Judging the off-season: the big picture

[Thorny]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When Tage was plagued with injuries the HC moved Mitts up to center the first line. That line excelled. How many teams can lose their 1C and still have the line play at an optimal level? For me, Mitts brought a greater degree of lineup flexibility than Byram in that he could center three lines or play wing on the top two lines. I'm not diminishing Byram's talent as a top one or two pairing defenseman, rather I am arguing that Mitts brought more value because of his ability to play more roles. 

It’s a good point. They even mentioned, as this team always does, that they had a pidgeonholed role in mind for Bowen upon arrival: that of Dahlin’s partner. It should be noted, considering Byram’s quite poor work on his off hand (not all D can do it) that it was necessarily placing Dahlin on the right. Which, I am fine with, if it needs to come to that, but I’m not sure I would have actively sought a trade that might make it necessary: as good as Dahlin is on the right, there was an excellent deep dive last offseason that demonstrated he’s better on the left. Even if just by a little 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

It’s a good point. They even mentioned, as this team always does, that they had a pidgeonholed role in mind for Bowen upon arrival: that of Dahlin’s partner. It should be noted, considering Byram’s quite poor work on his off hand (not all D can do it) that it was necessarily placing Dahlin on the right. Which, I am fine with, if it needs to come to that, but I’m not sure I would have actively sought a trade that might make it necessary: as good as Dahlin is on the right, there was an excellent deep dive last offseason that demonstrated he’s better on the left. Even if just by a little 

What was perplexing about the Mitts contract and trade situation was the inexplicable disinterest of our GM in keeping Mitts at all. After Mitts was dealt, his agent let it be known that there was no attempt to negotiate with him about the contract. Here was a player that the organization developed (took some time), was versatile and became arguably our best wall player. He went from being a soft player to a grittier and more muscular player. What's exasperating was that the player wanted to be here, and his contract requirement would have been very reasonable and manageable. This was a GM initiative for whatever reason didn't value him. I'm very much perplexed how this situation transpired. 

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Endless doom & gloom is unnecessary and frankly rather depressing.

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

but there are those who only post about shining rainbows, too.

What were the old tropes? Team Storm Cloud? Team ... Sunshine and Kittens?

 

[Thorny]

We should vote on new names. 

I vote for Camp Krusty

[DarthEbriate]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

I really think the two just feed into eachother at this point, Pegula and Adams. Adams *is* Pegula. This cannot he stressed enough. Adams is the guy Terry appointed to spy on the team and fire a bunch of personnel. He quite literally employed him as the weasel. ...

They are peas in a pod 

 

[Taro T]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think there is a good chance the Sabres are better off this year with what Byram/McLeod add than what Casey would have added.

But I also think we’re in the minority and don’t blame the skeptics for disagreeing.

Yep.  McLeod and the brand new 4th line allow Cozens to no longer necessarily have to be pencilled in to playing against the other team's top line when the coach doesn't want to run L1 v L1 (or gets forced into it on the road).  They're really well set up with the other roster moves to let the Cozens - Quinn - ??? line fill the old '06 role of the RAV line.  But if Mittelstadt were still in Buffalo, rather than McLeod, would that Cozens line still be able to be the young sheltered bunch?  Don't believe they would be because the Mitts line would need more protection than the McLeod line will.  (And personally thought Mitts was actually much better in his own end than most people here believed.  But he isn't as good back there as McLeod will be.)

Also expect (maybe it's more hope than expectation, but semantics, whatever) that more than a fair portion of Byram's issues last year is it was likely the 1st time since Squirts that he played on a team with so little defensive structure.  He was really good his 1st 3 or so games and then he stopped just playing and trying to fit into the system.  He could be one of the guys getting the biggest boost from having Ruff behind the bench.  Especially as it seems that Ruff will likely have him pencilled into the 3D role with either Power or Samuelsson typically filling the 2D role.

