HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   What player got the better trade return, Vanek or Pominville? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1530971)

La Cosa Nostra 11-03-2013 08:33 PM

What player got the better trade return, Vanek or Pominville?
 
Jason Pominville and Thomas Vanek are now ex-Sabres. Both guys were top players for this team for many years and now both have been traded. They both had similar value, as 65+ point wingers around the same age and same skill set, with Poms being better defensively and Vanek being the better overall offensive player. Between the two trade returns we got for the 2, what team gave us the better package ? The Islanders or the Wild?

The Two Returns:

Minnesota trades 2013 1st #16 (Nikita Zadorov), 2014 2nd, Johan Larsson and Matt Hackett for Jason Pominville and 2014 4th round pick. (Sabres retain 15% of Pominville's salary )

New York Islanders trade 2014 1st (top 10 condition/2015 1st), 2015 2nd and Matt Moulson for Thomas Vanek (Sabres retain 20% of Vanek's salary)

Pominville was traded with 1 full year along with the remaining ~10 games of the regular season and an extra playoff run. Vanek had ~68 regular season games left and a possible playoff run.

I think the return on Vanek was much greater. Pominville had the lower cap hit and extra time on his deal yet Vanek brought back the same top 2 draft picks but instead of an average goalie prospect who may not even make the NHL and a potential top 9 forward prospect who is a promising but not bluechip prospect.

With Vanek, we got back a 1st and 2nd from an at the moment non playoff team along with Matt Moulson who is a proven 30 goal scorer on an expiring deal with an extremely cap friendly deal at 3.1 per. Moulson at the deadline should definitely bring back a 1st and possibly more. So Vanek is either bringing back 2 1sts, a 2nd and possibly more or 1st,2nd and Matt Moulson long term re-signed long term while Pominville brought back a 1st(which was used to take a very promising top end defensive prospect) 2nd and 2 prospects, one much better then the other though neither that exceptional. So what player garnered the better return?

DolanPlsGoSabres 11-03-2013 08:41 PM

I think it really depends on what we view the value of the return as: value at the time of trade or long-term value. Obviously we didn't think the Minnesota pick would end up at 16, so would we view it a lower return if the pick ended up being lower?

Short term value: I think Vanek brought the greater value, because Moulson.
Long term is yet to be seen, but I think it depends how Moulson is treated and how Hackett pans out.

HogtownSabresfan 11-03-2013 08:43 PM

It's silly because Pominville was not a UFA. That will net you more on its own.

crazyaces** 11-03-2013 08:48 PM

BUF also got extremely good value on their #16 overall pick with Zadorov ... which would likely trump a mid 1st round pick you will get in 2014. I think their both good deals, and you got a lot back in return to help rebuild, just take it as a double win!

Moskau 11-03-2013 09:03 PM

Without knowing what will happen to Moulson it's hard to say. He could return another high pick or even multiple picks, he could return a young roster player with potential, or he could re-sign here.

haseoke39 11-03-2013 09:07 PM

Depends on what Moulson gets you.

If Moulson gets you a late first, say, I'll go with Pominville, because of the draft year and, mostly, the extra year on his contract.

Timbo Slice 11-03-2013 09:57 PM

I think it's Pominville, without question. Larsson and the 1st alone is better than what Vanek got, and we also got Hackett in the deal. I like Moulson but he isn't in our long term plans, though we may be able to flip him at the deadline.

Jame 11-03-2013 10:04 PM

vanek did...
simply because they got a 1st and 2nd for simply downgraded from vanek to moulson...

im still shocked at that fleecing...

CraniumCram 11-03-2013 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jame (Post 73795707)
vanek did...
simply because they got a 1st and 2nd for simply downgraded from vanek to moulson...

im still shocked at that fleecing...

Its not a fleecing if Vanek re-signs and wins playoff games.

Jame 11-03-2013 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cramdizzl (Post 73795997)
Its not a fleecing if Vanek re-signs and wins playoff games.

that's outside the spectrum of the trade...

they paid an very very very high price for what i think is a moderate upgrade from moulson to vanek...

in his last full season with tavares, moulson put up 69...
last years stats prorated to 82 games, was on a 76 pt pace

how many more points does vanek need to score to make that upgrade worth a 1st and 2nd?

crazy awesome fleecing for us...

jBuds 11-03-2013 10:30 PM

I think it's Pominville, considering quantity and the likelihood of landing an impact player or two via the draft. Tough to say with vehemence right now.

Zman5778 11-03-2013 11:01 PM

Too tough to call right now.

At first blush, the Vanek trade got us a bona-fide top 6er AND a 1st and 2nd round draft pick.

The Pominville trade got us a 2nd ,a potential 2nd/3rd line guy and a potential top pairing defenseman and maybe a starting goalie.

Vanek got us a more valuable known commodity.

Poms got us good potential...but it's all potential.



The TRUE outcome of these trades hinge on 2 things:
1.) How Zadorov develops
2.) What the Sabres spin Moulson into.


But, let's say that the 1st and 2nd round picks "cancel out" and get us players of relatively equal value.

The remaining: Moulson OR Larsson and Hackett.


Give me Moulson.

La Cosa Nostra 11-03-2013 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo Slice (Post 73795441)
I think it's Pominville, without question. Larsson and the 1st alone is better than what Vanek got, and we also got Hackett in the deal. I like Moulson but he isn't in our long term plans, though we may be able to flip him at the deadline.

