelming in the AHL, a 2nd round pick prospect in Lemieux, and Myers for essentially Kane, a 23 year old 1st round pick who had multiple years left on his contract, and Bogosian 24 year old 1st round pick who had years left on his contract. Two guys who not only fit the type of team we were shaping up to be, but were already considered vets at a young age, and were NHL ready. Not sure what you expect to give up for those type of players with that amount of term, with that much experience. Bogosian was looked at a shift in the type of defenseman on the backend. Under Nolan, when got here, he played well enough to be a top 4 mainstay. Kane was the big piece, with THE BIGGEST gripe and criticism was his "chemistry" with his teammates, teammates he has been with since he was drafted. We only knew he had issues with THOSE guys. If I'm a betting man, Murray most likely thought he would be better as a teammate if he was in a new locker room. Hindsight is 20/20, but that was correct.
Chemistry is a component for a playoff round for sure. But usually teams that tend to go far in the playoffs already have a locker room that is tough to break as the leaders of the team have full control of the team and have a coaching staff that backs them up. Kane would be looked at much like any other UFA to be is looked at the TDL that is having a good year offensively. The injuries and that factor is probably not going to loom as much as if they had him longer than a 1/2 year. His locker room chemistry is looking more like it was an issue with ONE particular group of guys. I believe Kane with get a 1st round pick at least, and if he is able to string together a few impressive games and the right GM comes along, I believe he could fetch us more.
Also, I'm not sure I get your logic. You go get Kane so that you can speed up the rebuild. The general strategy of which is Murray's greatest failing. I know some posters are fond of pointing at not getting Babcock as the moment the rebuild failed, but at some point it's worth suggesting that the players aren't that great either. All on their own, the players just aren't that good. It's pretty hard to argue that the Sabres are in a better position now than they would have been if they had simply not made the Kane trade.
Murray targeted Kane because he was the type of talent that we didn't have any of and he knew he had to get that . When he became GM he pretty much said, if you want talent you have to get talent. Kane was exactly what he meant by that. Unfortunately, because we didn't have anybody in the pipeline or even on our roster that would be characterized as such, he had to get it. Buffalo had ONE thing, and that was a TON of assets. To pry a player like Kane, who was not favored as much by the organization, out of Winnipeg, and to do so before any other team has a chance, Murray had to move assets and move quickly before losing out on a chance for a player like Kane. Now we're at the point where we can see the final product of the move for Kane. Does it suck he used so many assets for essentially two players? yes. Did we have ANYTHING close in our system for a player like Kane? Nope.
Let's assume that the Myers-Bogo deal is what the value was. Both Cost-controlled defenseman, both 1st round picks, both with warts.
Now let's look at what was moved in the Kane part of the deal: 1st Round pick, UFA to be Stafford, Joel Armia, and Brendan Lemieux
1st round pick - Yes it's a great asset in a really good draft, but you're not going to pry a cost controlled young player like Kane from a team for that.
UFA to be Stafford - Buffalo's only goal dealing with Stafford, especially as sellers, is getting SOMETHING for him. Buffalo shouldn't worry about what the value would be IF he signed with Winnipeg, considering he wasn't willing to re-sign here.
Joel Armia - "prospect" who was drafted for his goal scoring. Couldn't crack a low skilled Buffalo Sabres roster, had trouble scoring at the AHL level, and was looking like a bust. Seeing as he hasn't played a full season, hasn't gotten more than 10 goals(imagine what he would have here) in the NHL, something that he was drafted for back in 2011, I don't have one issue trading him away, and was a perfect example of a guy who needed a change of scenery. If he bounced back, then good for him, but he wasn't producing for Buffalo and IMO if he was more valuable to a GM than the team he was currently on, then they can have him.
Brendan Lemieux - probably the 2nd best chip for this part of the trade. The piece was needed to entice Winnipeg.
So in order of value from Buffalo's POV, 1st Round pick, Brendan Lemieux, Stafford, Joel Armia
Most likely in order of value from Winnipeg's POV - 1st round pick, Stafford to help with playoff push, Brendan Lemieux, Joel Armia.
IMO, the biggest piece we gave up was the 1st Round pick. Armia was a throw in from my perspective. If Winnipeg made something of him, then good on them. I'm not worried about losing at the end of the day, if I'm Murray my goal as GM is to bring as much talent as possible no matter the cost. At the end of the day, it's about QUALITY not Quantity. Murray valued Kane's cost controlled, NHL readiness and perceived value down the road, over drafting a player to develop(in the Sabres system mind you), watching Stafford walk for a 2nd or 3rd round pick, wasting Joel Armia, and waiting for offensive limited Lemieux to develop.
There are issues I take with Murray, but I actually agree with the philosophy behind his moves. I may not agree with his player judgments, but I get what he was trying to accomplish with each of his moves. If there's a fair criticism of Murray, I think it's
WHO he liked more so than
HOW MUCH he liked someone.
Sorry about the wall.
