Casey Mittelstadt traded for Bowen Byram

[Believer]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

I guess that's my argument against the trade:  I'm not sure Byram filled an urgent need on the roster.  What I see in him is a player who could possibly a good piece but also is subject to inconsistent play.  But the trade *did* create an urgent need on the roster.  I think we're much worse off with Byram than we were with Mitts.  I'm not saying Byram is a bust or anything.  But I'm saying I don't think there is a clear hole that he is filling, but the absence of Mitts creates a big hole in the forward ranks.

I also realize the die was cast when Tage and Cozens got their contracts.  I think signing those two and making Casey the odd man out was a mistake.  I think Casey had made the case that he was a versatile player that could play anywhere in the Top Nine.  I don't think you can say the same for Cozens or Tage.

While in general I think Kevyn's approach to roster building is sound, I think in this case he messed up.

Was with you until the last paragraph.

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I'm a Casey fan. But as you point out after locking in Cozens and Tage there was going to be a near future issue with cap distribution $$$ within the roster. It's difficult to get a fair assessment of Byram based on the limited games he played for the Sabres. His first few games were impressive, and then he tailed off. That shouldn't have been a surprise because he was playing a new system and with new teammates. What I can say is if the GM doesn't fill the hole of the Mitts departure, then the deal doesn't look as good. This is a let's wait and see before we can come up with a fair assessment of the trade. 

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

The one thing that I am not arguing for is adding a rookie center to the roster. My preference is to add a good 3C player who adds an element of physicality. The GM also needs to upgrade the fourth line with players from the outside who are more physical and tenacious. Adding those types of players (2-3) is attainable. 

You make good point regarding Byram and his future contract. I would rather be in a position to have a talented defensive player and juggle contracts and players to fit that echelon of player. If Byram becomes a first or second pairing player, he will get paid like one. If one stands back and reviews our defensive group (including Ryan Johnson), a reasonable assessment is that it is a quality group. That's a dramatic upgrade from a few years ago. That's not something to complain about----it is something to celebrate. 

All teams with talented rosters have to make tough decisions on who to keep and who to pay. That's a byproduct of the cap system (for all pro sports). I would rather be in that position because we have an abundance of talent than have a low salary structure due to a dearth of talent. 

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, shrader said:

RFA with a qualifying offer probably higher than he’s worth. Is he even back next year?

Interesting question.  Of course there are those RFAs that sign for less than their qualifying offer.  I bet he ends up on an NHL roster next year somewhere.

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

Yes.  123%

[Pimlach]

6 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

 

Yes.  123%

[Doohicksie]

1 minute ago, Pimlach said:

You need to use your toes too for the math to work out.

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, Pimlach said:

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

The problem, at least to me, is not that we traded Mitts but that we traded him for an asset that we already have 4 versions of in Dahlin, Power, Johnson, and Muel. We traded a good asset to fill a hole in arguably the least needy spot on the entire roster, puck moving LHD. Now we have this upcoming season and then we have to decide if we want to pay him and I don't think you can tie up roughly 37% of your cap in Power, Dahlin, Byram, Muel, and Clifton. That might push 40% of your cap after you add the 6th and 7th defender to it. Further more that would mean Dahlin, Power, Muel, and Byram were all on long term deal which limits flexibility and assumes NONE of those guys ever fall off at all which is gambling to lose. It just seems a strange way to use an asset in Mitts when there were needs basically everywhere else. 

[Pimlach]

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The problem, at least to me, is not that we traded Mitts but that we traded him for an asset that we already have 4 versions of in Dahlin, Power, Johnson, and Muel. We traded a good asset to fill a hole in arguably the least needy spot on the entire roster, puck moving LHD. Now we have this upcoming season and then we have to decide if we want to pay him and I don't think you can tie up roughly 37% of your cap in Power, Dahlin, Byram, Muel, and Clifton. That might push 40% of your cap after you add the 6th and 7th defender to it. Further more that would mean Dahlin, Power, Muel, and Byram were all on long term deal which limits flexibility and assumes NONE of those guys ever fall off at all which is gambling to lose. It just seems a strange way to use an asset in Mitts when there were needs basically everywhere else. 

Agree.  Throw in Joker to the list of similar defenders to Byram.   I think one top four defenseman should be a physical, defense first guy, and Muel so far does not bring a physical enough game for my liking, and his availability is low.   Maybe Ruff helps him?  

How much are they going to pay Byram?  I just didn’t see enough good to give him a long term contract.  

Byram might end up a one year Sabre if we are sellers at the deadline once again.  If that happens then add Mitts to a pretty long line of players drafted, developed, and lost.  

Edited April 30 by Pimlach

[Weave]

I still suspect the the trade was made to give the team an additional season to use the asset in a move to bring in a different type of player into the lineup.

