Evander Kane & Bogo Traded to Buffalo

[FrostyWinnipeg]

29 is getting up there

 

 

Stafford/Winnik both 29. Somewhat worried.

Why does that worry you?

 

29 is at the peak or just past the peak of most players performance.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Courtesy the Twitter stylings of Randy Turner

 

Chevy: Hey, Buffalo. Interested in Chiarot and Perreault?

Sabres: No!

Chevy: But they're out for regular season.

Sabres: (pause) Continue...

[tacklewasher]

Courtesy the Twitter stylings of Randy Turner

 

Chevy: Hey, Buffalo. Interested in Chiarot and Perreault?

Sabres: No!

Chevy: But they're out for regular season.

Sabres: (pause) Continue...

 

LOL

[Brandon]

29 is now old?  This team can use some more experience it's the perfect age IMO. 

[mbrg]

 

 

So you think bringing in Stafford was a mistake too and he should be traded? You think only top teams with very real chances of winning the cup should add talent?

I'm glad you're not our GM.

 

Stafford was completely different than trading for a rental player.  Stafford was one of five pieces the Jets acquired in that trade.  If they had traded a first or second round pick straight up for Stafford - a traditional trade deadline deal - I would have been strongly opposed to that.

 

Instead of giving up pieces of the future like picks or prospects (Kasdorf had no future here), they acquired two prospects and a pick.  What they gave up was two players with fixed term and salary.

 

The reason players like Stafford are called rental players is because teams give up something of value for 3 months of their time, after which they are gone and the team is left with less than what they started.  Unless they win the cup.  In 3 months time the Jets will still have more than what they started with, even if Stafford doesn't stay.  In the mean time he fills holes created by injuries.  He isn't a rental player, he is a bonus on top of the other players we'll keep as part of this deal.

 

Rentals are UFA's traded to teams that think they have a chance to win the cup.

 

 

And the reason that people frown on trading for a rental player isn't because they are UFA's, it's because you trade away a piece of the future to get that UFA.

 

In this particular trade it's pretty easy to show we not only didn't trade away any pieces of the future - Kasdorf and Kane weren't part of the future, Bogosian/Myers is nearly a wash - we acquired 3 pieces for the future.

 

Calling Stafford a rental just because he happens to be a UFA ignores why the term "rental" was applied to those types of trades in the first place.

[mbrg]

So you'd make that trade without Stafford involved?

 

Take out any one of the pieces we got in return and I'd have to give that deal a fair bit of thought.

 

Without Armia, for example, I'd give it a mild thumbs down.

 

Of course the money aspect adds another element, but I don't like to view trades from an accountant's point of view.  In this instance, the money saved may end up used towards a couple of key players who are pending UFA's and RFA's, so the accountant's point of view has value.