Casey Mittelstadt traded for Bowen Byram

[Thorny]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:07 PM, Pimlach said:

And Adams now has the exact same issue with Byram.  We are paying Dahlin $11M, and Power got $8M after one season, and got  Muel got $4.5M after 54 NHL games.    How much is Byram going to get?   

What sours me is that Mitts' agent says Adams never talked to them about a contract.  Ok, fine if he is not in the plan.   But he brings in Byram who is going to be looking to get paid and now he has a big hole to fill - sure he has some good prospects but are we going to do play 20 year old's for another year or two?  

I doubt Lindy signed up for that.   If he is going to fix things under his two year contract they are not going to go with rookie centers.  

There was so much “room” for Casey on the roster it’s not even funny. Purely smoke. Purely talent evaluation.  Trade being good or bad will purely be based on who’s the better player straight up 

 

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

The truth of the matter, if we cut to the chase and call a spade a spade, is they brought Byram in specifically to parter Dahlin. Everyone knows that’s what the deal was attempting to do. They weren’t ambiguous about it in their statements on the matter. They have a history of making transactions with this sort of limited mindset. The trade will likely be good if he’s that and not so good if he can’t. He’s supposed to be top pair left shot cause Dahlin can play the right.

Byram doesn’t play the right well. If we dealt the guy who was performing as our best C for a second pair left shot guy interchangeable with our other left shot #3s, I wouldn’t consider the deal good value. If he is going to be a second pair guy by talent exclusively it wasn’t too much to ask for a right shot to aid our balance.

If he’s far and away our best #3 and he’s blocked by an excellent top pair, sure, the deal would be fine regardless of handedness 

it looks a little underwhelming currently. But these things are always subject to change

if Krebs starts next year as 3C, the trade was bad. Really really bad - I’ll put that out there 

 

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Is it not?

I’m still on the fence about Byram. He’s still so young and I’m tired of waiting, but the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres, just due to his place in the lineup, so I’m not against the trade. I just hope Bo turns into what we all hope he will be.

Wait, what? Casey had a better chance to find a role on the best offensive team in the league that he did on the Buffalo Sabres? Consider me skeptical. Maybe I’m misreading your point. 

- - - 

On a tangent: It’s funny that the “this isn’t a video game” bullet point gets brought up most when people advocate for roster moves but in reality it would be most accurately employed when people suggest minimal roster movement. You don’t go to “edit lines” in real life and push “X” in 2 spots and boom your top 2 Cs are set for the next decade. We aren’t “set” at C. We aren’t close to set at C. Or F. Or anywhere on the roster. We have room for Casey.

We even have room for Ilya Kovalchuk 

 

29 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I think keeping Casey would have helped Cozey's development.  Casey could play second line and let Cozens play against lesser competition while he honed his game.  Pay all three of 'em $7 million a year and let whoever's hotter play the top line, whoever's slumping can be 3C.  Jost or Girgs or Krebs or Matt Murray could play 4C; it wouldn't matter with the spine led by Tage, Cozens and Mitts in whatever order.

A big plus we talked about with Tage and Cozens being locked up to reasonable deals is that we *could* afford to pay another centre. I feel like we are willingly mitigating that advantage here.

D is a different minefield: Dahlin is NOT underpaid. Power isn’t as much as the forwards, either.

 

16 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

That’s my point. He is the exact same player. He was always good on the boards and made plays to get the puck to guys. It’s just on Colorado, those guys are there to finish. They weren’t on the Sabres.

Jeeze, is sub context really that difficult.

Lmao I mean ya, sub context really can be that difficult when you are apparently attempting to make the point that he’s the exact same player by saying…precisely the opposite 

 

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Is it not?

I’m still on the fence about Byram. He’s still so young and I’m tired of waiting, but the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres, just due to his place in the lineup, so I’m not against the trade. I just hope Bo turns into what we all hope he will be.

 

So your point is muddled. It’s also inaccurate: if Casey “couldn’t be that guy” here cause we can’t surround him with competent finishers, that’s not a Casey problem that’s a GM problem. That’s a “Casey won’t be that guy here cause of the GM” not “Casey can’t be that guy here” 

your argument is, “the GM isn’t good so by that prism I don’t mind dealing a guy he wasn’t going to do anything with anyways” haha 

[Doohickie]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

the Casey that is on Colorado right now was never going to be that Casey with the Sabres

That's BS.  He was exactly that player.  When Tage went down in 22-23, Casey kept that top line a-clickin' along.

[Doohickie]

I think keeping Casey would have helped Cozey's development.  Casey could play second line and let Cozens play against lesser competition while he honed his game.  Pay all three of 'em $7 million a year and let whoever's hotter play the top line, whoever's slumping can be 3C.  Jost or Girgs or Krebs or Matt Murray could play 4C; it wouldn't matter with the spine led by Tage, Cozens and Mitts in whatever order.

[SwampD]

19 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Wait, what? Casey had a better chance to find a role on the best offensive team in the league that he did on the Buffalo Sabres? Consider me skeptical. Maybe I’m misreading your point. 

