How would you retool this team this summer?

[GASabresIUFAN]

Defensive liability means he gets beat on transition, he is positionally lousy in the D zone and makes bad decisions with the puck.  This isn’t just my opinion but Ruff’s as well.

You mention he was a net positive player.  That’s only true when he played with Dahlin.  

Ultimately my biggest issue with both Power and Byram is that the Sabres need one of them to be able to anchor their own pairing and be effective.  Right now neither player can do it, and until they can play decently in the D Zone they won’t be able to anchor a pair successfully.   

I don’t want to pay 7 mill or more for a young partner for Dahlin if they can’t stand on their own.  Why?  The answer is simple.  When Dahlin got hurt the team lost 13 straight.  One of the main factors in the losing streak was that the other 6 D weren’t good enough defensively.  

We can no longer afford Power and Byram’s on the job training.  Adams gave Power the dumbest contract in the NHL. His offense is worth about $5 mill a season, his defense $-1 mill or more making his contract a net negative to the Sabres of about 4.5 million.  Byram’s new contract should be $4 million max, but it won’t be based on the projections.  So do we really want to hand out a $7 million contract to basically Power 2.0; an all offense no defense blueliner? 

Remember Byram gets almost no PP time.  Power poorly QB’d the 2nd PP.  If we want to max Byram’s offensive value he needs PP time. 

 I think Power and Byram are redundant players.  They are offensively talented, defensively a work in progress (I’m being generous here), and only one of the two gets PP time.  

We need to move on from one of them so that we can reallocate cap resources to defenders who can actually defend.  
 

PS:  If your name is Power, show some and knock someone on their butt once in a while.  He had 26 hits last season. That’s about one hit every 3 games.  Byram had 75.  

Edited 11 hours ago by GASabresIUFAN

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Defensive liability means he gets beat on transition, he is positionally lousy in the D zone and makes bad decisions with the puck.  This isn’t just my opinion but Ruff’s as well.

You mention he was a net positive player.  That’s only true when he played with Dahlin.  

Ultimately my biggest issue with both Power and Byram is that the Sabres need one of them to be able to anchor their own pairing and be effective.  Right now neither player can do it, and until they can play decently in the D Zone they won’t be able to anchor a pair successfully.   

I don’t want to pay 7 mill or more for a young partner for Dahlin if they can’t stand on their own.  Why?  The answer is simple.  When Dahlin got hurt the team lost 13 straight.  One of the main factors in the losing streak was that the other 6 D weren’t good enough defensively.  

We can no longer afford Power and Byram’s on the job training.  Adams gave Power the dumbest contract in the NHL. His offense is worth about $5 mill a season, his defense $-1 mill or more making his contract a net negative to the Sabres of about 4.5 million.  Byram’s new contract should be $4 million max, but it won’t be based on the projections.  So do we really want to hand out a $7 million contract to basically Power 2.0; an all offense no defense blueliner? 

Remember Byram gets almost no PP time.  Power poorly QB’d the 2nd PP.  If we want to max Byram’s offensive value he needs PP time. 

 I think Power and Byram are redundant players.  They are offensively talented, defensively a work in progress (I’m being generous here), and only one of the two gets PP time.  

We need to move on from one of them so that we can reallocate cap resources to defenders who can actually defend.  
 

PS:  If you’re name is Power, show some and knock someone if their butt once in a while.  

I agree. We need to pick either Power or Byram and move the other. 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Defensive liability means he gets beat on transition, he is positionally lousy in the D zone and makes bad decisions with the puck.  This isn’t just my opinion but Ruff’s as well.

When did Ruff say this? Actions matter; he played Byram 23 minutes a night, almost 19 of that at ES and much of that against the other team's best.

The bold is a matter of degree and opinion, supported without much context, and mostly by your insistence on leaning into the xG stats.

In terms of real goals, he is a positive player, despite playing tough minutes on a crappy team. Here is some context:

• Byram 52.0% GF%
• Seider 49.7%
• Faber 48.4%
• Reilly 48.4%
• Sergachev 47.7%
• Dobson 46.3%
• Luke Hughes 46.5%
• Pesce 45.7%
• Karlsson 44.9
• Letang 44.7%
• Sanderson 44.1%
• Rasmus Andersson 37.9%

Liabilities every single one of them? Redundant on Buffalo?

Going down the stretch, they separated Dahlin and Byram. Probably in part to see what Byram did without Dahlin.

With Connor Clifton as his main partner over the final 15 games, Byram had a 53.1% gF%, still playing 19 ES minutes a night.

Does none of this mean anything?

[GASabresIUFAN]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

When did Ruff say this? Actions matter; he played Byram 23 minutes a night, almost 19 of that at ES and much of that against the other team's best.

The bold is a matter of degree and opinion, supported without much context, and mostly by your insistence on leaning into the xG stats.

In terms of real goals, he is a positive player, despite playing tough minutes on a crappy team. Here is some context:

• Byram 52.0% GF%
• Seider 49.7%
• Faber 48.4%
• Reilly 48.4%
• Sergachev 47.7%
• Dobson 46.3%
• Luke Hughes 46.5%
• Pesce 45.7%
• Karlsson 44.9
• Letang 44.7%
• Sanderson 44.1%
• Rasmus Andersson 37.9%

Liabilities every single one of them? Redundant on Buffalo?

Going down the stretch, they separated Dahlin and Byram. Probably in part to see what Byram did without Dahlin.