I think they ran out of time to use Mitts for that purpose and have bought time.

[dudacek]

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

Quote

Edited April 30 by dudacek

[SwampD]

38 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

Is it not?

I’m still on the fence about Byram. He’s still so young and I’m tired of waiting, but the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres, just due to his place in the lineup, so I’m not against the trade. I just hope Bo turns into what we all hope he will be.

[Doohicksie]

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Captures my sentiments pretty well.

One of the reasons Mitts will not be easy to replace is his versatility.  He can play up and down the Top Nine, center or wing.  As 3C, he was ready depth to move up to the Top Six in the event of injury.

[SabreFinn]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

I still suspect the the trade was made to give the team an additional season to use the asset in a move to bring in a different type of player into the lineup.

I think they ran out of time to use Mitts for that purpose and have bought time.

I have tried to see the trade in different ways, and this is the only thing that makes sence. 

[Mango]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

I think the "Move that defines Adams" will be compounding decisions not just a trade. It will be the allocation of resources to Tage, Cozens, Power at the expense of somebody like Mitts. Even if Byram works out and we want to extend him we are looking at it possibly costing a Quinn, Peterka, etc. I don't think any of this has to do with Byram and it has everything to do with the contracts he has recently given out and whether they outperform the guys we have to let walk because of it. 

Before the Mitts trade there were thoughts thrown out there that we could afford to let Mitts walk because of Cozens and Cozens "could" fill that role down the line because he is younger. Then we traded Mitts. Now I feel like I am starting to get the same vibe around some of the talk around JJP. "Well we have Savoie and Kulich who can fill in and they are young they could be better someday". 

I am hoping Lindy stops the bleeding of real life NHL players in exchange for "could be good someday". 

[Thorner]

On 4/29/2024 at 1:20 PM, dudacek said:

I think the basic disconnect here is that while everyone here thought the Sabres needed to add a top 4 defenceman, a large number of Sabrespacers don’t think that player is Byram.

Nobody says the Knights have too many of the same type of defencemen with Pietrangelo, Theodore and Hanifan. Good is good.

To me, it’s not the theory that’s the big question here, it’s whether or not Byram and Power can be as effective as Theodore and Hanifin.

These are guys expected to round into two-way players like Dahlin has. They aren’t Phil Housleys.

I do like how the Hall of Famer is the one with the apparent negative connotation lol 

[Thorner]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:07 PM, Pimlach said:

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

There was so much “room” for Casey on the roster it’s not even funny. Purely smoke. Purely talent evaluation.  Trade being good or bad will purely be based on who’s the better player straight up 

 

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

The truth of the matter, if we cut to the chase and call a spade a spade, is they brought Byram in specifically to parter Dahlin. Everyone knows that’s what the deal was attempting to do. They weren’t ambiguous about it in their statements on the matter. They have a history of making transactions with this sort of limited mindset. The trade will likely be good if he’s that and not so good if he can’t. He’s supposed to be top pair left shot cause Dahlin can play the right.

Byram doesn’t play the right well. If we dealt the guy who was performing as our best C for a second pair left shot guy interchangeable with our other left shot #3s, I wouldn’t consider the deal good value. If he is going to be a second pair guy by talent exclusively it wasn’t too much to ask for a right shot to aid our balance.

If he’s far and away our best #3 and he’s blocked by an excellent top pair, sure, the deal would be fine regardless of handedness 

it looks a little underwhelming currently. But these things are always subject to change

if Krebs starts next year as 3C, the trade was bad. Really really bad - I’ll put that out there 

 

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Is it not?

I’m still on the fence about Byram. He’s still so young and I’m tired of waiting, but the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres, just due to his place in the lineup, so I’m not against the trade. I just hope Bo turns into what we all hope he will be.

Wait, what? Casey had a better chance to find a role on the best offensive team in the league that he did on the Buffalo Sabres? Consider me skeptical. Maybe I’m misreading your point. 

- - - 

On a tangent: It’s funny that the “this isn’t a video game” bullet point gets brought up most when people advocate for roster moves but in reality it would be most accurately employed when people suggest minimal roster movement. You don’t go to “edit lines” in real life and push “X” in 2 spots and boom your top 2 Cs are set for the next decade. We aren’t “set” at C. We aren’t close to set at C. Or F. Or anywhere on the roster. We have room for Casey.

We even have room for Ilya Kovalchuk 

 

29 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I think keeping Casey would have helped Cozey's development.  Casey could play second line and let Cozens play against lesser competition while he honed his game.  Pay all three of 'em $7 million a year and let whoever's hotter play the top line, whoever's slumping can be 3C.  Jost or Girgs or Krebs or Matt Murray could play 4C; it wouldn't matter with the spine led by Tage, Cozens and Mitts in whatever order.