- - - 

On a tangent: It’s funny that the “this isn’t a video game” bullet point gets brought up most when people advocate for roster moves but in reality it would be most accurately employed when people suggest minimal roster movement. You don’t go to “edit lines” in real life and push “X” in 2 spots and boom your top 2 Cs are set for the next decade. We aren’t “set” at C. We aren’t close to set at C. Or F. Or anywhere on the roster. We have room for Casey.

We even have room for Ilya Kovalchuk 

 

15 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

That's BS.  He was exactly that player.  When Tage went down in 22-23, Casey kept that top line a-clickin' along.

That’s my point. He is the exact same player. He was always good on the boards and made plays to get the puck to guys. It’s just on Colorado, those guys are there to finish. They weren’t on the Sabres.

Jeeze, is sub context really that difficult.

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Lmao I mean ya, sub context really can be that difficult when you are apparently attempting to make the point that he’s the exact same player by saying…precisely the opposite 

 

 

But the role he needs to play on his current team is completely different.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

But the role he needs to play on his current team is completely different.

Exactly. As to Eichel in Vegas. The issue wasn’t the player not fitting, the issue was that we didn’t build a team where good players fit.

cause we didn’t have enough good players 

[SwampD]

Just now, Thorny said:

Exactly. As to Eichel in Vegas. The issue wasn’t the player not fitting, the issue was that we didn’t build a team where good players fit.

cause we didn’t have enough good players 

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

The Leafs did it wrong.  They didn’t tank.

 

Or something.

 

I don’t have a point.  I’m just being sarcastic to be sarcastic .

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Jee, It's almost like that is how a hockey team is put together.

I thought all we needed was to amass elite talent. That's working well for the Leaves.

I mean overall roster construction has been by far the biggest issue we’ve had 

We’ve yet to assemble a roster that’s reflected by a standings finish higher than 20th in 13 years 

There is a chasm between the leafs and us. Yes, just assembling a deeper, more balanced group of players is worth a lot on its own 

- unless someone is one of those “only the cup matters” guys and all other result is equal failure until you do… then ya sure there isn’t much that can bridge that conversational gap 

Edited April 30 by Thorny

[Pimlach]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think I’m the only person on here who thinks Byram was brought in because they wanted to add a long-term top-4 defenceman and they think he can be that guy.

And the vibe I’m getting is “they can’t be stupid enough to think ^^^ therefore it must be about contracts, or a prelude to another trade down the road.”

When the trade happened I called it a boom or bust depending on Byram’s ceiling, because he’s got more upside, but Mitts is better right now.

But now I’m starting to see it more as the move that defines Adams: if it fails, it will be the one that everyone points to when they are explaining why Adams had to be fired.

Sabre fans liked the player who was traded, they don’t think he’s going to be easy to replace, they don’t think the player acquired is a good fit, and they’re not sure even if he’s any good.

Then you’ve got that whole undercurrent of “we needed to get tougher and this didn’t do it” combined with the stronger undercurrent of “you told us to be patient and then you traded away a guy who was worth being patient for, only to tell us to be patient with the new guy.”

Sounds like a recipe for pitchforks.

 

For the record:  I am on the fence about Bryam.  He is young, and talented, but I have not see enough to pay him big bucks.  What I saw did not blow me away after his first week as a Sabres.  He had a Zubrus-like start though. 

What I saw with Krebs at 3C and and Jost at 4C will not cut it.  They need help at center right now.   

They can extend Byram now, or wait and possibly trade him or lose him.  I am betting they extend him before the season, I sure hope it is a bridge that does not cost a lot.  If it is I will move on from this trade.  

Dahlin, Power, Bryam, Johnson, Joker - all have  attributes that seem similar to me.  I wanted a heavyweight hitter (like Clifton who is a middle weight) but with mobility and puck skills like the others.  Muel could be the key if he can be more physical and stay healthy.  

I don't understand why there was not conversation with Mitts' agent either.  The only explanation is that Adams has a stockpile of center prospects.  

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I do like how the Hall of Famer is the one with the apparent negative connotation lol 

I know, I smiled as I wrote it.

But I figured this board would get the point, regardless of how they read it.

[Thorny]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I know, I smiled as I wrote it.

But I figured this board would get the point, regardless of how they read it.

I’m sure they did. I just enjoy missing it intentionally

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

For the record:  I am on the fence about Bryam.  He is young, and talented, but I have not see enough to pay him big bucks.  What I saw did not blow me away after his first week as a Sabres.  He had a Zubrus-like start though. 

What I saw with Krebs at 3C and and Jost at 4C will not cut it.  They need help at center right now.   

They can extend Byram now, or wait and possibly trade him or lose him.  I am betting they extend him before the season, I sure hope it is a bridge that does not cost a lot.  If it is I will move on from this trade.  

Dahlin, Power, Bryam, Johnson, Joker - all have  attributes that seem similar to me.  I wanted a heavyweight hitter (like Clifton who is a middle weight) but with mobility and puck skills like the others.  Muel could be the key if he can be more physical and stay healthy.  

I don't understand why there was not conversation with Mitts' agent either.  The only explanation is that Adams has a stockpile of center prospects.  