And stil hate the Mitts deal because it was trading a player that was entering his prime for one that will be hitting his prime in the Quinn-Peterka-Kotalik-Power-Levi timeline.  But right or wrong, Adams did stick to his plan and timeline.  (And really believe that Mitts being more of a top 6 style F than a middle 6er (much like the other 2C's up in the top 6; with none of the 3 showing a REAL affinity for strong play in his own end) and Krebs showing no affintiy yet for strong play in the opponent's end so more of a bottom 6er than a middle 6er was the driving force of using Mitts as the piece to acquire the top 4 D-man that Adams coveted.)  And at the end of the day, the team now has a true 3C on the roster.  And that position was filled at the price of one of the myriad prospect F's.  

People are arguing that the Sabres traded from a position w/ little depth to one that has too much depth now; but am not sure that's the case.  (Especially on the stinking timeline that Adams seems to be working on.)  They went from 3 - top 6C's and 2 (or 3 depending on whether Samuelsson is included as one) top 4D and 0 3C's to 2 - top 6C's (with Kulich, Östlund, Rosen, and Helenius in the pipeline still) and 3 (or 4) top 4D and 1 - 3C today.  Personally would say they did lose 1 position of depth but filled 2 holes by doing so.  Isn't that what GM's are supposed to do?

[nfreeman]

Bottom line is that KA needs to be right about a number of guys who have flashed but are still kinda unproven, and Byram is definitely one of them.

If KA is right about most of his guys, the Sabres will be good to very good this year, and if that happens and Byram is one of the guys he's right about, most of us will be fine with the price the Sabres paid.

If not -- well, we all know what nuclear winter looks like.

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:People are arguing that the Sabres traded from a position w/ little depth to one that has too much depth now; but am not sure that's the case.  (Especially on the stinking timeline that Adams seems to be working on.)  They went from 3 - top 6C's and 2 (or 3 depending on whether Samuelsson is included as one) top 4D and 0 3C's to 2 - top 6C's (with Kulich, Östlund, Rosen, and Helenius in the pipeline still) and 3 (or 4) top 4D and 1 - 3C today.  Personally would say they did lose 1 position of depth but filled 2 holes by doing so.  Isn't that what GM's are supposed to do?

 

The Sabres traded a top 6 forward for a top 4 defender. They specifically traded for a top pair lhd which they have 2 of. Gutting top 6 depth to trade for something you have 2 of because... reasons? Is certainly not filling 2 holes. I think your entire argument here is bad. Unless Byram is as good or better than Power and unless the dangerously thin top 6 doesn't suffer from its lack of depth, this trade was short sighted. 

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

Yep. 

People are arguing that the Sabres traded from a position w/ little depth to one that has too much depth now; but am not sure that's the case.  (Especially on the stinking timeline that Adams seems to be working on.)  They went from 3 - top 6C's and 2 (or 3 depending on whether Samuelsson is included as one) top 4D and 0 3C's to 2 - top 6C's (with Kulich, Östlund, Rosen, and Helenius in the pipeline still) and 3 (or 4) top 4D and 1 - 3C today.  Personally would say they did lose 1 position of depth but filled 2 holes by doing so.  Isn't that what GM's are supposed to do?

1 more thing, having Helenius, Kulich, and Östlund is irrelevant to this entirely. They have Novikov,  Komarov, Kleber, Strbak. All 4 are better fits to round out the top 4.

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

Yep.  McLeod and the brand new 4th line allow Cozens to no longer necessarily have to be pencilled in to playing against the other team's top line when the coach doesn't want to run L1 v L1 (or gets forced into it on the road).  They're really well set up with the other roster moves to let the Cozens - Quinn - ??? line fill the old '06 role of the RAV line.  But if Mittelstadt were still in Buffalo, rather than McLeod, would that Cozens line still be able to be the young sheltered bunch?  Don't believe they would be because the Mitts line would need more protection than the McLeod line will.  (And personally thought Mitts was actually much better in his own end than most people here believed.  But he isn't as good back there as McLeod will be.)

