Confirmed with Link: Jets/Buffalo Blockbuster! part II (Kane and Bogo)

[pegjets]

I agree in theory that you can't fully attribute everything Stafford does to the trade, but you can't also completely fully remove it from the equation. We all know that trading Stafford here is highly (but not fully) correlated with him signing as a UFA. As such, if his UFA contract turns out to be productive (which so far it has), some of that does flow back to the trade balance.

 

[garret9]

So then do we go back and raise the value of every trade because there was a chance the player re-signed/extended?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I was just saying how one should go about analyzing the trade, not giving my own opinion on it one way or the other.

It's like when people say you can't judge drafting until 5 years after... No that's hindsight. You have to go with the information that was available at the time.

No. In both cases you go with the information at hand, whether deciding who to draft or who to trade for who. But you evaluate the result several years later. Deciding and evaluating are very different things. The evaluation is supposed to be hindsight. You can evaluate it at any time and reach a preliminary conclusion though. "So far so good" or 'crap' to put it in scientific terms.

 

[pegjets]

So then do we go back and raise the value of every trade because there was a chance the player re-signed/extended?

He was traded in the last year of his contract near the deadline - this isn't really a stretch to maintain the connection to the trade at some level.

 

[Bartho]

After reading Kane's comments to The Hockey News, I took a stroll down memory lane and came across this gem.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=87005367&postcount=111

Good times!

 

[sully1410]

After reading Kane's comments to The Hockey News, I took a stroll down memory lane and came across this gem.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=87005367&postcount=111

Good times!

And it is just as true now as it was then. Not that matters because he's Buffalos problem now.

 

[garret9]

He was traded in the last year of his contract near the deadline - this isn't really a stretch to maintain the connection to the trade at some level.

I never said there is not a connect.

All things are interconnected, butterfly effect and all that.
I mean if we didn't have Stafford, maybe we would have pushed harder for Frolik? Maybe we should add that opportunity cost (up or down depending on your opinion) based on that?

Stafford playing on here influenced his decision but we cannot appropriately contribute how much. Maybe we would have still been favourites during UFA? What's the opportunity cost there?

In addition, Buffalo wasn't selling that to us. It was just a convenient byproduct. In no way a GM selling a rental goes "well you should pay more for that guy as you have a chance to extend him".

 

[pegjets]

I never said there is not a connect.

All things are interconnected, butterfly effect and all that.
I mean if we didn't have Stafford, maybe we would have pushed harder for Frolik? Maybe we should add that opportunity cost (up or down depending on your opinion) based on that?

Stafford playing on here influenced his decision but we cannot appropriately contribute how much. Maybe we would have still been favourites during UFA? What's the opportunity cost there?

In addition, Buffalo wasn't selling that to us. It was just a convenient byproduct. In no way a GM selling a rental goes "well you should pay more for that guy as you have a chance to extend him".

You're making a straw man argument there bud, it's okay to just disagree

 

[Jets]

Kane stinks.

 

[garret9]

You're making a straw man argument there bud, it's okay to just disagree

Not exactly a straw man.

Simply demonstrating two factors with why I don't think Stafford's extension should be included to value of trade, despite there being a connection:

1) There's overvaluation of the impact without being able to include opportunity costs and how much it shifted the probability of Jets signing as FA.
2) It's not part of the valuation when determining the trade between the two who actually bargained the trade.

Think that's quite fair.

 

[pegjets]

Not exactly a straw man.

Simply demonstrating two factors with why I don't think Stafford's extension should be included to value of trade, despite there being a connection:

1) There's overvaluation of the impact without being able to include opportunity costs and how much it shifted the probability of Jets signing as FA.
2) It's not part of the valuation when determining the trade between the two who actually bargained the trade.

Think that's quite fair.

Well I disagree. Trying to bring the opportunity cost of Frolik is really only relevant to the value/analysis of Stafford's UFA signing, but it becomes far too removed from the trade to be a factor. If you want to value re-signing Frolik, then you also need to look at the UFA market and who we could have otherwise signed instead of either of those two (or even available trades).

