Thorny

This is me, but substitute KA. They are part and parcel regardless in reality, in terms of strategy

The rub if that the guy we traded him for was 1st in almost all the categories that mattered. The degree of difficulty is so hard for you here because you have to argue that “see, he’s 15th!” Is some sort of benefit to the positive when we cashed in the greatest trade chip we had to get a player who played poorly. His advanced metrics definitely indicated he was our worst player defensively. Saying he was our worst overall is absolutely, admittedly hyperbole, but I did that on purpose: I knew you’d latch on to it because the name of your game is “see, it’s not THAT bad”. It’s never about what actually is relative to good - the fact you can only cling to Byram being “well not actually our worst player” is my whole point. It’s the intentionally placed low-hanging fruit of my post to engage the war I actually want to wage Time on ice isn’t a positive barometer in and of itself, when he’s spending that time locked in his own end - you are writing home about the fact (let’s see what the salient stat was that you buried in there): the team got outshot by 7 percent when he was on the ice. Good for 15th on the team. Sorry, did I say worst? He’s one of the worst. You win: we only trade Casey for one of our worst players he’s below team average (OUR team!) in half the non time on ice categories you mentioned, near the bottom for the most reflective ones (shot share, etc), and things like hits that don’t correlate to winning (he’s hitting because he’s chasing) and blocked shots (derp) are his biggest claim to fame Quick math in the name of bias (this is a joke)

That’s all well and good but the paper company that supplies the actual sheets in question has buffalo on their NMC (no mailing clause)

You are correct: it’s just a big part of the reason that’s the way it necessarily is, is because the names in question are Malenstyn, McLeod and Zucker

Apologies, meant to respond earlier - I think we need to see this roster approach matching last year’s roster before contemplating the step forward you mentioned. Byram wasn’t just “not the good Byram” he was probably our worst player after acquisition: he certainly was our worst defensively. And the cost was the player performing as our best forward at the time of the deal. The roster being improved over last year imo misses a substantial stair on the way up. Supplemtenting the bottom 6 and running back the rest is what established good teams do. I do agree on Ruff: that’s the biggest unknown variable that could swing pretty substantially in our favour re: the improvement metric. But the tired, “well the improvement is gonna have to come from what we have” end line there is just that - pretty tired. Of course that’s the case, because we didn’t make any top 6 or top 4 additions yet. Laying the entire burden on bounce backs (last year it was re-production of career years) is a choice, and not a good one (I understand you aren’t advocating for that strategy) this team getting into the playoffs this year saves Adams’ job. Key word there is “saves”. He’s well past the situation where merely making the playoffs proves any sort of skill or aptitude: that’s the expected goal of years gone by. This is year 5: making the playoffs is merely that bare minimum that avoids canning. The absolute least you can do to justify having a job. Adams has already proven he isn’t a good GM: now, we are simply waiting for the cookie to crumble our way. Just because you have a below average GM doesn’t mean things can’t go your way the odd time: with our expectations being so absurdly low this far in, with a little bit of luck, Adams can probably amount to an output less-bad enough from what we’ve seen to field the mediocre team required to make the playoffs (see: Washington) As I said, the entire fanbase does this franchise such an incredible solid by us all willingly lowering the bar of expectation time and time and time and time and time again. Playoffs remain reasonably possible: we just need Adams to amount to mediocrity, a vast, vast turn of favour compared to the historic ineptitude we’ve seen to this point

@GASabresIUFAN (and @LGR4GM, in not as many words) really have the heart of it

Exactly. The teams isn’t more “complete” at all. That’s literally a paper theory until he’s actually good on ice It’s like we have been down this road so long we can only value was “is to come”. Casey is better right now. By a lot. I’ll care about the amazing team building logistics of the swap when the actual on ice output is comparable like, in the NOW term. I’ll say Byram is better when he’s better. He’s worse right now.

I’m talking about Casey Mittelstadt, not the Sabres leaving Buffalo the Sabres aren’t leaving Buffalo. It’s like promo is having dinner parties I’m not on the invite list for

I’ve posted like 5 times in a month. To be frank: your posting in general gets old “Endless obsession” because I detailed the fact I liked Casey better in a couple paragraphs, because it was the question proposed, and it’s an “obsession” because you don’t like the answer “Sour grapes”…”endless obsession”…”you guys complained…” you have a vendetta against so many because you want everyone to just be happy with what we have. We are cursed, so hard done by and unlucky, whatever it is this week - - - like, you say it in your post: you literally want me to *not care about the return*, or the cost, merely because i advocated for as much help as we could get. What does that even mean? I didn’t advocate for trading Casey. Because I said Adams should be open to improving everywhere I need to “shut up” about dealing Mittelstadt for a guy who performed as our worst defenseman since acquisition? you just want to police dissatisfaction. In the midst of 13 years. this stinks. reading and emojis may be the way to go when it comes to this place “we have Byram and as such he should be supported” lol what are we even doing here