Also expect (maybe it's more hope than expectation, but semantics, whatever) that more than a fair portion of Byram's issues last year is it was likely the 1st time since Squirts that he played on a team with so little defensive structure.  He was really good his 1st 3 or so games and then he stopped just playing and trying to fit into the system.  He could be one of the guys getting the biggest boost from having Ruff behind the bench.  Especially as it seems that Ruff will likely have him pencilled into the 3D role with either Power or Samuelsson typically filling the 2D role.

And stil hate the Mitts deal because it was trading a player that was entering his prime for one that will be hitting his prime in the Quinn-Peterka-Kotalik-Power-Levi timeline.  But right or wrong, Adams did stick to his plan and timeline.  (And really believe that Mitts being more of a top 6 style F than a middle 6er (much like the other 2C's up in the top 6; with none of the 3 showing a REAL affinity for strong play in his own end) and Krebs showing no affintiy yet for strong play in the opponent's end so more of a bottom 6er than a middle 6er was the driving force of using Mitts as the piece to acquire the top 4 D-man that Adams coveted.)  And at the end of the day, the team now has a true 3C on the roster.  And that position was filled at the price of one of the myriad prospect F's.  

People are arguing that the Sabres traded from a position w/ little depth to one that has too much depth now; but am not sure that's the case.  (Especially on the stinking timeline that Adams seems to be working on.)  They went from 3 - top 6C's and 2 (or 3 depending on whether Samuelsson is included as one) top 4D and 0 3C's to 2 - top 6C's (with Kulich, Östlund, Rosen, and Helenius in the pipeline still) and 3 (or 4) top 4D and 1 - 3C today.  Personally would say they did lose 1 position of depth but filled 2 holes by doing so.  Isn't that what GM's are supposed to do?

The critical issue for me isn't whether Mitts is better than Byram or vice versa. In general, I consider this trade to be an equal value trade. Or simply put, a sensible hockey trade. As it stood, to start off Mitts appeared to be our 3C. But for me, his added value was that he could be a good replacement center for either of the two top lines when injuries happened. He also had the ability to move up and play forward when needed. 

You keenly noted that KA looked at the Mitts deal from a timeline perspective influenced by the future options that he had in the system. That strategic thinking influenced by the future, even if it is the near future, bothers me. My view is that the dominant influence should be about the now, not later. 

[#freejame]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

The Sabres traded a top 6 forward for a top 4 defender. They specifically traded for a top pair lhd which they have 2 of. Gutting top 6 depth to trade for something you have 2 of because... reasons? Is certainly not filling 2 holes. I think your entire argument here is bad. Unless Byram is as good or better than Power and unless the dangerously thin top 6 doesn't suffer from its lack of depth, this trade was short sighted. 

1 more thing, having Helenius, Kulich, and Östlund is irrelevant to this entirely. They have Novikov,  Komarov, Kleber, Strbak. All 4 are better fits to round out the top 4.

Not arguing anything you said, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Byram is better than Power. 

[LGR4GM]

Let's look at it this way:

Is it better to have a top 6 of: Thompson , Tuch, Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Mitts, with Benson and Zucker behind or competing with them (3 of those players shoot right and 5 shoot left)

OR 

Is it better to have a top 4 of: Dahlin, Power, Samuelsson, Byram, with Clifton, Joker, Bryson and Johnson behind or competing with them (6 of those players shoot left and 2 shoot right)

 

 

[#freejame]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Let's look at it this way:

Is it better to have a top 6 of: Thompson , Tuch, Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Mitts, with Benson and Zucker behind or competing with them (3 of those players shoot right and 5 shoot left)

OR 

Is it better to have a top 4 of: Dahlin, Power, Samuelsson, Byram, with Clifton, Joker, Bryson and Johnson behind or competing with them (6 of those players shoot left and 2 shoot right)

 

 

If, and it’s a big if, Power and Byram develop out well, I’d personally rather have three fantastic defensemen on the ice 45+ minutes a game than that top 6. Average play from Power and Byram pushes it the other way. 