A big plus we talked about with Tage and Cozens being locked up to reasonable deals is that we *could* afford to pay another centre. I feel like we are willingly mitigating that advantage here.

D is a different minefield: Dahlin is NOT underpaid. Power isn’t as much as the forwards, either.

 

16 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

That’s my point. He is the exact same player. He was always good on the boards and made plays to get the puck to guys. It’s just on Colorado, those guys are there to finish. They weren’t on the Sabres.

Jeeze, is sub context really that difficult.

Lmao I mean ya, sub context really can be that difficult when you are apparently attempting to make the point that he’s the exact same player by saying…precisely the opposite 

 

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Is it not?

I’m still on the fence about Byram. He’s still so young and I’m tired of waiting, but the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres, just due to his place in the lineup, so I’m not against the trade. I just hope Bo turns into what we all hope he will be.

 

So your point is muddled. It’s also inaccurate: if Casey “couldn’t be that guy” here cause we can’t surround him with competent finishers, that’s not a Casey problem that’s a GM problem. That’s a “Casey won’t be that guy here cause of the GM” not “Casey can’t be that guy here” 

your argument is, “the GM isn’t good so by that prism I don’t mind dealing a guy he wasn’t going to do anything with anyways” haha 

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres

That's BS.  He was exactly that player.  When Tage went down in 22-23, Casey kept that top line a-clickin' along.

[Doohicksie]

I think keeping Casey would have helped Cozey's development.  Casey could play second line and let Cozens play against lesser competition while he honed his game.  Pay all three of 'em $7 million a year and let whoever's hotter play the top line, whoever's slumping can be 3C.  Jost or Girgs or Krebs or Matt Murray could play 4C; it wouldn't matter with the spine led by Tage, Cozens and Mitts in whatever order.

[SwampD]

19 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Wait, what? Casey had a better chance to find a role on the best offensive team in the league that he did on the Buffalo Sabres? Consider me skeptical. Maybe I’m misreading your point. 

- - - 

On a tangent: It’s funny that the “this isn’t a video game” bullet point gets brought up most when people advocate for roster moves but in reality it would be most accurately employed when people suggest minimal roster movement. You don’t go to “edit lines” in real life and push “X” in 2 spots and boom your top 2 Cs are set for the next decade. We aren’t “set” at C. We aren’t close to set at C. Or F. Or anywhere on the roster. We have room for Casey.

We even have room for Ilya Kovalchuk 

 

15 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

That's BS.  He was exactly that player.  When Tage went down in 22-23, Casey kept that top line a-clickin' along.

That’s my point. He is the exact same player. He was always good on the boards and made plays to get the puck to guys. It’s just on Colorado, those guys are there to finish. They weren’t on the Sabres.

Jeeze, is sub context really that difficult.

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Lmao I mean ya, sub context really can be that difficult when you are apparently attempting to make the point that he’s the exact same player by saying…precisely the opposite 

 

 

But the role he needs to play on his current team is completely different.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

But the role he needs to play on his current team is completely different.

Exactly. As to Eichel in Vegas. The issue wasn’t the player not fitting, the issue was that we didn’t build a team where good players fit.

cause we didn’t have enough good players 

[SwampD]

Just now, Thorny said:

Exactly. As to Eichel in Vegas. The issue wasn’t the player not fitting, the issue was that we didn’t build a team where good players fit.

cause we didn’t have enough good players 

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

The Leafs did it wrong.  They didn’t tank.

 

Or something.

 

I don’t have a point.  I’m just being sarcastic to be sarcastic .

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

I mean overall roster construction has been by far the biggest issue we’ve had 

We’ve yet to assemble a roster that’s reflected by a standings finish higher than 20th in 13 years 

There is a chasm between the leafs and us. Yes, just assembling a deeper, more balanced group of players is worth a lot on its own 

- unless someone is one of those “only the cup matters” guys and all other result is equal failure until you do… then ya sure there isn’t much that can bridge that conversational gap 

Edited April 30 by Thorny

[Pimlach]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

For the record:  I am on the fence about Bryam.  He is young, and talented, but I have not see enough to pay him big bucks.  What I saw did not blow me away after his first week as a Sabres.  He had a Zubrus-like start though. 

What I saw with Krebs at 3C and and Jost at 4C will not cut it.  They need help at center right now.   

They can extend Byram now, or wait and possibly trade him or lose him.  I am betting they extend him before the season, I sure hope it is a bridge that does not cost a lot.  If it is I will move on from this trade.  

Dahlin, Power, Bryam, Johnson, Joker - all have  attributes that seem similar to me.  I wanted a heavyweight hitter (like Clifton who is a middle weight) but with mobility and puck skills like the others.  Muel could be the key if he can be more physical and stay healthy.  

I don't understand why there was not conversation with Mitts' agent either.  The only explanation is that Adams has a stockpile of center prospects.