Judging the off-season: the big picture

[Thorny]

Just now, thewookie1 said:

I honestly hope Byram knocks our socks off this year not only for the team's success but to end the endless Mitts talk. 

I like how your biggest problem with the Sabres isn’t that they have issues, it’s that people talk about them 

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I like how your biggest problem with the Sabres isn’t that they have issues, it’s that people talk about them 

How exactly does bringing up their issues solve them? I'd rather not drive myself batty over every grievance with the team.

Yes the Sabres have issues; anyone with eyes can see that. But turning every possible thread into a rant and raving thread about the evil Pegulas and KA's subservience to them is unnecessary. Endless doom & gloom is unnecessary and frankly rather depressing.

I want the Sabres to make the playoffs and understand they have a myriad of issues but rather than endlessly harp on the "Why it's impossible?" can't we just ask "Why it could happen?" 

We can only rehash the same grievances so many times before they become a nuisance in of themselves and unless you happen to have 3 billion laying around; we can't do anything to fix many of the grievances but we can reduce the sheer level of darkness that permeates the forum.

 

[Thorny]

22 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

How exactly does bringing up their issues solve them? I'd rather not drive myself batty over every grievance with the team.

Yes the Sabres have issues; anyone with eyes can see that. But turning every possible thread into a rant and raving thread about the evil Pegulas and KA's subservience to them is unnecessary. Endless doom & gloom is unnecessary and frankly rather depressing.

I want the Sabres to make the playoffs and understand they have a myriad of issues but rather than endlessly harp on the "Why it's impossible?" can't we just ask "Why it could happen?" 

We can only rehash the same grievances so many times before they become a nuisance in of themselves and unless you happen to have 3 billion laying around; we can't do anything to fix many of the grievances but we can reduce the sheer level of darkness that permeates the forum.

 

Who’s doing that? Which posters only post negatively? There might be a couple here or there, but there are those who only post about shining rainbows, too. It’s balanced.

OF COURSE the overall tone will be negative, and far more negative, because the forum is a *reflection of the team* and we are here to discuss that specific team that has been *historically* bad for 13 years. What exactly do you honestly expect?

Do you want people to pretend we didn’t trade the player who performed as our very best forward last year for a player who was thoroughly mediocre during his time here so far? Like seriously lol. It’s going to get talked about. Isn’t it ok to wait until Byram actually plays well before we say the trade will end up ok? Are we allowed to comment based on our 13 year, and 4 year experience under this regime or do we need to remove all context and arbitrarily focus on saying nice things? 

Your argument seems to be, and you reiterate it several times in your post: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” That’s fine. I’m not sure you are going to find that all too applicable to a sports message board 

you miss a step in your analysis, and probably the only step that matters: no one thinks ranting literally fixes the team. But if so many people are doing it, it should probably tip you off to the fact it might go a little bit of the way towards helping address the angst of the poster. Imagine harping on anything but the franchise that made this happen, imagine taking issue with the fans 

This board is FAR more positive overall than, say, twitter. Frankly, the team should be counting its lucky stars it has a place that talks THIS NICELY about what is, again, one of the worst extended stretches in pro sports of all time. May I draw your attention to the fact the leading option in the poll is that Adams had a “good” offseason! Hope springs eternal, even for this franchise. There’s rampant positivity, in a relative sense  

TL;DR: if you don’t like the Mittelstadt talk, don’t read it 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

This is exactly it. Trading the assured better player now, the guy who’ll help us most now, help us get to the playoffs most now, for the hope we’ll get the better player at some time in the unforseeable future. Prioritizing the future at the expense of the now, if necessary, is exactly Adams to a T and it’s why he fits in so well, part and parcel with Pegula’s EEE strategy 

I think KA thinks that Byram will be better than Mitts this year.

I also think KA is right about that, and that as a result, Byram will cost more to keep than Mitts would've cost.  And I think TP will pony up to keep Byram if that proves out.  So I think that neither "hope for the distant future" nor cheapness factored into the decision to make the trade.

We'll see.

[dudacek]

Am I the only one who liked Casey, but also thinks his contribution has been overstated?

Cozens scored the same number of goals as Casey and had similar xGoals and a very similar Corsi in notably tougher minutes. Cozens had 10 fewer assists, but 3 more primary assists and a +13 advantage in penalties taken/drawn.

And he brought more speed and edge.