However factoring in Stafford performance from being re-signed months after the trade is really not a stretch, and not an overvaluation in the sense that it is related to the big event. Again, I'm not advocating allocating every goal he scores as value of the trade. But, if this contract ends up being very successful, it does add to the positive effect of the trade. If he ends up being a contract bust, then it does remove some value on the trade. Either way it's not a significant valuation factor, but it is measurable. I'd say we'd need to at least see a full year of Stafford's contract before casting judgement on it however, unlike what we got from him on the balance of his Sabres contract (also with the reduced cash salary hit).

 

[SensibleGuy]

So Kaner asked for a trade every off season in Winnipeg. Big surprise. Hate to say I told you so but.....





....I told you all so!

 

[sully1410]

Well I disagree. Trying to bring the opportunity cost of Frolik is really only relevant to the value/analysis of Stafford's UFA signing, but it becomes far too removed from the trade to be a factor. If you want to value re-signing Frolik, then you also need to look at the UFA market and who we could have otherwise signed instead of either of those two (or even available trades).

However factoring in Stafford performance from being re-signed months after the trade is really not a stretch, and not an overvaluation in the sense that it is related to the big event. Again, I'm not advocating allocating every goal he scores as value of the trade. But, if this contract ends up being very successful, it does add to the positive effect of the trade. If he ends up being a contract bust, then it does remove some value on the trade. Either way it's not a significant valuation factor, but it is measurable. I'd say we'd need to at least see a full year of Stafford's contract before casting judgement on it however, unlike what we got from him on the balance of his Sabres contract (also with the reduced cash salary hit).

Except his percieved value from the trade ended the day his contract was up. Stafford with a few months left on his contract was what Buffalo traded us and it was what Chevy paid for.

It's great he signed with us but his value now will be determined by how much the contract that the Jets signed him too relative to his production. His trade value from last deadline has no bearing on it.

You could argue that him being traded here made it more likely that he would sign here...so the question is how much do UFA rights go for these days?

 

[SensibleGuy]

You could argue that him being traded here made it more likely that he would sign here..

which is I think what many of us ARE arguing. I mean We got him in the trade and he's still here. I don't see any reason at all why he no longer factors into the deal...

 

[bustamente]

Didn't need a fortune teller to tell you that Kane didn't want to play here and is just so into himself

 

[Flair Hay]

Figuring the people upset in the summer about keeping Stafford over Frolik would come around when Stafford approaches the 20 goal mark again. Good news is he's got a good headstart already.

Armia looks like horse **** in the AHL.

Bogo is what he is and Myers is what he is. Decent swap for both of us and we got the salary relief.

Roslovic could help this look really good down the road too.

It wasn't as much a fleecing to me as we got what we needed to out of the trade.

 

[SensibleGuy]

Kane made that and dropped a couple of other pearls, not the least of which was he wanted out of Winnipeg almost as quickly as he arrived there. “Yeah, I asked for a trade every off-season in Winnipeg,†Kane told THN.

Jeez. What a child. Good luck Sabres...

 

[Yukon Joe]

I was just saying how one should go about analyzing the trade, not giving my own opinion on it one way or the other.

It's like when people say you can't judge drafting until 5 years after... No that's hindsight. You have to go with the information that was available at the time.

Well I don't think that's quite right.

You definitely can judge a trade five years later to determine who "won" the trade. It's even a useful exercise to determine it the GMs involved were looking at the right criteria.

But you are right that it's not the only way to look at a trade. You can also judge by the factors that were known at the time. A team may wind up "losing" a trade after 5 years, but based on what was known at the time it was a risk worth taking.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I always thought Reinhart would be the better C for Kane. Came from watching the WJC. Reinhart will figure out what will make Kane most effective and find a way to give him that. Just my impression of the kind of player Reinhart is. Note: Not necessarily giving Kane what he wants. Giving him what he needs. And I don't mean a good swift kick in the butt.

Bylsma even said himself before camp that pairing Kane and Eichel (two guys that want the puck) would be a problem. Then after no games together in preseason he pairs them during the last week of camp, and didn't separate them until last game.

The result was the EXACT thing most of your board warned about - one man show straight into the zone, multiple shots on goal from any/all angles and distance, little production to show for it while his linemates skate around. He's great for possession stats, average at best for actual production.