I disagree with saying Larsson and a 1st is better then the Vanek package. You think Larsson will ever be as valuable as a consistent 30 goal scorer ?? I sure don't. And I also don't think Hackett will ever be more then a journeyman backup goaltender.The Sabres will either auction off MM at the deadline for a nice return, or we re-sign him and Moulson is the vet goal scorer who is comparable to Vanek at a much cheaper cost. And I don't see how Poms having 1.25 seasons left when he was traded as anything as a hinderence to his value, if anything the fact he was signed for more then just the remainder of the season made him worth more then he actually was.

jBuds 11-03-2013 11:15 PM

Moulson and Vanek cancel each other out in terms of return IMO

msm29 11-04-2013 12:49 AM

I think, in a vacuum, Vanek nets more every time. The only reason it's close is that Pominville was traded a season earlier. I wonder if there were offers on the table for Vanek last year, and I wonder what Buffalo could've gotten relative to the Pominville deal.

You don't get Moulson, a first and a second for one year of Pominville.

New Sabres Captain 11-04-2013 12:53 AM

Pominville got a better return.

Vanek got better value.

If that makes any sense at all.

Djp 11-04-2013 12:57 AM

Pominville Trade (PT) brought back 1st, 2nd , Hackett, and Larsson (both players were 2nd round picks)

Vanek Trade (VT) returns 1st , 2nd, and Moulson

Is VT > PT ???

Is Moulson > Larsson + Hackett

If the trade Moulson and get back a 1st + a prospect like Larsson (decent prospect but not a top 3) then VT> PT

If Moulson walks and Buffalo doesnt trade nor sign then PT > VT

If Moulson resigns w/buffalo --it depends on the contract terms. I dont want him signed to a high or long amount.

jBuds 11-04-2013 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djp (Post 73799715)
Pominville Trade (PT) brought back 1st, 2nd , Hackett, and Larsson (both players were 2nd round picks)

Vanek Trade (VT) returns 1st , 2nd, and Moulson

Is VT > PT ???

Is Moulson > Larsson + Hackett

If the trade Moulson and get back a 1st + a prospect like Larsson (decent prospect but not a top 3) then VT> PT

If Moulson walks and Buffalo doesnt trade nor sign then PT > VT

If Moulson resigns w/buffalo --it depends on the contract terms. I dont want him signed to a high or long amount.

Sin Cos Tan

Plurality method with elimination.

The only point I know on a perpendicular bisector...

Pominvanekville

Chainshot 11-04-2013 07:23 AM

At this point, I'd go with Vanek by a slim margin as Moulson -- an established NHL scoring line player -- is a more finished product than anything that came over in the Pominville deal. That said, when they trade Moulson, the additions fall into the same sort of futures category the Pominville deal returned. The dynamics of it will depend on how the players involved, or the players selected with the picks, are playing -- especially at the NHL level.

Sabresfansince1980 11-04-2013 07:49 AM

If you look at the Pominville deal for what it was at the time of the trade, it was a 1st, next season's 2nd, Larsson and hackett.

Vanek got a (conditonal) 1st, next season's 2nd, and Moulson.

Vanek had less games left than Pominville but Buffalo covered more salary with a higher %, so that kinda evens out. But comparing Moulson to Larsson and Hackett, easily Vanek got the better return.

BUT...if you consider what Pominville's 1st got, a pick that slid up after Minny slid down the standings, and then ended up with a Zadorov sliding to that spot, that's quite an improvement on the original deal. So if Vanek's 1st can turn into a mid-teens pick and result in a high end prospect his return still wins. If not it might end up a tie, but I doubt it since Moulson will likely return another 1st or better.

Coconut Head 11-04-2013 07:51 AM

I think it's too early to say...

Both got great returns in terms of value but distinguishing which one was the better of the two largely depends on how the players we got back pan out. This is the kind of thing that needs to be looked at in hindsight IMO

For Pominville, how will Larsson pan out? Hackett? Zadorov? The 2nd next year?
For Vanek, will Moulson resign? If we trade him at the deadline, how will the pick/prospect we get in return pan out? The 1st and 2nd?

We can't judge right now because most of it hinges on decisions we have to make in the future, draft picks and such. I think it'll take a few years at least before a verdict can be reached

BowieSabresFan 11-04-2013 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 73797817)
Moulson and Vanek cancel each other out in terms of return IMO

How? Vanek is the better player of the two, or am I missing what you are trying to say?

JPurp26 11-04-2013 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainshot (Post 73802737)
At this point, I'd go with Vanek by a slim margin as Moulson -- an established NHL scoring line player -- is a more finished product than anything that came over in the Pominville deal. That said, when they trade Moulson, the additions fall into the same sort of futures category the Pominville deal returned. The dynamics of it will depend on how the players involved, or the players selected with the picks, are playing -- especially at the NHL level.

Agreed.

If we walk out with Reinhart/Nylander/Dal Colle and Perlini/Barbashev/Virtanen/McCann

as well as if we are able get a top 6 young forward (Toffoli type) and a pick or so for Moulson or another first round pick and more for him, than this puts it slightly above the Pominville deal.

BowieSabresFan 11-04-2013 08:13 AM

As for the poll, there should be another option for "Cannot determine yet." There are still a few variables out there that leave this question unanswerable for me.

What I will say, is the return was good for both.

TCRF 11-04-2013 08:16 AM

Can't even begin to give an answer...

But if they draft right and the pieces don't bust then we can say one. I think RIGHT NOW it's the Vanek IMO


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.