[That Aud Smell]

24 minutes ago, #freejame said:

If, and it’s a big if, Power and Byram develop out well, I’d personally rather have three fantastic defensemen on the ice 45+ minutes a game than that top 6. Average play from Power and Byram pushes it the other way. 

Are there NHL teams that have featured three excellent d-men? In my brain, I'm stuck on the Chicago model -- where it was Keith and Seabrook.

And my brain wends its way back around to the matter of whether there's a penny pinching approach here: Better to pay excellent d-men because they can be on the ice more? It's more expensive to keep a larger stable of top-6 forwards who can't skate as much?

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Let's look at it this way:

Is it better to have a top 6 of: Thompson , Tuch, Cozens, Quinn, Peterka, Mitts, with Benson and Zucker behind or competing with them (3 of those players shoot right and 5 shoot left)

OR 

Is it better to have a top 4 of: Dahlin, Power, Samuelsson, Byram, with Clifton, Joker, Bryson and Johnson behind or competing with them (6 of those players shoot left and 2 shoot right)

 

 

For me, Dahlin's excellence on his off-side is a factor, but generally this is a great way of looking at it.

 

24 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Are there NHL teams that have featured three excellent d-men? In my brain, I'm stuck on the Chicago model -- where it was Keith and Seabrook.

And my brain wends its way back around to the matter of whether there's a penny pinching approach here: Better to pay excellent d-men because they can be on the ice more? It's more expensive to keep a larger stable of top-6 forwards who can't skate as much?

The most obvious one is the best NHL team of all-time, the late '70s Canadiens.

I'm certainly not going to argue Dahlin Byram Power is Robinson Lapointe Savard — the habs trio were literally all top 10 defencemen at their peak — but the types of games actually kinda parallel. Savard/Power the big smooth calm guy who played the game from a rocking chair, Lapointe/Byram as the fiery boom/bust pace guy, and Robinson Dahlin as the elite, complete, tick all the boxes type.

The more recent example was the Predators squad that had Josi, Ellis, Ekholm and Weber/Subban.

Right now the one that pops initially is Vegas with Pietrangelo, Hanifin and Theodore

Here's another way of looking at it: top 3 of the recent finalists and cup winners:

Forsling, Ekblad, Montour; Ekholm, Bouchard, Nurse; Makar, Toews, Byram; Hedman, Sergachev, McDonough

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

The Sabres traded a top 6 forward for a top 4 defender. They specifically traded for a top pair lhd which they have 2 of. Gutting top 6 depth to trade for something you have 2 of because... reasons? Is certainly not filling 2 holes. I think your entire argument here is bad. Unless Byram is as good or better than Power and unless the dangerously thin top 6 doesn't suffer from its lack of depth, this trade was short sighted. 

1 more thing, having Helenius, Kulich, and Östlund is irrelevant to this entirely. They have Novikov,  Komarov, Kleber, Strbak. All 4 are better fits to round out the top 4.

Again, yes, they traded a top 6 F for a top 4 defender.  But getting hung up on LH / RH on the D is silly in this particular instance.  Dahlin prefers to play on the right side.  Power has played effectively on his off-hand and IIRC so has Byram.

You can say that bringing McLeod doesn't fill a hole, but he does.  Even with Mittelstadt on the roster, the team did not have a "true" 200' 3C.  

Have said REPEATEDLY that this kid personally is NOT a fan of the Mittelstadt for Byram trade (because of their relative ages and where they are each on their development curves and the Mitts/Byram trade realistically being focused on what the team looks like in '26 not last season nor this) but Byram does NOT have to be better than Power to make the Mittelstadt/Byram and McLeod/Savoie trade end up a 2 holes filled (3C + 4D) for 1 spot with depth (2C) situation.  Byram merely needs to be better than Jokiharju for that to be the case.

