JohnC

Of course, Byram has more to prove. His play in his first few games in Bufalo were quite good. Then he struggled. That shouldn't be a surprise because he was playing a new system with unfamiliar players. Let's not forget that it took Mitts a few years before he player at a higher level. And let's not forget that Byram as a rookie was given a very responsible role on a cup winning team. It's not a question of who got the better deal/player. The issue is does making this deal fill a particular need for the respective teams. Again, this was a good hockey trade for each team. (My opinion.) This trade will look even better for Buffalo if the GM can bring in a 2/3 C to replace the traded player.

You are drowning yourself in numbers at the expense of not seeing the obvious: Both teams dealt an asset to address a particular need. Colorado needed a legitimate 2C; and Buffalo added a young first or second pairing defenseman to the group. This was a good hockey trade for each franchise. The deal that the GM made to acquire Byram will look better if he is able to acquire a 2/3 C this offseason. Your attitude toward the GM has become so prejudiced that you are either incapable or unwilling to objectively evaluate his transactions. It may surprise you that not all his dealings are wrong. That is not to say everything he has done is right. Let's just be a little fairer when evaluating his moves.

If you take an overall view of the moves, it will definitely change the character of this roster. Collectively, the roster gets tougher, less finesse and more physicality. In general, the moves follow the GM's publicly stated strategy in how he would like to rework the roster. It adds more maturity (age) to the young group. If the recommendations were followed in this wish list, I would say it isn't overly dramatic but very smart. Not outlandish but very doable.

You nailed what the issue is regarding the Mitts for Byram trade. It seems to me that the GM made a judgment that getting a first or second pairing defenseman is more difficult to get than a 2/3 C player is. And as you point out with your listing of youngsters is that he has an excess in prospects in the system that he can parlay to get the replacement for Mitts. As it stands, our #! and #2 Cs are already on the roster. If the GM can bring in a 2/3 C this offseason, then the Mitts trade makes a lot of sense.

There is nothing new about player movement at trade deadlines. Teams vying for the playoffs and the Cup make moves to improve their teams, even if it is to marginally improve. There was nothing out of the norm for a veteran be dealt at an end of the season deal. Kyle is a highly respected player and person. Why not be happy for this type of person who concluded his long career hoisting the Cup? Good for him!

Isn't that better than wasting away in a franchise stuck in the muck of its own incompetency? I'm happy for Kyle and his family. The lack of graciousness here is unappealing.

You are missing the point by distorting my point. No need to respond. It's pointless.

The Capitals made the playoffs last year, and we did not. I don't particularly care about goal differentials. You either make the playoffs or you don't. They did, and we didn't. As you indicate, the bar for Washington is low. Yet, it is higher than our bar. As I said in the prior post, the Capitals are in the process of making the transition from aging players out to steadily infusing the roster with younger players. What has made the transition even more challenging is trying to maintain a credible team in order to support Ovie in his record pursuit. As you well know, it's a tough process for the fans to endure. Yet, they are doing it without hitting the bottom. That's something that we haven't done.

Washington is in a delicate situation where it is trying to make the transition from old to new by steadily bringing up their high-end prospects. As you point out, Ovie's pursuit of Gretzky's goal scoring is a complicating feature to that transition. If there wasn't an Ovie record consideration, I could see the Capitals dealing Strome for young players. What the Capitals have done demonstrable better than the Sabres is to stay competitive while also making the transition from old to younger.

For a 2/3 C you will have to give up more than you are indicating. For a 3C, I agree with you that it would be too much. Strome is more of a 1/2 C. If available, he's not going to be cheap.

Would you be interested in trading with Washington for Dylan Strome? Maybe cost you a #1, Savoie and Krebs or Joki?

The Caps ended the season with Charlie Lindgren being their #1 goalie with Kuemper the backup. They believe that Dubois can be rehabilitated and become their #2 center. One of their other centers, Strome, might be available. Strome is the caliber of center who I believe can be a 2/3C. Dowd is more of a 4C. He can be acquired for a reasonable price.

No, I'm not saying what you think I said. Of course, if you can get better players at a reasonable, if not better, price, they should do so. I would extend that line of thinking for any player on the roster. If you can get a better player at a similar or lesser price, then get the better player.

Thanks for both of your responses. Based on @Brawndo's comment that he wants to be assured of a NHL roster spot, I would say no thanks. I would rather use our first-round pick as an asset to be parlayed for a NHL ready player.

How good is McCroarty? Where would he rate in our prospect pool?

I would be extremely disappointed with another year of no playoffs. If the team makes the playoffs and is then quickly dispatched, I won't be totally satisfied or dissatisfied. The bottom line for me has to be making the playoffs first and then go on from there.

The GM hasn't made any transactions yet. So why be so dour about what you expect him to do? Your zealotry about Krebs and Joki is perplexing. Whether either of them or both of them stays or go will not have a major bearing on how the team does. So why gets so frenzied over marginal issues? How is the GM going to handle this offseason regarding the reworking of this roster, especially the bottom portion? I don't know. I respectfully recommend you wait a little longer before you unload your fuselage of criticisms for actions that may or may not happen. It wasn't that long ago when you were insistent that Mitts and UPL were lost causes and should be summarily dispatched. You were wrong. Very often patience is a virtue.

You are working too hard to depress yourself. Take a chill pill and give yourself a lift. You are right that it is not inconceivable that Savoie ends up on the roster and that Krebs and Joki get re-signed. But those transactions don't translate into a catastrophe. Loosen up and relax. You may end up being surprised how this offseason actually turns out.

I don't want to belabor a point that I already just made. As I just said it is rare that there is ever unanimity on any issue. Will some people consider a Skinner transaction controversial? Probably so. However, overall, I don't see a Skinner move having much of an effect on the fanbase.

I'm not saying that he is wrong. I'm simply saying that I don't see a buyout of Skinner or trade as being very controversial. That's my view. If you want to say for a faction of the fanbase it would be controversial, then it's likely to be. But it is rare that there is ever any unanimity on any transaction.

You misread and over interpreted my post.

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/muscle-guy-walking-around-beach

A Kane deal would rev up this somnolent fan base.

What's so controversial about a decision to buy-out or trade Skinner? A sizeable majority fans desire it. The controversy would come into play if he was kept.