Casey Mittelstadt traded for Bowen Byram

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, seer775 said:

At 20 years old, Byram played top minutes on the Stanley Cup Champs. He wasn't along for the ride.

The point of playing Krebs at 3C is to figure out what kind of return we can get for him.

Right now it's looking like a 4th. We need to bump those numbers.

Trading Krebs for a fourth is not a good move.  Neither is handing him 3C.  We saw him try to play in last year. 

If Krebs get traded it’s in a multi player deal. He still has former #1 shine on him.  

Lindy will want a defensive center that wins draws.  Krebs should get a shot 4C, not 3C. 

[Doohickie]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

No, my argument is Doohickey is comparing 25-year-old 350-game NHL center with a 22-year-old 160-game NHL defenceman and saying what you’ve seen  is what you’re going to get.

It's spelled Doohickie.

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Although i am a huge Mitts fan, i think Buffalo traded a player they needed for one that they did not. We already have enough playmaking non hitting defenseman. Will he be good for the team? Most likely yes. This team will miss Mitts and what he brought. It is now a glaring need this off season. On the other hand i am also a huge Avs fan so i will just root for Mitts there! He is having a decent playoff so far and i am happy that he got away from the perpetual tire fire that seems to be the Sabres. 

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Trading Krebs for a fourth is not a good move.  Neither is handing him 3C.  We saw him try to play in last year. 

If Krebs get traded it’s in a multi player deal. He still has former #1 shine on him.  

Lindy will want a defensive center that wins draws.  Krebs should get a shot 4C, not 3C. 

The Sabres are now at a stage where players no longer should be handed roles with the hope that they develop into their role. My preference would be to keep Krebs and let him compete for whatever role he can attain. Unless he is packaged in a deal for a contributing return player, I wouldn't want to give him away for a useless middling pick. (Agreeing with you on this issue.) 

I have been a staunch advocate for Mitts. Hiowever, in general, I thought this was a good hockey trade for each team. What will give even more value to this deal for us is if we can acquire a good 3C to fill the void left by the Mitt departure. In the first few games that Byram played for us, I was impressed. It then seemed that he was a confused player who had trouble blending in. I'm hoping that Lindy can put Byram in a role that is conducive to his talents. 

This is a critical offseason for the GM. He needs to add pieces that better balances out this roster. The focus should be on a legitimate 3C and bulking up the lower lines. The GM isn't required to make a blockbuster deal for a star player that would result in stripping this team. He needs to make a number of deals that fill in the 4-5-6 spots that makes this team a tougher team to play. It's doable!

[Gatorman0519]

At least Lindys voice is in the room to straighten out some of this mess. 

[Doohickie]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

I thought this was a good hockey trade for each team. What will give even more value to this deal for us is if we can acquire a good 3C to fill the void left by the Mitt departure. In the first few games that Byram played for us, I was impressed. It then seemed that he was a confused player who had trouble blending in. I'm hoping that Lindy can put Byram in a role that is conducive to his talents.

I guess that's my argument against the trade:  I'm not sure Byram filled an urgent need on the roster.  What I see in him is a player who could possibly a good piece but also is subject to inconsistent play.  But the trade *did* create an urgent need on the roster.  I think we're much worse off with Byram than we were with Mitts.  I'm not saying Byram is a bust or anything.  But I'm saying I don't think there is a clear hole that he is filling, but the absence of Mitts creates a big hole in the forward ranks.

I also realize the die was cast when Tage and Cozens got their contracts.  I think signing those two and making Casey the odd man out was a mistake.  I think Casey had made the case that he was a versatile player that could play anywhere in the Top Nine.  I don't think you can say the same for Cozens or Tage.

While in general I think Kevyn's approach to roster building is sound, I think in this case he messed up.

[JohnC]

25 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I guess that's my argument against the trade:  I'm not sure Byram filled an urgent need on the roster.  What I see in him is a player who could possibly a good piece but also is subject to inconsistent play.  But the trade *did* create an urgent need on the roster.  I think we're much worse off with Byram than we were with Mitts.  I'm not saying Byram is a bust or anything.  But I'm saying I don't think there is a clear hole that he is filling, but the absence of Mitts creates a big hole in the forward ranks.

I also realize the die was cast when Tage and Cozens got their contracts.  I think signing those two and making Casey the odd man out was a mistake.  I think Casey had made the case that he was a versatile player that could play anywhere in the Top Nine.  I don't think you can say the same for Cozens or Tage.

