inkman Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 6 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said: It can also keep a ship from moving forward. Yeah but there is already an intrinsic meaning of the term anchor in sports and it’s meant as a positive. An anchor of a relay team. An anchor in tug of war. Quote
Broken Ankles Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 44 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said: With all the ex Sabres out there you can nearly make an all star team. Too bad we are the farm team for everyone else. Dysfunction junction. Dysfunction junction what’s your function? Debilitating coaches, players and General Managers Dysfunction junction how’s that function? I’ve got three simple ways to help you lose your love for game. Dysfunction junction what’s their function? I’ve got Tim, Jack and ROR, they’ll get you very far. 1 Quote
Porous Five Hole Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 8 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said: Dysfunction junction what’s your function? Debilitating coaches, players and General Managers Dysfunction junction how’s that function? I’ve got three simple ways to help you lose your love for game. Dysfunction junction what’s their function? I’ve got Tim, Jack and ROR, they’ll get you very far. Dysfunction Conjunction shaped my creepy internet life beyond repair. Quote
GASabresIUFAN Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 15 minutes ago, inkman said: An anchor of a relay team. An anchor in tug of war. The anchor in a tug of war is the participant that can't be moved. The anchor on the relay is the final runner just like dropping anchor on a ship at the end of a voyage. An Anchor in sports also can have a negative connotation as in that player is weighing the team down and that is how it was used in the OP. It's kind of like "goat." Before it got applied to Brady or Michael Phelps as the greatest of all time, calling someone a goat meant that the athlete blew an important play such as Bill Buckner. 2 Quote
SwampD Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 3 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said: You can't look at all situations because if one guy plays on the power play more (Byram) and another plays on the penalty kill more (Samuelson) then you're comparing apples to oranges. Of course you're going to get more expected goals on the PP vs PK. EDIT- just to elaborate some more, advanced stats almost exclusively look at 5 on 5 to take out this major difference. If keen GM were to say though, this guy kinda sucked 5 on 5 expected goal wise but is deadly on the PP, we might be able to mine this undervalued talent for less than market value. Edit 2- On the surface Malenstyn and Aube-Kubel were advanced stats nightmares. But it looks like Adams did his homework and found they had an unprecedented level of defensive assignment last year. Taking that into account, it seems he made a concerted effort to get both of them. Small sample size, but I've really liked A-K and Malenstyn has been okay too. If true, wouldn’t that be a better example of bad coaching, rather than “BYRAM SUCKS!!!!”? Quote
JoeSchmoe Posted October 30 Author Report Posted October 30 17 minutes ago, SwampD said: If true, wouldn’t that be a better example of bad coaching, rather than “BYRAM SUCKS!!!!”? Sorry, I'm not sure what sure what part you're referring to. What I'm saying is 5 on 5, his chance to give up chances ratio (weighted for how good the chance is) is worst on the team. When he's on the ice, the other team is better and we're worse. 1 Quote
PerreaultForever Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 I've been saying Byram's been bad for quite a while but I still think Quinn is worst (at this time). Unfortunately a bad D man impacts your game more than a bad forward does. 1 Quote
PerreaultForever Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said: The anchor in a tug of war is the participant that can't be moved. The anchor on the relay is the final runner just like dropping anchor on a ship at the end of a voyage. An Anchor in sports also can have a negative connotation as in that player is weighing the team down and that is how it was used in the OP. It's kind of like "goat." Before it got applied to Brady or Michael Phelps as the greatest of all time, calling someone a goat meant that the athlete blew an important play such as Bill Buckner. We used to say he's "dead weight" with those connotations. Quote
Archie Lee Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 (edited) I’m not great at finding a comparable, but Byram reminds me of Montour when we got him. Byram is, I think, a better player, but like Montour, I’m not sure the fit is right. In FLA the last two seasons, Montour’s primary partners were Staal and Mikkola, a couple of veteran stay at home types who allowed Montour to selectively roam. We really don’t have such a player to pair with Byram. The negative-side of me thinks this eventually ends with Byram being traded for cents on the dollar and then reaching his prime with a team that pairs him with someone who better matches his skillset and turns him loose (as FLA did with Montour). And you know the rest… Edited October 30 by Archie Lee Quote
Doohicksie Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 28 minutes ago, Archie Lee said: We really don’t have such a player to pair with Byram. Clifton? Muel? (Not "veteran" enough for you?) 1 Quote
Doohicksie Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 31 minutes ago, Archie Lee said: The negative-side of me thinks this eventually ends with Byram being traded for cents on the dollar and then reaching his prime with a team that pairs him with someone who better matches his skillset and turns him loose (as FLA did with Montour). And you know the rest… I still haven't worked out in my mind why Kevyn thought this was a good trade, and why he thought Byram is a good fit for this team. I just don't see it. 1 Quote
7+6=13 Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 10 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said: I think he had a hand in us being this far under the cap. That was likely the driving force behind this trade- given Mitts was up for a raise. So yes, blame Pegula for sure. Can you tell us how many years it's been since we've been in the playoffs? Quote
nfreeman Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 14 hours ago, SwampD said: The “#1” is a bit much and unnecessary, … cuz he’s not. Well it's good to see your smiling face again! Back posting so soon -- I wish the Sabres were half as tough as you are. 1 Quote
