JohnC

If we take on a bad contract, then what's the point of making the deal. The financial handcuffs are still on. It would still hurt the ability to get a Byram deal or deal for another upper tier player.

I don't see it happening. The issue isn't so much the return as it is another team willing to take on the contract. And an interesting question is whether the coach has such a jaundiced view of him as many here do? I'm not so sure he is as negative about him as many people think. We shall see.

With Samuelsson's contract, is he tradeable? I have never diminished Byram's talent. I consider him a first pairing caliber of blueliner. My sense is that Byram would prefer being somewhere else where he would be the blueliner who is the #1 player on the unit. And it appears that the organization and player recognize that he is going to be dealt. Sometimes what appears to be doesn't turn out to be; and sometimes what appears to be does turn out to be. KA has made a lot of personnel and salary mistakes. His misapplication and judgment in handling contracts have boxed this franchise options in their options in reworking the roster. (As you noted.)

This is just my opinion, I don't see him on the roster when the season starts. And my sense is that he doesn't want to be here because he sees himself in a Dahlin role that is already assumed by Dahlin.

You made the crushing point in a previous post that because of this franchise's extended history of ineptitude, this franchise isn't an appealing place to come to or be locked into for a long time. And as you searingly noted, it did it to itself. When you shoot yourself in the foot it is difficult to run a race. What happens if he refuses to sign a new deal and rides out his current contract?

Do you think that Byram would sign a 4-5 year deal when waiting another year he would be an UFA when the cap gets bigger? My sense is that Byram is willing to bet on himself and ride out his current contract. Then he would have more teams bidding for him.

It's not certain either way who is going to be the better player. But that issue is somewhat neutralized because Dahlin's style of play overlaps Byram's style of play, and he is better. Byram wants to be a #1 defenseman and a #1 on the PP unit. With the Sabres, he is bumped from that top role because Dahlin assumes it. The one issue that tilts the situation in his favor with his current team is his contract status. After a year, he's in control of his destiny in where he wants to be and whether his contract aspirations will be met. In my view, it would make little sense to jettison Power for Byram unless he is locked up with a long-gilded contract. I just don't see it making sense for Byram to bind himself up with this franchise when he will have better options in the not-too-distant future.

I'm dead set against trading Power over signing Byram to an extended contract, which I doubt will happen. If Byram believes that he is a #1 defender, then his AAV will be in the $8 M plus range or even more as the cap goes up. I don't believe Byram wants to sign a long-term contract here. (My opinion) From a contract standpoint, his best approach will be to ride out his contract and then pursue an even bigger contract as the cap goes up. The best response for the front office would be to trade him this offseason and get the best deal that they can get. What will the return be? I'm not sure. But there should be multiple teams interested in acquiring him so the return should be reasonable enough. I want to be clear that I like Byram as a player a lot. But sometimes what a player wants and what the organization wants to do don't mesh with each other's best interest. If we use him as a chip to get a different type of defenseman and we upgrade the goalie position, those transactions would be substantive roster upgrading acts.

The main reason that the Sabres don’t win is because we have the worst owner in the league who hired a sycophantic GM who is the worst GM in the league. Compound incompetence presiding over a franchise stuck in the muck of mediocrity of their own creation.

In the grand scheme of things when compared to seriously run franchises, I would still say yes that it is far from being a significant accomplishment. For this puny franchise it is an accomplishment.

For last year I would say yes. The year before when Tage was hurt and moved to the wing on a lower line and Mitts moved up to the top line he played well and the production of the line was still a high yield line.

You totally misread my response. Accomplishing the low bar of playoff qualification can be done without depleting its assets. With some wise decisions and a greater exhibition of more urgency that which we all want to attain can be attained. I say this with politeness that it might serve you better if you respond to what was said and not reactively to what you think was said.

You are focusing your attention on the right issue/question. The meaningful issue isn't whether a player going out or coming in is better or not. You can be dispatching a more talented player for a lesser talented player and still come out improving your team because it upgrades a more needed position. One of my primary criticisms of the GM is that he has a scout's mentality in evaluating players without the broader perspective required for a GM position that should have a bigger picture perspective. He simply is not adept at getting the right pieces to stitch together to form a coherent and stronger roster. His accumulated record demonstrates that point. He's had five years on the job. He deconstructed the roster and positioned us on the bottom of the rankings. Where are we after five years of applying his shortsighted methodology?

You may not be aware of it but the GM’s job is to put together a team. The reason to make transactions is to improve the team and be more competitive against other teams. By that measurement the GM is a dismal failure. You may be desperately searching for meaningless moral victories while I’m evaluating our feeble GM based on the team’s record. We were a back of the pack team when he assumed the GM position and after five years we still are a back of the pack team. That’s the real measurement!

Let’s assume he won the Mitts trade. So what? Did it make the team better? Evaluating deals on an individual basis without putting it within the bigger framework of whether it improves the roster or not avoids the team aspect to the equation. My view is that we got the better player while the lesser departed player was a bigger contributor to the team.