I'm a Casey fan. But as you point out after locking in Cozens and Tage there was going to be a near future issue with cap distribution $$$ within the roster. It's difficult to get a fair assessment of Byram based on the limited games he played for the Sabres. His first few games were impressive, and then he tailed off. That shouldn't have been a surprise because he was playing a new system and with new teammates. What I can say is if the GM doesn't fill the hole of the Mitts departure, then the deal doesn't look as good. This is a let's wait and see before we can come up with a fair assessment of the trade. 

Edited April 29 by JohnC

[Doohickie]

It will be interesting to see which defensemen Lindy prefers.  There could well be a shakeup in the pecking order.  I think our 7-8 Ds (Johnson, Bryson) are actually pretty good and perhaps to get the right mix of puck moving, toughness, and solid D play, one or both of those guys could end up in the top six based on Lindy's system.  (anticipating several puke emojis here)

[dudacek]

I think the basic disconnect here is that while everyone here thought the Sabres needed to add a top 4 defenceman, a large number of Sabrespacers don’t think that player is Byram.

Nobody says the Knights have too many of the same type of defencemen with Pietrangelo, Theodore and Hanifan. Good is good.

To me, it’s not the theory that’s the big question here, it’s whether or not Byram and Power can be as effective as Theodore and Hanifin.

These are guys expected to round into two-way players like Dahlin has. They aren’t Phil Housleys.

Edited April 29 by dudacek

[shrader]

33 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

It will be interesting to see which defensemen Lindy prefers.  There could well be a shakeup in the pecking order.  I think our 7-8 Ds (Johnson, Bryson) are actually pretty good and perhaps to get the right mix of puck moving, toughness, and solid D play, one or both of those guys could end up in the top six based on Lindy's system.  (anticipating several puke emojis here)

RFA with a qualifying offer probably higher than he’s worth. Is he even back next year?

[Believer]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

I guess that's my argument against the trade:  I'm not sure Byram filled an urgent need on the roster.  What I see in him is a player who could possibly a good piece but also is subject to inconsistent play.  But the trade *did* create an urgent need on the roster.  I think we're much worse off with Byram than we were with Mitts.  I'm not saying Byram is a bust or anything.  But I'm saying I don't think there is a clear hole that he is filling, but the absence of Mitts creates a big hole in the forward ranks.

I also realize the die was cast when Tage and Cozens got their contracts.  I think signing those two and making Casey the odd man out was a mistake.  I think Casey had made the case that he was a versatile player that could play anywhere in the Top Nine.  I don't think you can say the same for Cozens or Tage.

While in general I think Kevyn's approach to roster building is sound, I think in this case he messed up.

Was with you until the last paragraph.

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I'm a Casey fan. But as you point out after locking in Cozens and Tage there was going to be a near future issue with cap distribution $$$ within the roster. It's difficult to get a fair assessment of Byram based on the limited games he played for the Sabres. His first few games were impressive, and then he tailed off. That shouldn't have been a surprise because he was playing a new system and with new teammates. What I can say is if the GM doesn't fill the hole of the Mitts departure, then the deal doesn't look as good. This is a let's wait and see before we can come up with a fair assessment of the trade. 

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.  

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, 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.  

The one thing that I am not arguing for is adding a rookie center to the roster. My preference is to add a good 3C player who adds an element of physicality. The GM also needs to upgrade the fourth line with players from the outside who are more physical and tenacious. Adding those types of players (2-3) is attainable. 

You make good point regarding Byram and his future contract. I would rather be in a position to have a talented defensive player and juggle contracts and players to fit that echelon of player. If Byram becomes a first or second pairing player, he will get paid like one. If one stands back and reviews our defensive group (including Ryan Johnson), a reasonable assessment is that it is a quality group. That's a dramatic upgrade from a few years ago. That's not something to complain about----it is something to celebrate. 

All teams with talented rosters have to make tough decisions on who to keep and who to pay. That's a byproduct of the cap system (for all pro sports). I would rather be in that position because we have an abundance of talent than have a low salary structure due to a dearth of talent. 

[Doohickie]

6 hours ago, shrader said:

RFA with a qualifying offer probably higher than he’s worth. Is he even back next year?

Interesting question.  Of course there are those RFAs that sign for less than their qualifying offer.  I bet he ends up on an NHL roster next year somewhere.

4 hours ago, 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.  