And, really truly don't see how you can say prospect forwards are "irrelevant to this entirely" when at least one of them will, barring incredibly few injuries at F over the course of the year so none get an opportunity, be a Sabre by the end of this season and then follow that with a list of prospect D that are all further away timelinewise from the NHL than Kulich is.

[LGR4GM]

 

 

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Again, yes, they traded a top 6 F for a top 4 defender.  But getting hung up on LH / RH on the D is silly in this particular instance.  Dahlin prefers to play on the right side.  Power has played effectively on his off-hand and IIRC so has Byram.

You can say that bringing McLeod doesn't fill a hole, but he does.  Even with Mittelstadt on the roster, the team did not have a "true" 200' 3C.  

Have said REPEATEDLY that this kid personally is NOT a fan of the Mittelstadt for Byram trade (because of their relative ages and where they are each on their development curves and the Mitts/Byram trade realistically being focused on what the team looks like in '26 not last season nor this) but Byram does NOT have to be better than Power to make the Mittelstadt/Byram and McLeod/Savoie trade end up a 2 holes filled (3C + 4D) for 1 spot with depth (2C) situation.  Byram merely needs to be better than Jokiharju for that to be the case.

And, really truly don't see how you can say prospect forwards are "irrelevant to this entirely" when at least one of them will, barring incredibly few injuries at F over the course of the year so none get an opportunity, be a Sabre by the end of this season and then follow that with a list of prospect D that are all further away timelinewise from the NHL than Kulich is.

They are relevant because we traded Mitts. 

It isn't about 3c it's about top 6 forwards 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

They are relevant because we traded Mitts. 

Ummm, WHAT?

4 prospect D-men are relevant because Mittelstadt was traded away but 4 prospect C's aren't?  

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Ummm, WHAT?

4 prospect D-men are relevant because Mittelstadt was traded away but 4 prospect C's aren't?  

I think you're missing my point. 

[Thorny]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

They are relevant because we traded Mitts. 

It isn't about 3c it's about top 6 forwards 

Matthew Fairburn of the athletic:

The priority isn’t winning. I’m sorry. 

15 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Again, yes, they traded a top 6 F for a top 4 defender.  But getting hung up on LH / RH on the D is silly in this particular instance.  Dahlin prefers to play on the right side.  Power has played effectively on his off-hand and IIRC so has Byram.

You can say that bringing McLeod doesn't fill a hole, but he does.  Even with Mittelstadt on the roster, the team did not have a "true" 200' 3C.  

Have said REPEATEDLY that this kid personally is NOT a fan of the Mittelstadt for Byram trade (because of their relative ages and where they are each on their development curves and the Mitts/Byram trade realistically being focused on what the team looks like in '26 not last season nor this) but Byram does NOT have to be better than Power to make the Mittelstadt/Byram and McLeod/Savoie trade end up a 2 holes filled (3C + 4D) for 1 spot with depth (2C) situation.  Byram merely needs to be better than Jokiharju for that to be the case.

And, really truly don't see how you can say prospect forwards are "irrelevant to this entirely" when at least one of them will, barring incredibly few injuries at F over the course of the year so none get an opportunity, be a Sabre by the end of this season and then follow that with a list of prospect D that are all further away timelinewise from the NHL than Kulich is.

Byram has assuredly not played affectively on his off hand. His numbers there are atrocious 

[dudacek]

Byram is interesting on 2 levels and you can’t really discuss one without the other: was this a good trade philosophically? And is he a good player?

This is both the lost-in-his-own-zone 46.5 percent Corsi player over 18 Sabre games that @Thorny and @GASabresIUFAN consistently worry about, and the guy who led his team at +15 in 20 playoff games as the #3D on a Stanley Cup winner that Kevyn Adams targeted.

I need the season to start.