We mostly think Reinhart and O'Reilly make the most sense for Kane, but Disco knows better after all that time off when nobody wanted him for their HC. I'd rather just see Kane carrying the play of the 3rd line with Larsson or Girgensons at C, Foligno at RW. That could be quite a difficult line to play against, but I think there's a plan to try and make Kane look like a top line scorer and justify the trade. Let's just say I'm skeptical.

 

[Whileee]

Bylsma even said himself before camp that pairing Kane and Eichel (two guys that want the puck) would be a problem. Then after no games together in preseason he pairs them during the last week of camp, and didn't separate them until last game.

The result was the EXACT thing most of your board warned about - one man show straight into the zone, multiple shots on goal from any/all angles and distance, little production to show for it while his linemates skate around. He's great for possession stats, average at best for actual production.

We mostly think Reinhart and O'Reilly make the most sense for Kane, but Disco knows better after all that time off when nobody wanted him for their HC. I'd rather just see Kane carrying the play of the 3rd line with Larsson or Girgensons at C, Foligno at RW. That could be quite a difficult line to play against, but I think there's a plan to try and make Kane look like a top line scorer and justify the trade. Let's just say I'm skeptical.

Good take.

Kane can be a terror and drive the bus for a very good 3rd line. He can be an offensive anchor on a 1st line.

At $6 million and 3 years left before UFA, the Sabres are going to have to think long and hard about what direction they want to take with Kane - that is, unless he asks them for a trade every off-season.

 

[Gnova]

I was very happy about the Kane trade last spring.
I didn't mind Kane's social media forays, I actually found them entertaining.
I didn't like his game though, with his constant whining at officials and one man show attitude on the ice.
I was also happy to see Bogo traded for someone less injury prone. I really enjoyed watching him but the team needed someone more durable.

After reading some of Kane's THN comments I am now very very happy with the trade. He needs to realize that Manitoban's generally don't like cocky rich kids who flaunt their money in front of others. At its core it is a blue collar city.

 

[Gnova]

Bylsma even said himself before camp that pairing Kane and Eichel (two guys that want the puck) would be a problem. Then after no games together in preseason he pairs them during the last week of camp, and didn't separate them until last game.

The result was the EXACT thing most of your board warned about - one man show straight into the zone, multiple shots on goal from any/all angles and distance, little production to show for it while his linemates skate around. He's great for possession stats, average at best for actual production.

We mostly think Reinhart and O'Reilly make the most sense for Kane, but Disco knows better after all that time off when nobody wanted him for their HC. I'd rather just see Kane carrying the play of the 3rd line with Larsson or Girgensons at C, Foligno at RW. That could be quite a difficult line to play against, but I think there's a plan to try and make Kane look like a top line scorer and justify the trade. Let's just say I'm skeptical.

Kane won't be happy unleshe gets 1st line minutes and paying a 3rd line player 6m is hard to justify.

 

[sully1410]

which is I think what many of us ARE arguing. I mean We got him in the trade and he's still here. I don't see any reason at all why he no longer factors into the deal...

Except his value for the trade ended when his contract was up. Then we chose to re-sign him, and he chose to sign here...when he just as easily could have signed elsewhere.

So his added value to the trade now is the equivelant of what? A fifth round pick on the generous side? Not really enough to writing home about.

 

[CorgisPer60]

I was very happy about the Kane trade last spring.
I didn't mind Kane's social media forays, I actually found them entertaining.
I didn't like his game though, with his constant whining at officials and one man show attitude on the ice.
I was also happy to see Bogo traded for someone less injury prone. I really enjoyed watching him but the team needed someone more durable.

After reading some of Kane's THN comments I am now very very happy with the trade. He needs to realize that Manitoban's generally don't like cocky rich kids who flaunt their money in front of others. At its core it is a blue collar city.

After what had happened less than a week prior to the trade, I was ecstatic with the trade. Chevy got a motherload for Kane and Bogo. Thank you, based Murray.

 

[SensibleGuy]

After what had happened less than a week prior to the trade, I was ecstatic with the trade. Chevy got a motherload for Kane and Bogo. Thank you, based Murray.

That was exactly the way I felt. In fact, I essentially figured what we'd done was traded Bogo to Buffalo for Myers, Stafford and some other guys and just thrown Kane in on the deal. I honestly was prepared for Kane to be traded for next to nothing. If we managed to get a couple draft picks I wouldn't have been surprised...