The perception here seems to be Dylan was ***** and Casey was great, but is that more about relative to expectation than actual play?

Edited September 5 by dudacek

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I think KA thinks that Byram will be better than Mitts this year.

I also think KA is right about that, and that as a result, Byram will cost more to keep than Mitts would've cost.  And I think TP will pony up to keep Byram if that proves out.  So I think that neither "hope for the distant future" nor cheapness factored into the decision to make the trade.

We'll see.

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.

[Thorny]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Am I the only one who liked Casey, but also thinks his contribution has been overstated?

Cozens scored the same number of goals as Casey and had similar xGoals and a very similar Corsi in notably tougher minutes. Cozens had 10 fewer assists, but 3 more primary assists and a +13 advantage in penalties taken/drawn.

And he brought more speed and edge.

The perception here seems to be Dylan was ***** and Casey was great, but is that more about relative to expectation than actual play?

I remember freeman used to come after me all the time for tailoring arguments to no one in particular and conflating multiple stances into one: who is saying Cozens sucked? Not me. I’m simply pointing out that Casey was our best, which I know you hate* lol (*a joke, if I may) 

Yes, if someone is saying Dylan was horse manure and Casey the second coming of Bilbo Baggins, they’d have a peculiar argument 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[Thorny]

The striking factor should be that Casey, I think we could at least agree, was indisputably *quite good*, and Byram, during his time here, was simply not. But I’m not sure if even that is a bridge too far.

Also, @thewookie1 it should be noted the thread sort of instantly proved your “endless gloom and doom” point erroneous. Within a couple minutes of my postings you have freeman saying…well exactly what you said you wanted to hear, to a T, and dudacek capably supporting his stance. For every poster like me who is merely content to comment on what I’ve actually observed, there are those that like to speculate about what might be 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, 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.

The Sabres had 3 top 6 centers, the now had 2. The Sabres had 2 top 4 LHD, they now have 3. They also have another top LHD that can't stay healthy so they have 3 top 4 LHD. Now with Byram they have only 2 top 6 centers so god forbid their is an injury and 4 LHD for their top 4... on top of alllllll that, the Sabres cut loose another top 6 forward. So they cut 2 top 6 forwards and added yet another top 4 LHD. I hope Byram is awesome to be truthful but from a team building perspective, the trade isn't logical when you have Rasmus Dahlin and Owen Power already here. 

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I remember freeman used to come after me all the time for tailoring arguments to no one in particular and conflating multiple stances into one: who is saying Cozens sucked? Not me. I’m simply pointing out that Casey was our best, which I know you hate lol.

Yes, if someone is saying Dylan was horse manure and Casey the second coming of Bilbo Baggins, they’d have a peculiar argument 

I think most of us have a tendency to react to the board as a singular entity and make observations to the whole based on the whole.

Not precise enough I suppose, but the only thing I really see as an issue there is when it results in people having 2 different conversations, where one is speaking to or about Sabrespace while the other is speaking g to or about the other poster.

[LGR4GM]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Am I the only one who liked Casey, but also thinks his contribution has been overstated?

Cozens scored the same number of goals as Casey and had similar xGoals and a very similar Corsi in notably tougher minutes. Cozens had 10 fewer assists, but 3 more primary assists and a +13 advantage in penalties taken/drawn.

And he brought more speed and edge.

The perception here seems to be Dylan was ***** and Casey was great, but is that more about relative to expectation than actual play?

I don't have a problem with moving on from Mitts, my concern is the lack of team building that the move gave us. If we trade Mitts for a 6'3" RHD with a 30-40pt record and physical nature, great cool. We didn't do that though. We traded for yet another LHD. It would be like having Josh Allen and trading for idk Justin Herbert, what's the point? Are you going to give Byram PP2 time? That means you aren't giving it to Power then. 

[Thorny]

A thread actually making bank on a Thursday afternoon during the summer, centred around dastardly Casey Mittelstadt discourse we’ve all apparently had enough of? 

[LGR4GM]

[GASabresIUFAN]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't have a problem with moving on from Mitts, my concern is the lack of team building that the move gave us. If we trade Mitts for a 6'3" RHD with a 30-40pt record and physical nature, great cool. We didn't do that though. We traded for yet another LHD. It would be like having Josh Allen and trading for idk Justin Herbert, what's the point? Are you going to give Byram PP2 time? That means you aren't giving it to Power then. 

