Chad D: expect a Byram trade at or around the draft

[Archie Lee]

11 hours ago, Thorny said:

Kris Baker likes him? Oh I’ve never been more certain he terrible 

I am not certain it would be better to trade Power than Byram. I think though that right now Byram is the better player. And I think his game translates better than Power’s to the type of hockey we are watching right now. And I think Byram has the sort of personality that people gravitate to and follow, and, while I like Power, I don’t think he has that gene.  And I think we could extend Byram for less than Power’s current AAV of $8.35 million. And I think Power’s draft pedigree might mean he returns a better veteran player in trade. And, like you, I think ending this drought is critical.  And Byram is only 17 months older than Power, so there is still lots of runway for Byram to improve. But I definitely could be wrong. And, there is a next to zero chance that Adams trades his first OA pick. The next GM might, but not Adams. 

 

I think we should try to remember that the Sabres are in this position due to gross mismanagement. Forget the 14 years. Adams has positioned the Sabres as one of the league’s youngest teams, with the league’s oldest coach, with back to back year’s of on-ice regression, and with salary cap issues. The Carolina Hurricanes can pretty much bring in any player they want this off-season, without having to move out anyone under team-control. The Sabres can’t do that. We fans did not screw this up. 

 

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

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. 

I respect this. I just think Byram is a better player now and their respective ages, skills, and personalities, make it far from a certain thing that Power is the better long-term player. 
 

Edited 13 hours ago by Archie Lee

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I am not certain it would be better to trade Power than Byram. I think though that right now Byram is the better player. And I think his game translates better than Power’s to the type of hockey we are watching right now. And I think Byram has the sort of personality that people gravitate to and follow, and, while I like Power, I don’t think he has that gene.  And I think we could extend Byram for less than Power’s current AAV of $8.35 million. And I think Power’s draft pedigree might mean he returns a better veteran player in trade. And, like you, I think ending this drought is critical.  And Byram is only 17 months older than Power, so there is still lots of runway for Byram to improve. But I definitely could be wrong. And, there is a next to zero chance that Adams trades his first OA pick. The next GM might, but not Adams. 

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. 

[LGR4GM]

51 minutes ago, Mr. Allen said:

We have team control of Byram for one more year? 

I think that's right? He's arbitration eligible, I know that. I'd sign him to a 4-5yr deal. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I respect this. I just think Byram is a better player now and their respective ages, skills, and personalities, make it far from a certain thing that Power is the better long-term player. 
 

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. 

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think that's right? He's arbitration eligible, I know that. I'd sign him to a 4-5yr deal. 

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. 

[Archie Lee]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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. 

Certainly we would need to lock up Byram before considering a Power trade.

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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. 

Of course if Byram is dead-set against staying in Buffalo, then he should be moved. 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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. 

He has no contract. 

[JohnC]

Just now, Archie Lee said:

Certainly we would need to lock up Byram before considering a Power trade.

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. 

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

He has no contract. 

What happens if he refuses to sign a new deal and rides out his current contract? 

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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? 

He doesn't have a current contract. He's a restricted free agent, he's not under contract, we just retain the right to sign him. I suppose if he refuses to sign he gets offer sheets which we can match or he goes to arbitration where I think Buffalo can select a 2yr deal. 

But there's no current contract to ride out.

[Archie Lee]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

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? 

Well, all of this is going to play out in the next month or so. Again, if Byram won’t extend long-term, then he should be moved for the best return possible. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

He doesn't have a current contract. He's a restricted free agent, he's not under contract, we just retain the right to sign him. I suppose if he refuses to sign he gets offer sheets which we can match or he goes to arbitration where I think Buffalo can select a 2yr deal. 

But there's no current contract to ride out.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Well, all of this is going to play out in the next month or so. Again, if Byram won’t extend long-term, then he should be moved for the best return possible. 

