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 April 24 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 April 24 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 April 24 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 April 24 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 April 24 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 April 24 by dudacek

[DarthEbriate]

Before they announce any fruitless gestures and re-orgs, I should note that my first retool would be:

In a press conference, Pegula announces that the EEE era of the Buffalo Sabres is over and the mission is back to multiple Cups. The Pegula Boat is built; their quality of life is maintained. The Bills stadium is underway, a percentage of the Bills has been sold to raise cash for said stadium, and the new government doesn't give a ##### about the environment so he has the ability to drill as many wells wherever he wants again (slant-drilling-under-the-local-elementary-school-style). Then, he steeples his fingers and says, "Excellent." So now they can pay coaches, scouts, and even spend to the cap.

But this must be a public announcement. And then Pegula can turn to GMKA and make him POHO/Wormtongue/General or whatever title they want. I would prefer they slap a Velcro A on his suit jacket. He's earned it.

[LGR4GM]

On 4/24/2025 at 5:46 PM, dudacek said:

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. 🤷‍♂️

Except Byram isn't a good defender. He's mediocre so why keep him long term?

[dudacek]

33 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Except Byram isn't a good defender. He's mediocre so why keep him long term?

Because he's the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman and at 23 with only 246 NHL games is likely to get better?

(To be clear, I wasn't saying Byram should be signed to that contract, only that the math seems to fit, based on that $5.3M value this year GA posted.)

[LabattBlue]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Because he's the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman and at 23 with only 246 NHL games is likely to get better?

(To be clear, I wasn't saying Byram should be signed to that contract, only that the math seems to fit, based on that $5.3M value this year GA posted.)

Just because he is the Sabres 2nd best defenseman(your words, not mine), doesn’t mean he should be locked up long term.  Instead, maybe it is an indicator of just how bad the blueline group is…and how desperate the clown show FO should be in terms of a makeover.  

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Just because he is the Sabres 2nd best defenseman(your words, not mine), doesn’t mean he should be locked up long term.  Instead, maybe it is an indicator of just how bad the blueline group is…and how desperate the clown show FO should be in terms of a makeover.  

 

4 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Just because he is the Sabres 2nd best defenseman(your words, not mine), doesn’t mean he should be locked up long term.  Instead, maybe it is an indicator of just how bad the blueline group is…and how desperate the clown show FO should be in terms of a makeover.  

I’d be more interested in discussing this if I thought you’d actually watched him play.

[CallawaySabres]

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Because he's the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman and at 23 with only 246 NHL games is likely to get better?

(To be clear, I wasn't saying Byram should be signed to that contract, only that the math seems to fit, based on that $5.3M value this year GA posted.)

He's gotta to get a lot better. Also that's such an indictment of how terrible buffalo's defense is. Byram is a 4 at best right now and I don't see anything saying he'll ever be a 2. 

How long should we wait until he figures it? How much should we get he does. Everyone shouldn't be getting 7yr deals. It's stupid and it locks you into guys that are flawed. 

They need to move on from Power or Byram. Keeping both is bad team building. 

[dudacek]

He has to get a lot better to what?

Earn a $50M contract? Agreed. To help the Sabres? He already does.

Byram gave team a full season of 20+ minutes a night as a plus player against the other teams' best. I'm shocked at how many people seem to take that for granted. 

How many Sabres defencemen have done that over the past decade? Pretty sure there are 4, and people want to drive two of them to the nearest airport. The 3rd is Dahlin and the 4th is Brandon Montour, another skilled D this board stupidly wanted to get rid of.

By all means, trade Byram.

Just understand that even if you are replacing him with somebody different who can eat the same minutes, you still haven't made the team any better.

[LGR4GM]

36 minutes ago, dudacek said:

He has to get a lot better to what?

Earn a $50M contract? Agreed. To help the Sabres? He already does.

Byram gave team a full season of 20+ minutes a night as a plus player against the other teams' best. I'm shocked at how many people seem to take that for granted. 

How many Sabres defencemen have done that over the past decade? Pretty sure there are 4, and people want to drive two of them to the nearest airport. The 3rd is Dahlin and the 4th is Brandon Montour, another skilled D this board stupidly wanted to get rid of.

By all means, trade Byram.

Just understand that even if you are replacing him with somebody different who can eat the same minutes, you still haven't made the team any better.

Has to get a lot better at driving possession in favor of Buffalo. He's a #4 defender, and you want to pay him 7 mill or more a season. 