Option 2 was too accurate to turn down. If we are not viewing the b6 is isolation for this question

Fun series of questions, well done to @dudacek, a true icon of not just sabrespace, but message boards, and really the art of typing on the internet in general - - - Im sort of between 1 and 2 on this, but voted 1 B/c some of my other answers have have had to be on the more negative side and a bit more balance is in order I can’t say he’s a “fantastic” hire, but there isn’t someone i “wanted more”. I do know I really personally LIKE the hire so I’m comfortable going optimistic here and saying he’ll be a non-negligible addition to the improvement side of the ledger this offseason

Option 3. No tldr needed

As of right now Mittelstadt for Byram is a significant loss. It’s really all I can evaluate on because, while I very much liked Savoie for McLeod, that was the second, complementary, “we have to see the rest of the Casey trade” component - presumably we’d have swapped Savoie for a McLeod-level defender instead, had we not switched from C to D in the Byram trade. The corresponding move would have been dependant. Would i rather, this moment in time, Casey on my team (and whoever we’d have gotten for Savoie) than Byram on my team, with McLeod? Yes. Casey is a lot better right now than Byram. The narrative can change: Byram can close that gap or even surpass Casey, or McLeod can turn out to be the type of steal that makes it unlikely that corresponding D asset I mentioned would have been equal. But right now: yep give me Casey. But it’s not really a situation we are backed into a corner on so it’s not the biggest concern in a vacuum Can’t vote B/c I’m between 2 and 3

I mean: not good enough, considering the context. But even though I selected that option, I don’t agree necessarily with the latter part of it that suggests we won’t be a playoff team The moves don’t rule out playoffs being possible: but the totality is along the lines of exactly that - keeping it possible - rather than a configured situation where playoffs are likely, in a year it’s the only acceptable outcome its not the “no stone unturned” option I’ve been opining for since the offseason started: but it’s the option that kept playoffs in range while it’s still clearly not the priority

You can bet on it, but it only matters if you are right THIS year Casey already is

There’s also a difference between whether you “can” contend and your liklihood of actually doing it. Your thoughts on the matter are part and parcel with the Adams mindset: “Look, it MIGHT work. I mean, you can’t rule it out”. The rub is that we are supposed to be miles past that being an acceptable line of thinking. Yes. Maybe we have enough to make the playoffs. The fact we are sitting on a “well, it’s feasible” going into year 5 is what’s absurd. You often fight the “it’s realistically possible” battle when we are 2/3 years passed that being a reasonable situation to enter into a season under. If playoffs don’t look a near certainty headed into a year 5, you are playing a risky, risky game of poker. The truth is that Adams can’t know either way whether his core is good enough. When you add a player like Necas, it’s another bite at the apple. (apple) Cores don’t get typed out and printed on Sabrespace at 5:08 on a Wednesday summer evening: they are ever changing and continuously evolving “Set core” jargon should head to the sabrespace meme thread tbh

This. He’s only on the radar if he gets back to his production from 2 years ago. He doesn’t have a body of work/history to rely on and these teams generally value that. Granted, I’m more familiar with the Canadian team perspective, which has always favoured veteran, proven talent when possible Agree with this, too

So the Blues gave away the third, they can’t sign Holloway then? nm they dealt Ottawa’s 3rd, I see now

“There’s no room on the Sabres for a 50 goal scorer”

A sure sign of looming quality

Quinn’s game isn’t about his shooting It’s merely one of his tools. His game isn’t centered around it

Absolutely. Addition by subtraction from this team is a laughable proposition said at the time: you can buy him out but it depends what you do with it

Also among the worst allocations is being 8 million under the cap of the last 20 teams to be 5 million or more under the cap, only 1 has made the playoffs If we leave that much cap space unutilised, we aren’t trying to make the playoffs. We are trying to make the playoffs while saving money. Very, very different things - - -

Poverty franchise. We love ‘em, but we’re a poverty franchise. We’ll need to get lucky. I direct a lot of ire at Adams (and stand by it) but realistically it alllll starts at the top and being that far under the cap in our position is an absurdity for sure, as you point out. We just deserve so much more as fans, sitting where we are on the precipice of 14. ah well. It’s summer