 We shall see. You know what my position is that he won't. We'll just have to wait and see. What I can say is that this is an intriguing offseason. I expect some action here once the SC is concluded and draft day approaches. With the addition of the experienced former GM added to the organization, I see things happening. I still contend that the goalie position is the biggest issue to address. 

[DarthEbriate]

Bridge all the RFAs to two-year deals; get a Tuch extension in place. Get past the Skinner $6M hit season. Move upstairs to a cushy POHO gig with a nice salary. Let the next GM sort it all out in 2027, so long as the kudos go to the all-powerful Sheevyn.

Ride that Power Timeline. Power will turn 25 in November 2027 and be entering his prime, and he'll be better defensively and more Powerful than any of us on the Power Play. Appert will unlock his true Concept of the Cup. It is unavoidable. I have foreseen it.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

We should trade Samuelsson and keep Byram. That's where I fall after all this discussion. 

Well, yes.

People keep making it out that you have to get rid of one of Power or Byram because with them there are 3 offensive D-men on the team while wanting 2 Offensive, 2 2-way, and 2 Defensive D-men COMPLETELY overlooking the fact that Dahlin IS the team's best DEFENSIVE defenseman.  He is the DEFINITION of a 2 way defenseman.

Keep the "big 3" D-men; bring in another top 4 guy (ideally someone that allows Dahlin to fully unleash his offensive game; but if that doesn't work out, his offensive game is still pretty darn good when paired with Byram) and if Bernard-Docker plays well enough to also effectively be a top 4 guy, well then you've actually got a good thing in having 5 guys that can all be top 4 with one able to eat up 25+ minutes a night and 2 others able to eat up over 22 minutes per night.

Your 6 can be darn near anyone at that point: Clifton, one of the Ra-cha-cha kids, a FA you pick up off the street for a particular usage (PK, toughness, whatever), or even the undersized Bryson (NOT this kid's preference btw by any stretch of the imagination) and it doesn't really matter.  He won't get enough ice time to have HIS weaknesses fully exposed.

If both Samuelsson's and Clifton's contracts are gone, you CAN afford all 3 of the "big 3."  Whether Dahlin is paired with Byram or you're giving him a more defensive partner and letting Byram and Power run the 2A and 2B pairings; it SHOULD work.  And ideally having Kekaliainen in the room saying WTF are you weakening this part of the team that was already weak might cause somebody with decision making authority to ask that same question.

And IF Byram going out the door ends up being the grease that gets Robertson IN the door, well, then there is a logic to weakening this part of the team that was already weak as there can be other opportunities to bolster it.

[Broken Ankles]

9 hours ago, Alaska John said:

I haven't been paying much attention to the Sabres in the off season so I have to ask, what's behind this desire to trade Byram?  When he came in for Mittelstadt it sounded like a win for the Sabres (and the Avalanche proceeded to trade Casey to the Bruins).  Have the Sabres decided Byram wasn't good enough?

Read this entire thread and you will get an idea that some fans appreciate his play more than others.  I fall in line with you that he was a win in terms of trade, but it never translated to wins for Buffalo as a team.  
The argument to trade (adding on to what Steve wrote) is the Sabres not only paid Power, but also overpaid Samuelsson and Clifton.  They have, going into the offseason $28m committed to the blue line and they still don’t have a veteran to pair with Power.  If you pay Byram $8m+, then you would have ~$2m more than any other team in the league on Defense and unless you can somehow trade for the stabilizing force to help Owen and remove both contracts of Samuelsson and Clifton (call it $7.8m), then you have the top paid Defensive unit in the league. But are they better?  I fall into the category of trying to extricate three players - Mule, Clifton and  one of Power or Byram.  Rasmus can play either side so it frees you up to trade for a L/R player that is hard nosed and a top PK guy.  Then another similar stay at home defender to play alongside Power/Byram.   If the third pairing is JBD and say Novikov (entry level) your cap is aligned and balanced.  
  Lastly, the handedness of the D makes it challenging to keep Byram.  Left hand D - Dahlin, Byram, Power, Samuelsson, Bryson, and waiting in the wings, Novikov and Johnson.  

