JohnC

As the saying goes: Sometimes less is more. 😃

After reading the comments about McCleod, I like this deal. We gave up a good prospect but still have a plenty of comparable or better prospects in the system. Still, would love to add a top six forward to the mix. Getting a player like Ehlers would be wonderful.

If @SwampD and @GASabresIUFAN are positive about this trade, then I'm on board.

My ears may be out of tune. Doesn't this fellow sound like Chubby Checkers?

I worry about his well-being. If he gets shiiiit faced, his wife will pummel him. He doesn't need that arse whipping humiliation in front of his friends. 😀

I didn't take your comments as arguing with me. One of my points about this issue is that Mitts has a versatility that goes beyond playing a single position. Assuming that he could have signed a contract similar to what he signed with Colorada, it would be, in my view, a good value contract. Again, I didn't take your post in a negative. way.

Do not over-imbibe. We need a sober report from your Sabre connections. 🍺

My money is on your first conspiracy theory.

The contract that Mitts signed with Colorada, essentially a bridge contract, was a contract that the Sabres could easily have handled within their cap situation. Mitts is a 2C caliber player (my opinion) whose value is increased because of his versatility. He can play center or wing on any of our three lines. I like Byram, and from a talent standpoint this was a fair trade. As of right now, from a roster building standpoint, it set us back. (My opinion.)

When one depends on too many "ifs", you are already starting off in a precarious position. Injuries are inevitable. Our team is not in a position to handle those setbacks, especially to a primary player, without being derailed. There is a thinness to this roster that bothers me a lot. As you noted, there are simply too many "ifs/assumptions" built into the starting roster. It makes me very queasy.

Maybe or maybe not? I really don't know. The bigger issue is whether the team would be better with both of them on the team. I believe so. And it should be noted that I have said for a while (as you have also) that Quinn is going to be a very good player in this league.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lighten+up+francsi&oq=lighten+up+francsi&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l9.4399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d439af8c,vid:2H-Cs-fi5tA,st:0

You would put Savoie ahead of Kulich as a prospect? I'm not saying you are wrong, just surprised at your ranking. As you point out, sometimes what seems like a vulnerability can in the end turn out to be a fortuitous opportunity. If any three of the prospects you mentioned become this year's version of a Benson, then the angst is reduced.

It's very likely he would have signed a similar deal with Buffalo. The deal he signed with Colorada was essentially a bridge deal that would expire when he was 28, and in his prime. That type of deal would have worked for him here. The agent for Mitts stated that KA barely communicated with him, showing little interest in retaining him. For the superior team that traded for him he becomes a 2C. They valued his talents enough to let go a promising young defenseman who contributed in is rookie year in their Cup run. That tells you that they valued Mitts a lot, much more than KA did. In my mind, and in Colorado's view, Mitts is a 2C talent. If he would have played as a 3C in Buffalo, so what. There is nothing wrong playing a 2C talent on a lower line. That's an indication of team depth. As I have said, the issue isn't whether the trade of Mitts for Byram was a fair/good trade. It was. But from a roster building standpoint, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position (so far) it seems to be a negative deal.

We agree on the caliber of player Byram will be. With respect to your first point, I strenuously disagree that Mitts wouldn't have signed a similar (bridge deal) with Buffalo. By all accounts he liked it here and was invested in this team. With respect to your second point regarding preferred skill sets, he may not fit perfectly with what you want in style of play, but it can't be argued that he wasn't a legitimate 2/3 C who can also move up to the top line (as he did) and keep it functioning as a top line. He also has the versatility to play wing when needed. In essence, what you are saying is that with a cup contending and superior team he fits in but with a less talented team he doesn't. That argument doesn't resonate with me. As I have repeatedly stated, this was a good and fair trade for each team as a one on one transaction. But in my view, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position to replace the departed player, it turned out to be a negative deal from a roster building standpoint. Why hasn't the GM found a replacement for Mitts? Because the cost to replace him is extremely high. That's my point. Our GM is a checker player competing against chess players. This was a stolid performance by the GM that lacked vision and anticipation.

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game.

Byram potentially is an upgrade in the defensive group. But there is a balancing act that has to be considered. By dispatching Mitts without adequately replacing him, we lost a player who not only was a 2/3 C player, but also a player who can fill in on the top line when required and still maintain a top line proficiency. (That's exacrly what happened when he filled in for Tage the prior year.) On top of that, Mitts was versatile enough where we can also play the wing when required. So far, we haven't filled the void of a Mitts departure. In my view, it would have been better to keep Mitts and bring in a lesser defenseman who maybe plays a more physical game. I have said all along that this trade was a good trade for both teams. However, if the Mitts hole is not adequately replaced, then the balance tilts away from the Sabres. (My opinion. )

I have no problem with moving on from Skinner. That's not the issue. Who is replacing him or Mitts? If you don't have a plan to fill the void, you are creating more deficits. Subtracting talent is easy to do. Adding talent to surpass the talent you dispatched is what a GM is supposed to do. As things stand right now, he hasn't done what he gets paid to do.

He's a checkers player competing with chess players. A tactical thinker who is incapable of thinking strategically.

The contract that Mitts signed with Colorada was a very reasonable/manageable contract with respect to term and AAV. Mitts was a 2/3 C who could move up to the top line when needed and keep it functioning as a top line. He was also versatile enough to play the wing. My issue with the Mitts trade is that there didn't seem to be a backup plan to replace him.

It shouldn't be a surprise that a player joining a more talented team is going to do well with the more robust team after leaving the lesser team. One doesn't have to be a hockey insider to recognize that the Sabres not only lacked talent but that the talent deficit was more exposed because of the coaching and roster construction. The Mitts departure is magnified because (so far) there a credible replacement hasn't been found. It just seems that we are spinning our wheels. We fill a hole and then create another hole. You can't catch up to the big boys when you keep spinning your wheels. When will this carcass be resuscitated? It gets so tiresome to see the same futile behavior repeat itself. We're buying the same ticket to nowhere.

I agree with you and @tom websterthat the price for rental players such as Ehlers and Naces is too high. That's why in hindsight, the trading of Mitts for Byram appears to be a misjudgment. Wouldn't it been better to sign Mitts to a deal and then pursue a lesser talent than Byram but a more available physical defenseman? I have said it before that the trading of Mitts for Byram was a fair deal for us assuming that there would be a credible 2/3 C replacement for Mitts. This is still an open issue that can be reasonably resolved.

Maybe you can bump into @GASabresIUFAN. Whatever you do don't talk about the Sabres, and especially about the GM. He'll go ballistic on you! Based on his postings, he's at the boiling point and ready to explode. 🙂

KA is no longer a novice. He's been in the position for 4-5 years now. Of course it is not an easy job. It's a multi-faceted and complicated position that requires a staff that he hires for support. He accepted the job and the responsibility that went with in. In the first few years he was candid enough to let everyone know that his first priority was to rebuild. That stage is past. It's time to compete. He's at a stage where it is not simply about accumulating talent as it is about your record. I just don't see the urgency that I see with other organizations. Too much caution and incrementalism for a generational failed franchise. One's record determines success or failure. Right now, it continues to be a failure. That's disappointing and sad.

Looking back, the Mitts deal doesn't look too appealing. I have said all along that the trade for Byram was a good hockey trade for the parties involved. However, there was an assumption that the Mitts subtraction would eventually include a replacement for the departed player. Even if the replacement wasn't equal, if it came close to comparable, the totality of the deal would have been a net plus for us. It didn't happen. The GM's job requires strategic thinking. At best, KA is a mediocre tactician. This organization is spinning its wheels while most organizations are working hard to move forward.