With Connor Clifton as his main partner over the final 15 games, Byram had a 53.1% gF%, still playing 19 ES minutes a night.

Does none of this mean anything?

The redundancy is Byram to Power or Power to Byram.  We need two offensive D, not 3.  We have Dahlin as No. 1.  The Sabres need to make a choice of Power or Byram, not both.  

From your list, I haven’t studied the in zone D play of most of those guys.  I can say that Hughes is not a good in zone defender and Karlsson has never been good defensively.  Those two for sure would be redundant in Buffalo if they were our 3rd puck moving D and we needed to pay them $7 mill to stay.

By way Clifton/Byram xGF was 44%.  Having a GF of 53% in 15 games seems more like luck.  The pairing had 11 GF vs 10 against, but was demolished in scoring chances (42%) and HDC (42.35%). To put those numbers in context, that pairing allowed 116 scoring chances in 15 games while only creating 84 for the Sabres.  The high danger chances were just as bad; HDCF 36 vs HDCA 49.  Looks to like Reimer often bailed then out.

Edited 8 hours ago by GASabresIUFAN

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The redundancy is Byram to Power or Power to Byram.  We need two offensive D, not 3.  We have Dahlin as No. 1.  The Sabres need to make a choice of Power or Byram, not both.  

From your list, I haven’t studied the in zone D play of most of those guys.  I can say that Hughes is not a good in zone defender and Karlsson has never been good defensively.  Those two for sure would be redundant in Buffalo if they were our 3rd puck moving D and we needed to pay them $7 mill to stay.

By way Clifton/Byram xGF was 44%.  Having a GF of 53% in 15 games seems more like luck.  The pairing had 11 GF vs 10 against, but was demolished in scoring chances (42%) and HDC (42.35%). To put those numbers in context, that pairing allowed 116 scoring chances in 15 games while only creating 84 for the Sabres.  The high danger chances were just as bad; HDCF 36 vs HDCA 49.  Looks to like Reimer often bailed then out.

You realize I have never argued against the bold? Responded directly that it was fair comment.

Neither have I argued against your characterization of Power's play this season.

My entire point is that Byram was a positive two-way contributor this year despite very hard minutes, and not the train wreck you've consistently made him out to be.

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You realize I have never argued against the bold? Responded directly that it was fair comment.

Neither have I argued against your characterization of Power's play this season.

My entire point is that Byram was a positive two-way contributor this year despite very hard minutes, and not the train wreck you've consistently made him out to be.

I’ll be honest and say I’m not enamored with either player. Since I know the Sabres are keeping one of the two, I’d prefer Byram because he does play with some physicality, and unlike Power, he does make an effort on defense.  Still the stats are what they are and they show that neither player is very good defensively away from Dahlin.  

I also believe that if we’d get more value and save more cap $ if we trade Power.  I know this is not a popular opinion, but such is life.  
 

PS you did say you want to bring both Byram and Power back next year in your proposal earlier in this thread.  I just don’t think it makes sense with the $ required to re-sign Byram.  
 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by GASabresIUFAN

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I’ll be honest and say I’m not enamored with either player. Since I know the Sabres are keeping one of the two, I’d prefer Byram because he does play with some physicality, and unlike Power, he does make an effort on defense.  Still the stats are what they are and they show that neither player is very good defensively away from Dahlin.  

I also believe that if we’d get more value and save more cap $ if we trade Power.  I know this is not a popular opinion, but such is life.  
 

PS you did say you want to bring both Byram and Power back next year in your proposal earlier in this thread.  I just don’t think it makes sense with the $ required to re-sign Byram.  
 

 

I did, and that remains my opinion largely because of their age and upside, and because I'd be bringing new, defensively strong guys in the other 3 slots.

But that doesn't mean I don't understand the rationale behind your argument and see its validity.

To me, the issues were primarily Power and Samuelsson in the #2 and #4 slots and too-risky play from the 3rd pair. My plan depends on improvement from Power, which I think we'll see, and a better partner, which I would make a priority. 

I think Byram was very good as a #3 and I would be very happy to keep him at #3 $.

Edited 3 hours ago by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

14 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I would be very happy to keep him at #3 $.

What is #3 $.  The Athletic said he gave us $5.3 mill worth of value last season.  They gave Power a $4.7 mill valuation. 

Cap wages estimates 7 years at 7.277 for Byram.  That is a non-starter for me if the Sabres retain Power.  

I do agree we need 3 new defensemen in our top 6.  Dahlin, JBD and one of Power or Byram, plus 3 new guys who can actually player defense or are accomplished two way players like an Orlov or Gavrikov.  

[dudacek]

57 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What is #3 $.  The Athletic said he gave us $5.3 mill worth of value last season.

Cap wages estimates 7 years at 7.277 for Byram.  That is a non-starter for me if the Sabres retain Power. 

Interesting.

I haven't looked at any comparables, but based on that $5.3M starting point and the projected cap, $5.3M this year computes to:

• $5.5, $6.24, $6.8 over the next 3 years.

Very roughly speaking and assuming a similar cap growth, that $5.3M might translate to something like:

• $7.3, $7.8, $8.3 and $8.8 by the end of the contract.

So assuming Byram plays exactly the same way from 24 to 30 that he did at 23, the math says a 7x$7M seems like good long-term value. 🤷‍♂️

Edited 2 hours ago by dudacek