Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Good idea 

IMG_0901.jpeg

So, are they assuming they are going to lose in the first round or will you then have to pay for the later rounds?

Posted
1 hour ago, SwampD said:

So, are they assuming they are going to lose in the first round or will you then have to pay for the later rounds?

Do all the later rounds go to national tv?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

NCAA Women’s Frozen Four championship game had Ohio State ahead of Wisconsin 3-2. OS got a penalty with less than 2 minutes in 3rd. Then with 18 seconds left and still ahead 3-2 OS got called for putting a hand over the puck in crease. Wisconsin was given the option of another penalty or a penalty shot. So Wisconsin took the penalty shot and scored. Game went to OT and Wisconsin won the championship.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Shocked 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Flashbacks to Savoie being too high a price to pay for Chychrun. But then, you don't pay Power as much because he's 3D (shorter term/prove it), and then you trade Mitts for a forward or a defensive D to pair with Power instead of the redundant Byrum move. Ripples in the pond.

Posted
1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

Flashbacks to Savoie being too high a price to pay for Chychrun. But then, you don't pay Power as much because he's 3D (shorter term/prove it), and then you trade Mitts for a forward or a defensive D to pair with Power instead of the redundant Byrum move. Ripples in the pond.

It wasn't just Savoie, it was Savoie + our 1st apparently which was Benson

Posted
3 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Flashbacks to Savoie being too high a price to pay for Chychrun. But then, you don't pay Power as much because he's 3D (shorter term/prove it), and then you trade Mitts for a forward or a defensive D to pair with Power instead of the redundant Byrum move. Ripples in the pond.

Or you don't trade Mitts. Why did we anyway? Did he want out? Did they refuse to pay him? It's not that he was so special but trading him created a hole on the roster and just bumped the pay issue down the road with Byram. Now we have a cripple from Ottawa instead. Just a genius organization. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

It wasn't just Savoie, it was Savoie + our 1st apparently which was Benson

True. And I love Benson. But maybe Chychrun's addition means they don't have to rely on Stillman, Bryson, and Clague down the stretch and get two more points that season and sneak into the playoffs.

Then, last year's offseason looks quite a bit different. No Bryson. Probably don't need EJ and Clifton; just one of them. And you can roll Chychrun/Dahlin for 24 minutes a night all season.

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

True. And I love Benson. But maybe Chychrun's addition means they don't have to rely on Stillman, Bryson, and Clague down the stretch and get two more points that season and sneak into the playoffs.

Then, last year's offseason looks quite a bit different. No Bryson. Probably don't need EJ and Clifton; just one of them. And you can roll Chychrun/Dahlin for 24 minutes a night all season.

I just don’t trust that Chychrun doesn’t immediately get hurt akin to Norris.

Posted
10 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

True. And I love Benson. But maybe Chychrun's addition means they don't have to rely on Stillman, Bryson, and Clague down the stretch and get two more points that season and sneak into the playoffs.

Then, last year's offseason looks quite a bit different. No Bryson. Probably don't need EJ and Clifton; just one of them. And you can roll Chychrun/Dahlin for 24 minutes a night all season.

Whether it was Chychrun or someone else I think they did miss a moment that year that could have maybe turned things around. Their timeline was longer (supposed to be now, this year) and they did not seize the moment when they were doing better than expected and didn't make additions to try to get over the hump. Big moment lost. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Did he want out?

All indications point to no.  He seemed shocked he was traded and was a focal point in the Sabres locker room (and not in a bad way).

18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Did they refuse to pay him?

He said they never even approached him or his agent.  I think once Tage and Cozens were signed he was odd man out.

Posted
16 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I just don’t trust that Chychrun doesn’t immediately get hurt akin to Norris.

Washington trusted Chychrun's health status enough to just sign him to an 8 year/$72 m extension.   

Posted
1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

I was meaning when he was dealt to Ottawa

There is no question that he was plagued with injuries with Ottawa and with his prior team, Arizona. However, he was dealt because he was approaching a free agent status and made it clear that he wasn't going to sign with Ottawa. The Washington Capitals pounced on the opportunity to get him at a bargain price. That's what a good GM does i.e. seize on market opportunities. 

Posted
6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

All indications point to no.  He seemed shocked he was traded and was a focal point in the Sabres locker room (and not in a bad way).

He said they never even approached him or his agent.  I think once Tage and Cozens were signed he was odd man out.

I do remember him saying that but you never know the truth of these things behind the scenes. I really don't get the logic in trading Mitts for Byram though in terms of roster construction. If it wasn't contract related why would you trade your top producing center for another puck moving D man with a concussion history? You already had Power and Dahlin (and Jokiharju) in that role. If it was a big tough defensive D man to pair with Power I'd get it but the only thing that makes sense to me here logically is a contract issue that they anticipated and thus avoided for the moment.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

I do remember him saying that but you never know the truth of these things behind the scenes. I really don't get the logic in trading Mitts for Byram though in terms of roster construction. If it wasn't contract related why would you trade your top producing center for another puck moving D man with a concussion history? You already had Power and Dahlin (and Jokiharju) in that role. If it was a big tough defensive D man to pair with Power I'd get it but the only thing that makes sense to me here logically is a contract issue that they anticipated and thus avoided for the moment.

They thought they had 3 top 6 centres and 3 top 4 D.

They thought they were trading from a surplus to address a weakness.

Whether they were right or wrong - Power, Cozens and Samuelsson didn’t live up to their expectation - the reasoning wasn’t mysterious.

Posted
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I do remember him saying that but you never know the truth of these things behind the scenes. I really don't get the logic in trading Mitts for Byram though in terms of roster construction. If it wasn't contract related why would you trade your top producing center for another puck moving D man with a concussion history? You already had Power and Dahlin (and Jokiharju) in that role. If it was a big tough defensive D man to pair with Power I'd get it but the only thing that makes sense to me here logically is a contract issue that they anticipated and thus avoided for the moment.

I agree and this far in the rearview mirror it makes sense, but at that point in time I think Casey's camp could have easily demanded another 7x7 deal; he was showing himself at that time to be slightly better than Cozens so why wouldn't he?  I got the impression that Adams didn't want to sew discontent by offering him substantially less although I seem to remember Casey saying he would have preferred re-signing so maybe he would have been amenable to a hometown discount.  Heck, COL signed him for 5.75 x 3.

I loved the role he played on the Sabres roster:  a better than average 3C but could move up to any top 6 position should the need arise.  The Sabres center spine took a hit when they shipped him out and still hasn't recovered.  And I, too, wonder why they wanted Byram so much, unless that was the best Kevyn could garner for him.  Now that Byram's here, fine, I've been pretty happy with his play.  But I was extremely puzzled at the time why that trade was made.

  • Agree 2
Posted
4 hours ago, dudacek said:

They thought they had 3 top 6 centres and 3 top 4 D.

They thought they were trading from a surplus to address a weakness.

Whether they were right or wrong - Power, Cozens and Samuelsson didn’t live up to their expectation - the reasoning wasn’t mysterious.

If they thought that were they smoking crack?

So Thompson, Cozens, who is the third top 6 center they thought they had?

As for the D, as usual, they have put way too much on Power too early and they have hampered his development. Clearly Adams had faith in Samuelson that was unwarranted but surely they can look around the NHL and see how good defenses are actually built. Can't they? 

or do they think they know better?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...