Long Term: Byram or Power

[inkman]

11 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

I hate to break this to you but if you trade any of Byram, Dahlin or Power you won't be winning many games at all

we already saw what happened when Dahlin went out.   I guarantee a d line up of Jokiharju, Bryson, Clifton and Samuelsson is getting rolled each and every night 

Totally disagree.  The pairing of Dahlin and Byram is everything you want on a top pair except age / experience 

I hate to break this to you, free agency and trades are still a thing.  Not to mention Novikov and Johnson in the wings.  

[Crusader1969]

7 minutes ago, inkman said:

I hate to break this to you, free agency and trades are still a thing.  Not to mention Novikov and Johnson in the wings.  

Yes cause the Sabres aren't on everyone's NTC and you want to get younger on D again? 

[Night Train]

Byram is doing tons more now than Power. He and Dahlin click. 

Power is Mr. Potential and was paid for that over actual value. 

[MISabresFan]

the handfull of games I have been able to watch, Byram you notice him when he is on the ice.  Power seems to disappear and not sure when he is on the ice.  Doesn't seem to make an impact at all.  His game at Michigan in clutch situations was similar-would disappear.  Must be a swiftee in disquise.  In my opinion he is overrated.

[mjd1001]

The past few weeks haven't changed my opinion on the matter:

-If you can get a GREAT return for ONE of them (and if its Power, sign Byram), then make the deal. If not, keep both.  I'm would not be upset either way.

-Byram is better now, but by no means is he 'great'.  He doesn't have close to the overall game that Dahlin has. Yet, he is still good.

-Power is 'just as good' but only 1 out of every 5 games.  Overall he's not as good. But, I think he is the type of player that will get a lot better, its just going to take a few years.

[inkman]

41 minutes ago, MISabresFan said:

the handfull of games I have been able to watch, Byram you notice him when he is on the ice.  Power seems to disappear and not sure when he is on the ice.  Doesn't seem to make an impact at all.  His game at Michigan in clutch situations was similar-would disappear.  Must be a swiftee in disquise.  In my opinion he is overrated.

Is this a shot at his political affiliation or sexual orientation?  Just so I know for the record.  

[Crusader1969]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

The past few weeks haven't changed my opinion on the matter:

-If you can get a GREAT return for ONE of them (and if its Power, sign Byram), then make the deal. If not, keep both.  I'm would not be upset either way.

-Byram is better now, but by no means is he 'great'.  He doesn't have close to the overall game that Dahlin has. Yet, he is still good.

-Power is 'just as good' but only 1 out of every 5 games.  Overall he's not as good. But, I think he is the type of player that will get a lot better, its just going to take a few years.

Keep both and add another top.4 dman 

[PerreaultForever]

One of Byram, Power, Dahlin needs to be traded. Dahlin likely no and he's the best of the three so the return would be the best by far. Power is younger and bigger with more upside so it's likely Byram but 3 top level offensive defenseman on a team is one too many. 

[Crusader1969]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

One of Byram, Power, Dahlin needs to be traded. Dahlin likely no and he's the best of the three so the return would be the best by far. Power is younger and bigger with more upside so it's likely Byram but 3 top level offensive defenseman on a team is one too many. 

Why do they need to be traded?  I dont understand this stance.   Why can't you have 3 offensive / puck moving dmen? 


 

Edited 21 hours ago by Crusader1969

[JohnC]

If the Sabres trade Power they will watch another young player thrive with another team. My preference would be to keep both of these two defenders and upgrade the lower pairings with more stay at home and rugged defenders. Why not add a bigger Clifton type defender to the blueline unit? 

[PerreaultForever]

55 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

Why do they need to be traded?  I dont understand this stance.   Why can't you have 3 offensive / puck moving dmen? 


 

Because you need to play defense. That's why it's called defense. 

You want all puck movers fine, have them, that's what Terry wants. Enjoy last place. 

[PerreaultForever]

52 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the Sabres trade Power they will watch another young player thrive with another team. My preference would be to keep both of these two defenders and upgrade the lower pairings with more stay at home and rugged defenders. Why not add a bigger Clifton type defender to the blueline unit? 

How much money you going to spend on D? These big time puck movers with the scoring stats want more cash than the stay at home types. Flash gets cash but it doesn't keep the puck out of your net. This is why a well constructed roster has 2 of them. One for each PP unit. If you try to have more, your defense suffers and so does your cap. 

[Crusader1969]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

How much money you going to spend on D? These big time puck movers with the scoring stats want more cash than the stay at home types. Flash gets cash but it doesn't keep the puck out of your net. This is why a well constructed roster has 2 of them. One for each PP unit. If you try to have more, your defense suffers and so does your cap. 

I have a feeling the Sabres really don't have to worry about the cap.  Maybe an internal cap? 

 

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

If the Sabres trade Power they will watch another young player thrive with another team. My preference would be to keep both of these two defenders and upgrade the lower pairings with more stay at home and rugged defenders. Why not add a bigger Clifton type defender to the blueline unit? 

Yep.  I agree.   Get some depth for the D and build a strong 7 man unit 

[PerreaultForever]

3 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

I have a feeling the Sabres really don't have to worry about the cap.  Maybe an internal cap? 

 

Not yet, and if they unload Cozens for prospects/picks and go with Kulich and then idk Helenius or whoever they stay low and keep riding those ELCs but if they pay Byram like Power or even a little less you are eating up a heck of a lot of money on a defense that can't defend. Proportionally higher amount than most teams I think. 

[Archie Lee]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

If the Sabres trade Power they will watch another young player thrive with another team. My preference would be to keep both of these two defenders and upgrade the lower pairings with more stay at home and rugged defenders. Why not add a bigger Clifton type defender to the blueline unit? 

I agree with you that Power is very likely to go on to go great things in the league. I also agree with an earlier comment you made, in a different thread I think, that rather than trade players like Cozens and Power we should try supporting them. But, to add impact players of a certain age, experience, and skill-set, means giving up assets that are valuable. We are not likely to acquire an impact veteran player without trading one or two players from our highest end of young assets (Power, Cozens, Byram, Peterka, Benson, Quinn, Kulich, Helenius, 1st rd pick). There is no player in that group who I want to see go, and we all have our untouchables or prefer not to trade players.  But in the right trade for the right veteran…

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I agree with you that Power is very likely to go on to go great things in the league. I also agree with an earlier comment you made, in a different thread I think, that rather than trade players like Cozens and Power we should try supporting them. But, to add impact players of a certain age, experience, and skill-set, means giving up assets that are valuable. We are not likely to acquire an impact veteran player without trading one or two players from our highest end of young assets (Power, Cozens, Byram, Peterka, Benson, Quinn, Kulich, Helenius, 1st rd pick). There is no player in that group who I want to see go, and we all have our untouchables or prefer not to trade players.  But in the right trade for the right veteran…

We don't need to trade any of the young players who are already on the roster to bolster our mismatched roster. We have a number of good prospects and drafts picks to parlay in deals. Tucker was a terrific pickup. What did we give up for him? Nothing. Will we keep him? I hope so. Greenway is a player whose value goes beyond his production stats? He adds veteran presence, ruggedness and intelligent positional play to a roster full of players who too often scramble and lose sight of their defensive responsibilities. What did we give up for him? We gave up a second round pick when we had two of them. 

I have said this on more than a few occasions, so excuse me for the annoying repetition: We don't need blockbuster deals that strip this team further. We need a few astute deals that bolster a disjointed roster. The model to follow is the Washington Caps. Over the past couple of years they have refashioned their roster by acquiring medium range talents, some who underachieved at their former location. The result was that they ended up thickening and better balancing their roster. The Capitals record after 47 games is 32-10-5 for 69 pts. The record for Buffalo after 47 games is 18-24-5 for 41 pts. It wasn't that long ago that both teams were in the same strata. What happened to these two teams going in opposite directions? One organization acted smartly while the other organization demonstrated its mediocrity over the same period. 

My expressions of exasperation with this woebegone franchise is not that we were automatically doomed to failure because that was not the case. It was that the organization didn't seize opportunities to upgrade the roster when there were there opportunities to do so.  Wretched mediocrity in the system created mediocrity on the ice. I blame the obtuse owner and sycophantic GM!

[Archie Lee]

37 minutes ago, JohnC said:

We don't need to trade any of the young players who are already on the roster to bolster our mismatched roster. We have a number of good prospects and drafts picks to parlay in deals. Tucker was a terrific pickup. What did we give up for him? Nothing. Will we keep him? I hope so. Greenway is a player whose value goes beyond his production stats? He adds veteran presence, ruggedness and intelligent positional play to a roster full of players who too often scramble and lose sight of their defensive responsibilities. What did we give up for him? We gave up a second round pick when we had two of them. 

I have said this on more than a few occasions, so excuse me for the annoying repetition: We don't need blockbuster deals that strip this team further. We need a few astute deals that bolster a disjointed roster. The model to follow is the Washington Caps. Over the past couple of years they have refashioned their roster by acquiring medium range talents, some who underachieved at their former location. The result was that they ended up thickening and better balancing their roster. The Capitals record after 47 games is 32-10-5 for 69 pts. The record for Buffalo after 47 games is 18-24-5 for 41 pts. It wasn't that long ago that both teams were in the same strata. What happened to these two teams going in opposite directions? One organization acted smartly while the other organization demonstrated its mediocrity over the same period. 