Also,  Jokiharju was positive too, should we have kept him?

You can keep Byram, but then power needs to go. 

Also you got any evidence at all that Byram played against other teams best?

Edited 5 hours ago by LGR4GM

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Has to get a lot better at driving possession in favor of Buffalo. He's a #4 defender, and you want to pay him 7 mill or more a season. 

Also,  Jokiharju was positive too, should we have kept him?

You can keep Byram, but then power needs to go. 

Also you got any evidence at all that Byram played against other teams best?

Umm, you mean other than him being Dahlin's primary partner for about 60% of the season?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Umm, you mean other than him being Dahlin's primary partner for about 60% of the season?

Was it 60%? I thought it was less but I'll take your word for it. Still, byrams stats crater away from Dahlin so is he good against top lines? Or is Dahlin?

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Was it 60%? I thought it was less but I'll take your word for it. Still, byrams stats crater away from Dahlin so is he good against top lines? Or is Dahlin?

The 2 didn't really get split up until the trade deadline.  Ballparking that time from them realizing Samuelsson was a dumpster fire early to the trade deadline as 60%.  Didn't go back game by game on it.

And he was their primary D-man when Dahlin was out the 10 games, too.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Has to get a lot better at driving possession in favor of Buffalo. He's a #4 defender, and you want to pay him 7 mill or more a season. 
 

Please stop with this. I’ve said more than once, and very recently in this thread that is not the case.

 

Also,  Jokiharju was positive too, should we have kept him?

Red herring. Jokiharju did not play the kind of minutes Byram did or make the type of plays Byram did.

 

You can keep Byram, but then power needs to go. 
 

It’s a fallacy that a team cannot employ 3 skill defencemen. Theodore Hanifin Pietrangelo, Subban Josi Ellis, every national team ever.

Also you got any evidence at all that Byram played against other teams best?

Come on, you watched the games too. He led the team in ES ice time. He was out there in the key situations. You know he wasn’t sheltered.

Bottom line is you’ve avoided my central point. It’s not that Byram is great, or that he shouldn’t be traded, it’s that if you trade him, how are you replacing his minutes and making the defence better?

Byram and Dahlin was THE MOST EFFECTIVE DEFENCE PAIRING IN THE NHL (sorry for the yelling, but it’s a fact that everyone chooses to ignore) Why not keep that and concentrate on the real problem: improving the 2nd and 3rd pairs?

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, dudacek said:

Bottom line is you’ve avoided my central point. It’s not that Byram is great, or that he shouldn’t be traded, it’s that if you trade him, how are you replacing his minutes and making the defence better?

Byram and Dahlin was THE MOST EFFECTIVE DEFENCE PAIRING IN THE NHL (sorry for the yelling, but it’s a fact that everyone chooses to ignore) Why not keep that and concentrate on the real problem: improving the 2nd and 3rd pairs?

 

Ok so you're trading Owen Power, I'm fine with that. 

I've said multiple times I'd trade Byram for Dobson. Since I'm not an nhl gm, I can't really give you more than that as an answer. 

[LGR4GM]

Power is 8 mil

Dahlin is 11mil

Samuelsson is 4

Byram is? 8? 

So roughly 32 million for 4lhd or 1/3 of your cap. That's the issue. You cannot build a team that will win a playoff round by spending 1/3 of your cap on lhd.

Edit: I should say on these 4 lhd. I'm sure there's some team that's got a couple lhds that make up bunch. 

Edited 5 hours ago by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Power is 8 mil

Dahlin is 11mil

Samuelsson is 4

Byram is? 8? 

So roughly 32 million for 4lhd or 1/3 of your cap. That's the issue. You cannot build a team that will win a playoff round by spending 1/3 of your cap on lhd.

Honest question because I have yet to do any homework on Byram’s comparables:

How many D 2 years away from UFA, with a career high of 38 points and stats that crater away from a stud like Dahlin have signed for anywhere near $8M? I mean besides Owen Power 😁?

The Sabres don’t have to give him term. I can’t see him getting that kind of coin in arbitration with his numbers.

I regards to your bigger question, the first thing I would do is dump Samuelsson, a much inferior player on a far worse contract.

The second thing I would do is fix or trade Power, preferably fix, because the idea of those 3 D at their peak on the same team excites me.

Like you, I’m not a GM either. That’s all I got.

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek