TB - BUF

[Jets GM]

to the Buffalo Sabres: Brent Burns (77), Marc-Édouard Vlasic (88) and 3rd TB 2013

to the Tampa Bay Lightning: Tim Connolly (69), Zack Kassian (67), Victor Rask (75), 2nd BUF 2012 and 2nd BUF 2013

[SabresGM]

I accept. I wanted to make a splash and here it is. Burns' versatility is huge. If I fail to pick up a top line RW well he can fit right into that spot. Vlasic's Con is through the roof and I hope he fits well in that top LD spot. Kassian was difficult to part with but I was glad I greatly improved up my D without giving up my 1st or Johansen.

[Jets GM]

I had alot of interesting offers on Brent Burns, along with most GMs asking why I was moving him. Long term Id like to have my 1st forward line and defensive pair have a >80 CON. While some may view 77 pretty close to 80, I also had some concerns over Burns defensive game going forward. That was enough to see what his value was and Buffalo stepped up with a offer I couldnt refuse. Kassian is an absolute fucking monster, his CON could be better but pairing him with Stoa (79 CON) and hopefully a physical C with a high CON from one of my five 1st's will curb his inconsistency.

Rask has a complete game aside from his hitting, 80+ faceoffs will be enough for him lock up the 3rd line center spot. The 2nd's should provide more depth for what I believe is a completed bottom six or be used to move up in the 2012 1st round. Connoly is a salay dump. This also makes life even more miserable for MTL having to play BOS and a juiced up BUF on a regular basis.

gl BUF

[Penguin]

Nice trade. Kassian

[SabresGM]

Loosing Kassian does blow but improving my D was necessary.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Eh, not worried about BUF at all.

[SabresGM]

Eh, not worried about BUF at all.

soon...

[Virtual Jarmo]

This trade is under further deliberation from the Committee and will not be ruled upon at the present.

[Virtual Jarmo]

After literally running this deal through my head and having it torment me for three days straight (either I have no life or I care too much about EHEC), in talking it over with my fellow Committee, we have decided to reject this trade.

Obviously, with a lot of big moving parts, an explanation is in order and it might as well be done publicly.

The reason the deliberation took so long was because there are three key components to this trade: the overall impact that the hitting attribute has on the game, the position versatility of Burns, and the higher CONs of Burns and Vlasic than anyone else in the deal.

Clearly, Buffalo's desire to acquire a top pairing defenseman was worth the price of Kassian. In looking at future development, Kassian is probably a better player than Burns, though that may be debatable based on what position Burns is playing. Either way, for the purposes of this explanation, we'll assume them to be relative equals.

That brings us to the rest of the trade package. The inclusion of two second round picks where Rask + Connolly for Vlasic is suffice is what ultimately makes this trade highly questionable. Vlasic is a benefactor of high CON and average attributes. With the 2012 Draft expected to be very deep in real life, I have no doubt that it will be a deeper draft in the EHEC world. That makes the 2012 2nd rounder at least a 7/7 player, perhaps 8/6, or a booster.

Therefore, one of the ways to break this deal down: Burns + 3rd for Kassian + Connolly, Vlasic for Rask + 7/7 (prospect) + 2013 2nd. We fail to see where Vlasic is worth a potential three 7 POT, 7 CON players. There's no way that Burns is a second rounder better than Kassian. At present, perhaps. But, Kassian, in all fastsims I've conducted and asked fellow GMs about, has developed in to a 74-75 OF player with 85-87 DF and 99 HI to go along with mid/high 80s CH. Really, the only difference offensively between Burns and Kassian is Burns's stickhandling, which Kassian could also develop to if set to attack training.

Is Burns a top two pairing defenseman/top six forward? Yes. Is Vlasic a top four D? Probably because of his high CON, but average overall. Is Kassian a top six forward? Yes. Is Rask a solid 2nd/3rd line C in the future? Likely. Is the 2012 2nd a solid 2nd/3rd line F or 2nd pairing defenseman? Most likely. Is Connolly useless? No. He has a high salary and low DF, but has good PL to be a powerplay player and it's not like Tampa is strapped for cash for the upcoming season. It may be an issue for the 2012-13 season, but to insinuate that Connolly was worth adding a 2nd because he's a salary dump is ludicrous.

Much is being made about CON in this trade. From everything that I've read, from EHM vets on fhockey, EHM considers 60-69 CON to be average. Not necessarily a detriment. Not a benefit. Just average.

Realistically, this trade would look a lot better if the added picks were coming from Tampa's side. This would go against Tampa's philosophy, but Burns is going to make 5.525M in his next contract, Vlasic at 3.1M. Even with dumping Connolly, that's an addition of 3M in salary this year for BUF and an additional 2M for 12-13 (Kassian will get a contract for the 2013-2014 season). Consider that BUF is giving up the best player in the trade, adding 5M in future salary, and giving up additional assets that are not being returned in value, we felt it best to reject the trade and expect a reworked deal that is more even for both parties.

Finally, I appreciate the patience of both GMs when we were deliberating this trade and their personal inputs into their thought processes and the way that they broke the trade down. Both parties raised good points, but at the end of the day, there's a value discrepancy in this trade that needs to be addressed.