dudacek Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Night Train said: If we trade anyone, it's this china doll. You really dumping on the guy for eating pucks and banging bodies? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said: We’ll see if Bryan becomes the top 4 D everyone here think he is. His metrics at Colorado deteriorated the last couple of years and he was terrible here. I’m sorry but there is plenty of reason to worry he won’t become the star you and Adams think he can become. What unrealistic standard are you applying? Who is saying that he has to be a star in order to make his acquisition worthwhile? Odds are very good that he is or will be a first or second pairing defenseman. If that is the case, then it was a fair-value pickup. If your standard in judging this trade in particular is that it has to result in an all-star addition, then you are being unreasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, JohnC said: What unrealistic standard are you applying? Who is saying that he has to be a star in order to make his acquisition worthwhile? Odds are very good that he is or will be a first or second pairing defenseman. If that is the case, then it was a fair-value pickup. If your standard in judging this trade in particular is that it has to result in an all-star addition, then you are being unreasonable. I think for GA, it really just boils down to whether Byram can be: a) better than Casey, and b) more useful to the Sabres as their 3D than Casey was as their 5F And his starting points are: a) Casey was the Sabres best all-around forward last year b) Byram is defensive train wreck whose offence is OK, but unneeded. Edited July 9 by dudacek 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 7 minutes ago, dudacek said: And his starting points are: a) Casey was the Sabres best all-around forward last year b) Byram is defensive train wreck whose offence is OK, but unneeded. Casey was actually are most versatile forward and maybe our most useful forward. I do agree with your assessment of Byram. Our defense is starving for defenders who can defend and Adams gave us a lite version of Dahlin 4 years ago. The questions are will Byram step up and become defensively aware and if he does can Adams even afford to keep him? His Q offer is nearly $4 mill with Arbitration rights. If you sign him long-term, you’ll be paying him likely more than we would have paid to keep Mitts and we are still searching for a good player to replace Mitts’ production. All in all a stupid trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Train Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 26 minutes ago, dudacek said: You really dumping on the guy for eating pucks and banging bodies? The best ability is availability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerreaultForever Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 B pluses? wow, just wow. Well now I know why the Athletic is in financial trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 9 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said: Casey was actually are most versatile forward and maybe our most useful forward. I do agree with your assessment of Byram. Our defense is starving for defenders who can defend and Adams gave us a lite version of Dahlin 4 years ago. The questions are will Byram step up and become defensively aware and if he does can Adams even afford to keep him? His Q offer is nearly $4 mill with Arbitration rights. If you sign him long-term, you’ll be paying him likely more than we would have paid to keep Mitts and we are still searching for a good player to replace Mitts’ production. All in all a stupid trade. As you well know, I was a Casey fan and valued his versatility. My criticism of your comment was the standard you used (Byran being an all-star) in assessing this deal. In general, I considered this a fair deal. However, my preference was to keep Mitts and pursue a more rugged defenseman from the market. It didn't work out that way. But that doesn't mean that this deal is a failure because Byram doesn't turn out to be an all-star, which he will never be. I consider him to be a first or second pairing defenseman. That's nothing to scoff at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 Casey is a good player, but they could not keep every forward. I wanted him signed long-term. Things change when a very good 22 year old Dman comes on the market. Where did Casey figure in here - 2C / 2W ?? 3C ?? Same for Byram ?? The future is unwritten .. 😎 If I am a GM I would trade a top 6 F that looks to be surplus long-term for a top pairing Dman everytime - one that could be your #3 in 4 to 5 years when Power hits his prime. I know most here do not want to think about 4 to 5 years from now when we have miseed the playoff in forever. Me too, but for this trade we need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 15 hours ago, stenbaro said: If our GM has any common sense or brains, the minute Samuelsson plays 15 games in a row without an injury, they trade him. I'm not going back and even researching if he has or has not played 15 in a row, because that's more time than I care to waste of my life on this team anymore. It doesn't take a lot to see he cant stay healthy He’s at the age now, though, where defensemen learn when to not throw the hit that injures themself (see Jake McCabe.) I think he’ll play more than 15 in a row this year. Hope so, anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd1001 Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Sabres Fan in NS said: Casey is a good player, but they could not keep every forward. I wanted him signed long-term. Things change when a very good 22 year old Dman comes on the market. Where did Casey figure in here - 2C / 2W ?? 