I general I agree with you on the Mitts/Byram trade and I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that Byram outplays Mitts this coming season.  I especially hate that we only get one year on Byram at a fair price.  

I also a agree that I would have preferred a two way RHD.

My hope to make this bad trade work is that Ruff pairs Power and Dahlin with Dahlin as Raz is very comfortable on his off side.  He then tries to build a 2nd pair with Byram as the puck mover.  This issue is neither RHD, Joki or Clifton are that great defensively, likely limiting the effectiveness of Byram's pair.  

As to the PP, my guess is the 2nd PP has 2 D on it with Power as QB and Byram as the L Wall cannon.

 

[dudacek]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't have a problem with moving on from Mitts, my concern is the lack of team building that the move gave us. If we trade Mitts for a 6'3" RHD with a 30-40pt record and physical nature, great cool. We didn't do that though. We traded for yet another LHD. It would be like having Josh Allen and trading for idk Justin Herbert, what's the point? Are you going to give Byram PP2 time? That means you aren't giving it to Power then. 

I guess we shall see how Lindy utilizes them and whether it works.

I won’t agree with the limitations some are already drawing around player deployment until I see it fail.

I would put Byram on the right wall opposite Tage on the top PP and keep Power as the QB of PP2. Failing that, I’d run Byram in that spot on PP2.

Regardless of his PP deployment, I think people are seriously dismissing what he can bring 5-on-5. He’s been one of the NHL’s more productive defencemen at even-strength in Colorado even playing on the 3rd pair with Jack Johnson.

He looked good with Dahlin to my eyes. The idea of pairing him with Mule on pair 2 is intriguing to me as their skill sets seem quite complementary. Combining him with Power away from the other team’s 1st line seems like an intriguing risk/reward experiment. 

The idea of having one of he, Power or Dahlin on the ice at all times - and often 2 of them - should create match-ups Lindy can exploit.

And I fully expect Lindy to be constantly mixing and matching from game to game and within games. The idea that the 3 pairings on the lineup sheet will be rolling over is false.

Some of you seem to see Byram as an Olofsson type who needs to be sheltered and spotted to maximize his value, and who has little value outside an offensive specialist role.

I think he’s better and more rounded than that..

He’s no more redundant in a 3D role than Mitts is as a 3C. All the same arguments apply.

Maybe he’s not the player I think he is, and if that’s the case I’ll be eating crow. But I’ve liked the player for a long time, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he brings under Lindy.

Edited September 5 by dudacek

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I guess we shall see how Lindy utilizes them and whether it works.

I won’t agree with the limitations some are already drawing around player deployment until I see it fail.

I would put Byram on the right wall opposite Tage on the top PP and keep Power as the QB of PP2. Failing that, I’d run Byram in that spot on PP2.

Regardless of his PP deployment, I think people are seriously dismissing what he can bring 5-on-5. He’s been one of the NHL’s more productive defencemen at even-strength in Colorado even playing on the 3rd pair with Jack Johnson.

He looked good with Dahlin to my eyes. The idea of pairing him Mule on pair 2 is intriguing to me as their skill sets seem quite complementary. Combining him with Power away from the other team’s 1st line seems like an intriguing risk/reward experiment. 

The idea of having one of he, Power or Dahlin on the ice at all times - and often 2 of them - should create match-ups Lindy can exploit.

And I fully expect Lindy to be constantly mixing and matching from game to game and within games. The idea that the 3 pairings on the lineup sheet will be rolling over is false.

Some of you seem to see Byram as an Olofsson type who needs to be sheltered and spotted to maximize his value, and who has little value outside an offensive specialist role.

I think he’s better and more rounded than that..

He’s no more redundant in a 3D role than Mitts is as a 3C. All the same arguments apply.

Maybe he’s not the player I think he is, and if that’s the case I’ll be eating crow. But I’ve liked the player for a long time, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he brings under Lindy.

Don’t agree with the redundancy argument. There’s context beyond having a few positions filled on paper: he’s not just a 3D, he’s a 3D behind two first overall picks (who shoot the same way, to liger’s point, in a position where handedness actually is a factor (at least more so than at F). Casey was part of a forward group relying on depth, specifically, a hopeful run 4 lines setup. If our first overall picks on D aren’t elevating their partners to the extent we need another first overall lined up beside them, we are up that creek everyone mentions.