Archie Lee Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 29 minutes ago, Doohicksie said: Clifton? Muel? (Not "veteran" enough for you?) My view on our pairings hasn’t changed. With what we have, I think the best pairings are: Dahlin/Power Samuelsson/Jokiharju Byram/Clifton I’m not at all hung up on which is the 2nd or 3rd pair. Quote
Archie Lee Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 34 minutes ago, Doohicksie said: I still haven't worked out in my mind why Kevyn thought this was a good trade, and why he thought Byram is a good fit for this team. I just don't see it. I think it is possible that $ was a factor and that Adams was not positioned to or comfortable with giving Mitts a $6 millionish AAV. He could not possibly sell trading Mitts for futures, so he acquired the best “name-asset” he could. 1 Quote
SwampD Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 24 minutes ago, nfreeman said: Well it's good to see your smiling face again! Back posting so soon -- I wish the Sabres were half as tough as you are. Thanks, got done snowboarding at 6:30 on Monday, had brain surgery and was updating my FB status by 3:30 yesterday. I’ll be home in a few hours. Pretty incredible. 2 3 1 Quote
GoPuckYourself Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 17 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said: Cozens and Quinn get all the attention, but Byram is the worst player on the team right now. He has the LEAST % of defensive zone starts and has the 3rd MOST % offensive zone starts among D (5 on 5). Everything is aligned in his favour. His relative expected goals is -15.2% (how good we are when he's on the ice vs when he's off the ice with 0% being team average). That's a fair bit worse than all of our much maligned 2nd line. Worse yet, we gave up our top scorer last year to get him. We'd for sure be better off with Bryson, Johnson, or Clague (I'm not sure on Gilbert). Relative expected goals? This might be the dumbest ***** I've seen on here in awhile. Seriously could there be a more meaningless stat if this is even a stat? How can you possibly factor that it's better when he's off the ice than when he's on? Is there not other players on the ice at the same time as him who factor in this equation? More nerd stats that people who think they're smarter than everyone created and now everyone goes with it. Quote
Doohicksie Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Archie Lee said: I think it is possible that $ was a factor and that Adams was not positioned to or comfortable with giving Mitts a $6 millionish AAV. He could not possibly sell trading Mitts for futures, so he acquired the best “name-asset” he could. I think he could have brought Mitts in at $6M without messing the rest of the cap up. He's gonna have to pay Byram now instead. The thing that baffles me is that, according to the Mitts camp, the team never even approached them about extending him. Mitts was the perfect Swiss Army Knife forward: Can play wing or center, was okay centering the 3rd line but when Tage was injured he filled in very creditably as 1C. Why would you NOT want that kind of player on your roster? If Casey would have signed for $6M I think you do that all day long. McLeod is making $4.2M and is about a 30 point player at 3C. You get almost twice that production out of Mitts and he seemed content as the 3C who rotated up to the top 6 when needed. It gave the HC great flexibility for juggling the roster, especially when injuries occurred. Another comp would be FLA 3C Anton Lundell, who makes $5M and is about a 30-35 point player. When I look at it all these different ways I'm just aghast that Kevyn so readily parted with Mitts. Think what Lindy could do with his forward lines if he still had Mitts. Edited October 30 by Doohicksie 2 1 Quote
JP51 Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 17 hours ago, Ruff Around The Edges said: The Byram for Mitts deal should get Adams fired. No questions asked. Shoulda been fired before. Should never been allowed to have control over our assets... before the end of the year people will be clamoring for trades... and I will ask... really, is that what you want? Not so much... I envision other NHL offices like this. GM: We need to get a skilled player with upside potential that can compete on the second line with 1st line potential... oh and cheap too... Asst GM: Uhm... shall I just run to the store and get one boss? LOL GM: No you jacka$$ GET ADAMS ON THE PHONE! 1 Quote
GASabresIUFAN Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Doohicksie said: He's gonna have to pay Byram now instead. Not the way he is playing. The problem with Byram isn't solely his fault. He, like Dahlin, is a victim of Adams poor vision for the D group. Getting skaters who can move the puck is a fine idea, but getting skaters who move the puck, but can't play actual defense is not a good idea. Byram is in the second category and we already have Power as that player. If we really want to fix this team we need 1-2 D first D and a top 6 center. I don't think Adams has the skill set to see the problems with his roster or the ability to execute the moves to make those tough decisions. I'd start by trading Cozens and a prospect for a top 6 center. Edited October 30 by GASabresIUFAN 1 Quote
Doohicksie Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said: Not the way he is playing. Which is even worse... giving up Mitts for an underperforming asset. Quote
Pimlach Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 55 minutes ago, SwampD said: Thanks, got done snowboarding at 6:30 on Monday, had brain surgery and was updating my FB status by 3:30 yesterday. I’ll be home in a few hours. Pretty incredible. Get well soon! 1 Quote
Jorcus Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 2 hours ago, Doohicksie said: I still haven't worked out in my mind why Kevyn thought this was a good trade, and why he thought Byram is a good fit for this team. I just don't see it. You have to look at who he is replacing. That would be Ryan Johnson or Jacob Bryson. I am going to think at the end of the day that is an upgrade. Highly mobile defensemen are coveted in todays NHL and there is no mercy on the teams that don't have them. It's 10 games with a new coach and a new system with a skilled developing defenseman. The Ruff system is get the puck out of the D zone as fast as you can vs the Granato system which was to box in gain control and work your way out. I am not sure why he is paired with Power but that may change. I would like to see the three puck movers spread out. 1 Quote
SwampD Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 2 hours ago, Doohicksie said: I still haven't worked out in my mind why Kevyn thought this was a good trade, and why he thought Byram is a good fit for this team. I just don't see it. I’m guessing age. I know we don’t want to hear this old trope, but the Sabres are still a young team. 1 1 Quote
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.