My expressions of exasperation with this woebegone franchise is not that we were automatically doomed to failure because that was not the case. It was that the organization didn't seize opportunities to upgrade the roster when there were there opportunities to do so.  Wretched mediocrity in the system created mediocrity on the ice. I blame the obtuse owner and sycophantic GM!

I agree that we don't need a blockbuster trade.  The reality though is that our young, under 24, players, would not return a star player. Power would be the exception I think.  One for one, our young players would return the medium range veteran talents that you refer to.

The Capitals are a veteran team with two players on their roster who were under 24 to start the season. There is no room to bolster your roster with medium range veterans, while also giving meaningful ice time to 6-7 forwards under 24.     

 

[Ctaeth]

12 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

Why do they need to be traded?  I dont understand this stance.   Why can't you have 3 offensive / puck moving dmen? 


 

Need is a strong word, but it's not how a successful team is (usually) built. 

1.  Defensemen can play a lot more minutes.  If you have 2 really solid guys, you can have ~50 minutes of the game with at least one of them in.  

2.  Defensemen don't score a ton of goals.  If you put too much money into offensive defensemen, you're handicapping your offense by not paying another good forward AND your defense (because usually offensive defensemen aren't as good at defense!).

3.  Powerplay time.  2 power play units.  3 players vying for 2 spots QBing the pp.    

Making matters more difficult in this specific case is that they are all LHD...

[Archie Lee]

5 minutes ago, Ctaeth said:

Need is a strong word, but it's not how a successful team is (usually) built. 

1.  Defensemen can play a lot more minutes.  If you have 2 really solid guys, you can have ~50 minutes of the game with at least one of them in.  

2.  Defensemen don't score a ton of goals.  If you put too much money into offensive defensemen, you're handicapping your offense by not paying another good forward AND your defense (because usually offensive defensemen aren't as good at defense!).

3.  Powerplay time.  2 power play units.  3 players vying for 2 spots QBing the pp.    

Making matters more difficult in this specific case is that they are all LHD...

The Sabres are getting good offensive value out of their top 3 d-men. There are 3 teams in the league, Colorado, Columbus, and Vegas, whose top 3 scoring D have combined to produce more points this year than Dahlin, Byram, Power. I think you can keep all 3. I think we need to pair one of Byram or Power with Dahlin and find a stable veteran D to pair with the other (Cody Ceci was available this off-season and, occasional mind-cramp aside, would have been a good partner for Power or Byram). Maybe Samuelsson can still be that guy. He has perhaps been our most disappointing player. I also think that our coaching, including head coaching, is below average. Dean Evason, with a couple of different assistants, would have been a better choice, after an actual coaching search. 

[Ctaeth]

30 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

The Sabres are getting good offensive value out of their top 3 d-men. There are 3 teams in the league, Colorado, Columbus, and Vegas, whose top 3 scoring D have combined to produce more points this year than Dahlin, Byram, Power. I think you can keep all 3. I think we need to pair one of Byram or Power with Dahlin and find a stable veteran D to pair with the other (Cody Ceci was available this off-season and, occasional mind-cramp aside, would have been a good partner for Power or Byram). Maybe Samuelsson can still be that guy. He has perhaps been our most disappointing player. I also think that our coaching, including head coaching, is below average. Dean Evason, with a couple of different assistants, would have been a better choice, after an actual coaching search. 

I agree that keeping all 3 would likely make us a better team in a vacuum (if you're planning to pair Byram/Dahlin long term).  But when you account for money, power play time, etc. I think it might become untenable.  To me, it really all depends on what Byram is looking for both contract wise and play wise.  We have OP running the second pp unit.  If Byram wants a large-ish contract and more power play time, you just simply can't keep both him and Power.  Either OP/Byram ought to go.  Paying Byram like he is running the PP and is the alpha in the first pair (when he isnt - Dahlin clearly is IMO) would be a luxury.  

As for those other teams who have high scoring D... I have two responses. 

1:  are they paying all 3 defensemen 7+ million aav?  because I wouldn't be surprised if Byram asks for 7 mill aav. you are then paying 3 defensemen a lot of money (and not all will be used on the pp).  if byram's ask is in a more reasonable range, i'm open to keeping him as dahlin's partner (if this is indeed what dahlin wants)

2:  who is really driving play there?  with colorado and vegas, I'd argue it is their elite forwards (eichel, stone, mackinnon, rantanen, etc.) and their defense is benefitting pointwise from being paired with great forwards.