Edited September 6 by dudacek

[Pimlach]

On 9/5/2024 at 10:44 AM, dudacek said:

Pegula is saving $1.9M for one year on this deal.

This is how most people seem to see it:

• The Sabres don't have enough talent up front
• The Sabres had enough talent on the blueline
• Mitts was one of the few Sabres who played well last year
• Casey Mittelstadt is better than Bo Byram

This is how I see it:

• The Sabres had 3 top 6 centres
• The Sabres had 3 top 4 defencemen
• The Sabres wanted to get faster and harder to play against
• Peak Bo Byram is more talented and valuable than peak Casey Mittelstadt

I think it was a risky deal, but i have no problem seeing the why.

To add other points to "how you see it":  (1) the Sabres opened up a slot to give Krebs a shot at 3C; and  (2) they think that their prospect pool can help them overcome the loss of Mitts at center.  They failed to trade their #1 pick for top 6 help, so they traded Savoie for a 3C, and they drafted another center in round 1 that now appears to be their new top prospect at center.   Adams tends to miss on attempts to improve the team "right now", to win today, but he does seem to find good prospects/players in the draft.  

I can't wait to see what Byram brings.  I am concerned that a organization like Colorado, a recent Cup winner, was willing to make this trade.   They traded for better value right now (Mitts over Byram) to win today.  Despite Byram's lofty 4OA draft status, they moved on him to fill a big hole in their roster.  

So yes, its a risky deal that counts on Byram reaching his potential.   Most defenseman peak in their late 20's, can they afford to keep Byram that long given the amount of dollars already invested on the blueline?  

[Thorny]

It’s true. At the end of the day, the rest is superfluous if Byram just ends up good. It’s ultimately ok if we are deeper at D than at F if we have 3 all stars on D. We’ve had worse problems. File it under good problems. All that window dressing stuff is just interesting right now because generally you’d be looking to factors like that as a counterpoint/mitigating factor to the obvious talent/output. But without that being demonstrably there last season with Bowen, the “oh and he SHOOTS LEFT, too!” stuff is essentially piling on.

If Byram is good, the trade is fine 

[bob_sauve28]

25 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s true. At the end of the day, the rest is superfluous if Byram just ends up good. It’s ultimately ok if we are deeper at D than at F if we have 3 all stars on D. We’ve had worse problems. File it under good problems. All that window dressing stuff is just interesting right now because generally you’d be looking to factors like that as a counterpoint/mitigating factor to the obvious talent/output. But without that being demonstrably there last season with Bowen, the “oh and he SHOOTS LEFT, too!” stuff is essentially piling on.

If Byram is good, the trade is fine 

That's a reason I like the potential of this trade. Gotta have enough good d-men or you lose hockey games 

[DarthEbriate]

At this rate, I'm not all that worried about Byram's next (bridge) contract given his annual production (he's not yet broken 30 points). Bouchard and Dobson had both had much better seasons than Byram ever had before they signed their bridge contracts. They're at $3.9M/2 and $4M/3, respectively.

(He could have a breakout campaign this season, but probably only if he's on PP1 with Dahlin.)

[Thorny]

28 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

That's a reason I like the potential of this trade. Gotta have enough good d-men or you lose hockey games 

It’s far less concerning on its face than the lack of spending is. Teams that don’t spend to or near the cap also lose hockey games 

I’d be pretty surprised if anyone sought to make a “there’s no internal cap” argument, which is really the only handcuff that matters right now. Assuredly the proof is in the pudding by now, indisputably, as the Sabres have demonstrably spent less and continue to, even while proclaiming winning is the goal knowing full well teams that make the playoffs don’t have the cap space we do.

The goal isn’t winning: it’s winning while spending less.

And that, frankly, is exceptionally insulting to a fanbase waiting on 14 years. There’s no way to spin it: it’s the reality we are in as fans of this franchise 

Edited September 6 by Thorny