Yes.  123%

[Pimlach]

6 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

 

Yes.  123%

[Doohickie]

1 minute ago, Pimlach said:

You need to use your toes too for the math to work out.

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, 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.  

The problem, at least to me, is not that we traded Mitts but that we traded him for an asset that we already have 4 versions of in Dahlin, Power, Johnson, and Muel. We traded a good asset to fill a hole in arguably the least needy spot on the entire roster, puck moving LHD. Now we have this upcoming season and then we have to decide if we want to pay him and I don't think you can tie up roughly 37% of your cap in Power, Dahlin, Byram, Muel, and Clifton. That might push 40% of your cap after you add the 6th and 7th defender to it. Further more that would mean Dahlin, Power, Muel, and Byram were all on long term deal which limits flexibility and assumes NONE of those guys ever fall off at all which is gambling to lose. It just seems a strange way to use an asset in Mitts when there were needs basically everywhere else. 

[Pimlach]

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The problem, at least to me, is not that we traded Mitts but that we traded him for an asset that we already have 4 versions of in Dahlin, Power, Johnson, and Muel. We traded a good asset to fill a hole in arguably the least needy spot on the entire roster, puck moving LHD. Now we have this upcoming season and then we have to decide if we want to pay him and I don't think you can tie up roughly 37% of your cap in Power, Dahlin, Byram, Muel, and Clifton. That might push 40% of your cap after you add the 6th and 7th defender to it. Further more that would mean Dahlin, Power, Muel, and Byram were all on long term deal which limits flexibility and assumes NONE of those guys ever fall off at all which is gambling to lose. It just seems a strange way to use an asset in Mitts when there were needs basically everywhere else. 

Agree.  Throw in Joker to the list of similar defenders to Byram.   I think one top four defenseman should be a physical, defense first guy, and Muel so far does not bring a physical enough game for my liking, and his availability is low.   Maybe Ruff helps him?  

How much are they going to pay Byram?  I just didn’t see enough good to give him a long term contract.  

Byram might end up a one year Sabre if we are sellers at the deadline once again.  If that happens then add Mitts to a pretty long line of players drafted, developed, and lost.  

Edited April 30 by Pimlach

[Weave]

I still suspect the the trade was made to give the team an additional season to use the asset in a move to bring in a different type of player into the lineup.

I think they ran out of time to use Mitts for that purpose and have bought time.

[dudacek]

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.

 

Quote

Edited April 30 by dudacek

[SwampD]

38 minutes 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.

 

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.

[Doohickie]

46 minutes ago, dudacek said:

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.”

Captures my sentiments pretty well.

One of the reasons Mitts will not be easy to replace is his versatility.  He can play up and down the Top Nine, center or wing.  As 3C, he was ready depth to move up to the Top Six in the event of injury.

[SabreFinn]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

I still suspect the the trade was made to give the team an additional season to use the asset in a move to bring in a different type of player into the lineup.

I think they ran out of time to use Mitts for that purpose and have bought time.

I have tried to see the trade in different ways, and this is the only thing that makes sence. 

[Mango]

5 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.

 

I think the "Move that defines Adams" will be compounding decisions not just a trade. It will be the allocation of resources to Tage, Cozens, Power at the expense of somebody like Mitts. Even if Byram works out and we want to extend him we are looking at it possibly costing a Quinn, Peterka, etc. I don't think any of this has to do with Byram and it has everything to do with the contracts he has recently given out and whether they outperform the guys we have to let walk because of it. 

Before the Mitts trade there were thoughts thrown out there that we could afford to let Mitts walk because of Cozens and Cozens "could" fill that role down the line because he is younger. Then we traded Mitts. Now I feel like I am starting to get the same vibe around some of the talk around JJP. "Well we have Savoie and Kulich who can fill in and they are young they could be better someday". 

I am hoping Lindy stops the bleeding of real life NHL players in exchange for "could be good someday". 

[Thorny]

On 4/29/2024 at 1:20 PM, dudacek said:

I think the basic disconnect here is that while everyone here thought the Sabres needed to add a top 4 defenceman, a large number of Sabrespacers don’t think that player is Byram.

Nobody says the Knights have too many of the same type of defencemen with Pietrangelo, Theodore and Hanifan. Good is good.

To me, it’s not the theory that’s the big question here, it’s whether or not Byram and Power can be as effective as Theodore and Hanifin.

These are guys expected to round into two-way players like Dahlin has. They aren’t Phil Housleys.

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