Byram has already signed his bridge contract. He has a year left on that and a minimum 2 more years after that until he reaches UFA status.

He’s played seasons of 19, 30 and 42 games before this year’s 73 and maxed out at 29 points.

If he signs for term this summer, it shouldn’t break the bank.

If he doesn’t sign this summer and doesn’t take a step next year, he won’t break the bank as an RFA next summer.

If he levels up this year and earns a big long-term deal next summer, that’s hardly a bad thing.

If he levels up this year and declines a long-term deal next summer, we’ve still got nearly 2 years to use or flip what should be a valuable commodity.

Not really seeing a problem there, at least from the contract status side.

Edited May 1 by dudacek

[Mango]

On 4/28/2024 at 2:28 PM, seer775 said:

 

How? 

We have a surplus at Top 6 F and a lack of Top 4 D. Top 4 D is more important than Top 6 F. Trade for Dmen makes sense here.

I'm not one to defend the Sabres organization, but this is one of the times the team did something logical.

No we do not. 

We have some kids who might be good top 6 forwards in 3-6 years. 

At some point the Sabres need to field a capable roster today. Not a roster full of kids who might be more capable tomorrow. 

Edit: I will add that I think Sabres only had above average top 6 play from Tage, Mitts, and JJP this season. The rest were middling middle 6 at best this past season. 

I think we need help at the top of the roster too. 

Edited May 1 by Mango

[Doohickie]

14 minutes ago, Mango said:

No we do not. 

We have some kids who might be good top 6 forwards in 3-6 years. 

And we've seen just how long it's taken Tage, Mitts and Cozy to develop.  Krebs is still a work in progress at best.  And @seer775 thinks someone's gonna jump out of Rochester and be our 3C?  Fat chance.

Byram hasn't filled an obvious hole, and now we have a Mitts-shaped hole in the forward ranks.

As others have said, this trade only makes sense if Adams as a plan to fill that hole.

 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Byram has already signed his bridge contract. He has a year left on that and a minimum 2 more years after that until he reaches UFA status.

He’s played seasons of 19, 30 and 42 games before this year’s 73 and maxed out at 29 points.

If he signs for term this summer, it shouldn’t break the bank.

If he doesn’t sign this summer and doesn’t take a step next year, he won’t break the bank as an RFA next summer.

If he levels up this year and earns a big long-term deal next summer, that’s hardly a bad thing.

If he levels up this year and declines a long-term deal next summer, we’ve still got nearly 2 years to use or flip what should a valuable commodity.

Not really seeing a problem there, at least from the contract status side.

Interesting information for sure.  I was under the impression he is expecting to get a big contract after this one.  I’m probably over thinking that given your response  

 

[dudacek]

47 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Interesting information for sure.  I was under the impression he is expecting to get a big contract after this one.  I’m probably over thinking that given your response  

 

He might be expecting one, and the Avs were worried about how they might be able to give him a raise if he lived up to his talent.

But he hasn’t earned one yet.

 

Edited May 1 by dudacek

[bob_sauve28]

We did give up size and some toughness in giving up Casey. He could play along the boards really well.

[Doohickie]

Adams' strategy seems to be to grow from within, knowing that when players fully develop there isn't cap space to pay everybody, so he's depending on players on ELCs and low AAV bridge contracts to grow into the roles.  I think that only works if your prospects are ready when you have to move your more developed players.  In the case of Mitts that was not the case.  Being an RFA the Sabres still had control and could have held him for another year at least to give time to grow a replacement out of the prospect ranks (and/or give Krebs one more year of seasoning).

[Thorny]

 

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Adams' strategy seems to be to grow from within, knowing that when players fully develop there isn't cap space to pay everybody, so he's depending on players on ELCs and low AAV bridge contracts to grow into the roles.  I think that only works if your prospects are ready when you have to move your more developed players.  In the case of Mitts that was not the case.  Being an RFA the Sabres still had control and could have held him for another year at least to give time to grow a replacement out of the prospect ranks (and/or give Krebs one more year of seasoning).

There's no strategy beyond helping maintain the Pegula family lifestyle and selling hope. KA is given way too much credit.

[sabremike]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

1- Trade Top 6 center for defenseman whose career has fallen off a cliff and is a complete liability in his own end.

2- ????????????????

3- PROFIT!

[Doohickie]

46 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

There's no strategy beyond helping maintain the Pegula family lifestyle and selling hope. KA is given way too much credit.

Ah, there's the morose PA we've come to know and.... well, know.

52 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

Not surprised.  He's a good player and after the Sabres didn't even want to talk about extension he's highly motivated to prove KA wrong.

[PerreaultForever]

That's good captain speak. Their best player was actually MacKinnon. But Mitts has certainly filled the hole they had at center and Walker has Byram's spot so they are better than they were with the deals they made. 

[oddoublee]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

There's no strategy beyond helping maintain the Pegula family lifestyle and selling hope. KA is given way too much credit.

things to do still.... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/sports-billionaires-new-superyacht-is-a-massive-custom-toy-for-lavish-family-vacations-196271.html