All the same arguments assuredly do not apply, in my estimation 

And that’s counting Casey as equal to the other two centres, as opposed to granting him the fact he was actually better than them last year 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[Thorny]

If we’ve gone and spent so much high draft capital on D, yet feel the first vacant spot on that depth chart is equally important to fill as the first, equally far down the lineup vacant spot on the F depth chart, there’s something wrong there. It doesn’t jive in an accounting for assets sense. Imo liger’s analysis is the most salient, here 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Don’t agree with the redundancy argument. There’s context beyond having a few positions filled on paper: he’s not just a 3D, he’s a 3D behind two first overall picks. Casey was part of a forward group relying on depth, specifically, a hopeful run 4 lines setup. If our first overall picks on D aren’t elevating their partners to the extent we need another first overall lined up beside them, we are up that creek everyone mentions.

All the same arguments assuredly do not apply, in my estimation 

And that’s counting Casey as equal to the other two centres, as opposed to granting him the fact he was actually better than them last year 

Byram played nearly 22 minutes a game for Buffalo. Casey played just over 18.

Byram can be an high-end fallback to Dahlin and Power, just like Casey was to Cozens and Thompson.

Byram can bring unusual skill to the 3rd pair in the same way Casey did to the 3rd line.

Byram alongside Dahlin is better than Jokiharju beside Dahlin in the same manner Ehlers would be preferable to Zucker alongside Tage.

Edited September 5 by dudacek

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If we’ve gone and spent so much high draft capital on D, yet feel the first vacant spot on that depth chart is equally important to fill as the first, equally far down the lineup vacant spot on the F depth chart, there’s something wrong there. It doesn’t jive in an accounting for assets sense. Imo liger’s analysis is the most salient, here 

If you’re saying in a cap world you need to spread resources around more, that’s an interesting point.

The counterargument may be that high-end defenceman play more and cost less. The Sabres model seems to match up best with the Vegas model.

[Thorny]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Byram played nearly 22 minutes a game for Buffalo. Casey played just over 18.

Byram can be an high-end fallback to Dahlin and Power, just like Casey was to Cozens and Thompson.

Byram can bring unusual skill to the 3rd pair in the same way Casey did to the 3rd line.

Byram alongside Dahlin is better than Jokiharju beside Dahlin in the same manner Ehlers would be preferable to Zucker alongside Tage.

Cozens and Thompson are more in need of the fall back insurance. Do you disagree? Do you not see Dahlin and Power as more so the strength of the team, moving forward? 

nm the fact Casey can play wing in the top 6, too 

Byram’s metrics on the right were terrible. Far less positional flexibility with Bowen

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[Thorny]

Not only was Casey better than Byram outright, the distance from Casey to our other two centres is drastically closer than Byram to Dahlin and power 

Casey is arguably at the TOP, being a capable fill in for either is a freebie argument. We are still trying to figure out if Byram is good, outright! Let alone the idea he’s a capable fill in for our 1 overall D men 

[Thorny]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

If you’re saying in a cap world you need to spread resources around more, that’s an interesting point.

The counterargument may be that high-end defenceman play more and cost less. The Sabres model seems to match up best with the Vegas model.

And the counter to that counter would be that forwards on average drive play in todays game far more substantially than D men

- - - 

I don’t see the Vegas model at all. I see a bit of Nashville 

Edited September 5 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Cozens and Thompson are more in need of the fall back insurance. Do you disagree? Do you not see Dahlin and Power as more so the strength of the team, moving forward? 

nm the fact Casey can play wing in the top 6, too 

Byram’s metrics on the right were terrible. Far less positional flexibility with Bowen

Cozens and TT need fallback insurance more than Dahlin does, to be sure -- but not more than Power does.  Cozens and TT have each produced much more in the NHL than Power has.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

If you’re saying in a cap world you need to spread resources around more, that’s an interesting point.

The counterargument may be that high-end defenceman play more and cost less. The Sabres model seems to match up best with the Vegas model.

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. 

[Thorny]

The thing about Power and Byram is that Power was better than him last year. So I’d definitely say the likelihood Casey adequately “backfills” two centres he performed better than is greater than the likelihood Byram can capably backfill a player he performed worse than. Wild, I know. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Byram elevate his game going forward, but certainly not to the extent I expect Power to. The gap between Power and Byram should only grow imo. But I’m pretty high on OP

Edited September 5 by Thorny