3C ?? Same for Byram ?? The future is unwritten .. 😎 If I am a GM I would trade a top 6 F that looks to be surplus long-term for a top pairing Dman everytime - one that could be your #3 in 4 to 5 years when Power hits his prime. I know most here do not want to think about 4 to 5 years from now when we have miseed the playoff in forever. Me too, but for this trade we need to. I'm not sure if it is going to work, but the plan for this team long term might be to have a 'decent' forward group, but to have the best D-group in the league, at least top 2 pairings that can be out there close to 75% of the time and in virtually all critical situations. I think it was the 2014 Olympics, Canada played 6 games I think and allowed a total of 3 or 4 goals over that entire time. Yes, they had good goaltending and yes, they had great forwards, but they won because the d-pairings were suffocating. They played the game the right way, hardly made mistakes, and most importantly, once they got the puck on their stick in their own zone they skated or passed it out easily. My guess is the team's vision for when the Sabres will be really good is to have them play that way, total control of the game from the blue line. I'm not saying it will WORK, but that seems to be the play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, mjd1001 said: I'm not sure if it is going to work, but the plan for this team long term might be to have a 'decent' forward group, but to have the best D-group in the league, at least top 2 pairings that can be out there close to 75% of the time and in virtually all critical situations. I think it was the 2014 Olympics, Canada played 6 games I think and allowed a total of 3 or 4 goals over that entire time. Yes, they had good goaltending and yes, they had great forwards, but they won because the d-pairings were suffocating. They played the game the right way, hardly made mistakes, and most importantly, once they got the puck on their stick in their own zone they skated or passed it out easily. My guess is the team's vision for when the Sabres will be really good is to have them play that way, total control of the game from the blue line. I'm not saying it will WORK, but that seems to be the play. I agree that this appears to be the plan, but I will add that last year they seemed to be moving in the direction of the forwards playing a sufffocating style too, with goals coming as they come. I believe this will be amplified under coach Ruff. This formula is likely to bring success in the playoff - at least it did this last playoff. The Panther D is not anywhere near the best in the NHL, but everyone played the right way to win in the playoff. Edited July 9 by Sabres Fan in NS more goodly ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, SwampD said: He’s at the age now, though, where defensemen learn when to not throw the hit that injures themself (see Jake McCabe.) I think he’ll play more than 15 in a row this year. Hope so, anyway. I've always thought staying healthy was a skill reflective of talent and awareness for lack of a better word. It's not good luck. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky old man Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 The grades are hilarious for the previous years. All of Adam‘s actions this year are the actions he should’ve taken before the start of last season. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoted Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 So the Sabres are a B when it comes to selling players to Cup winning teams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 Here's another kinda off-season report card Quote That’s the goal here, a look at which teams look better on paper now compared to where they were at the start of the offseason. That number is based on what the team’s Net Rating is now compared to what it would’ve been at the end of the 2023-24 season. From most value added to least, here’s how each team has changed this offseason. 9. Buffalo Sabres Net Rating added: +12 Salary added: $5 million Key Additions: Ryan McLeod, Jason Zucker, Nicolas Aube-Kubel, Beck Malenstyn, Sam Lafferty Key Departures: Jeff Skinner, Victor Olofsson, Zemgus Girgensons The Sabres completely revamped their bottom six and the result is a much more formidable group. That’s headlined by Ryan McLeod who looks like a great bet as the team’s defensive third-line center for years to come. He came at a high price, yes, but he’s exactly what the Sabres needed. The rest of the guys don’t move the needle much individually, but together they’re an improvement over what Buffalo previously had in its bottom six. If the team’s star players can look closer to the version of themselves from 2022-23, the Sabres should find themselves in the playoff mix. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5626787/2024/07/10/nhl-teams-offseason-2024/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, LGR4GM said: Here's another kinda off-season report card https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5626787/2024/07/10/nhl-teams-offseason-2024/ That's a positive review. McLeod is really the key. If he can play a solid 2-way game and add just a touch more offense, the team should be improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.