[Mr. Allen]

Let’s say we choose to keep Byram for this upcoming season.  He won’t sign a long term contract but he won’t want to sit a year, right?  Is that when it would go to arbitration?  Is he likely to get paid big if he does?  
I say keep him unless some team is willing to overpay.  Worst case we suck again next year and we trade him at the deadline.  

[oddoublee]

9 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, yes.

People keep making it out that you have to get rid of one of Power or Byram because with them there are 3 offensive D-men on the team while wanting 2 Offensive, 2 2-way, and 2 Defensive D-men COMPLETELY overlooking the fact that Dahlin IS the team's best DEFENSIVE defenseman.  He is the DEFINITION of a 2 way defenseman.

Keep the "big 3" D-men; bring in another top 4 guy (ideally someone that allows Dahlin to fully unleash his offensive game; but if that doesn't work out, his offensive game is still pretty darn good when paired with Byram) and if Bernard-Docker plays well enough to also effectively be a top 4 guy, well then you've actually got a good thing in having 5 guys that can all be top 4 with one able to eat up 25+ minutes a night and 2 others able to eat up over 22 minutes per night.

Your 6 can be darn near anyone at that point: Clifton, one of the Ra-cha-cha kids, a FA you pick up off the street for a particular usage (PK, toughness, whatever), or even the undersized Bryson (NOT this kid's preference btw by any stretch of the imagination) and it doesn't really matter.  He won't get enough ice time to have HIS weaknesses fully exposed.

If both Samuelsson's and Clifton's contracts are gone, you CAN afford all 3 of the "big 3."  Whether Dahlin is paired with Byram or you're giving him a more defensive partner and letting Byram and Power run the 2A and 2B pairings; it SHOULD work.  And ideally having Kekaliainen in the room saying WTF are you weakening this part of the team that was already weak might cause somebody with decision making authority to ask that same question.

And IF Byram going out the door ends up being the grease that gets Robertson IN the door, well, then there is a logic to weakening this part of the team that was already weak as there can be other opportunities to bolster it.

I have no issue with "redundant" talent on the roster. For me, the concern with the defensive structure is the average age. They are simply too young. The D needs to get older and more responsible. 

[DarthEbriate]

The other option we haven't really seen explored (JBD skated 13:55 minutes with Byram) last season, would be to go full #1 and just trade (or buy out) Samuelsson. The problem is -- you're replacing a semi-experienced PKer (Muel --- even though they stunk with Muel on the PK) with another young guy because you can't afford a veteran if Byram gets a sizeable contract.

Power - Dahlin
Byram - JBD
Johnson - Clifton
(Bryson)

I don't like this approach, but if there's anyone who can bring out the best in Power, it's the guy who makes everyone look good. The sustained times we saw Power-Dahlin was trailing late in the 3rd and with an empty net (they had a 69.3 Corsi For% together which is good, but 5 GF and 8 GA together, which is bad, but empty-netters would've accounted for most of the latter.

 

Edit: Yup. Dahlin-Power together with their goalie pulled 0 GF, 3 GA.

Byram-Dahlin together with the goalie pulled 3 GF, 5 GA, so at least it worked a few times.

Edited 11 hours ago by DarthEbriate
Added empty net info

[dudacek]

“Byram is terrible” as an argument is, well, terrible.

If you’re talking performance he’s in the top half of the league, if you’re talking toolbox he’s in the top 1/4. He is the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman.

There are 3 good arguments for trading him: he wants a role that may not be available to him; he wants a contract that  may be an overpay for the role he will play; he has trade value that could be used to improve the team in other areas.

You have control over him for 2 years. You run the risk of arbitration or an offer sheet taking you down a path you’d rather not take, but none of those options result in untenable situations.

It’s a complicated situation but it’s not “bad” in and of itself. He has value both as a player and as an asset and you have flexibility in how you choose to proceed.

So you determine his contract demands, you determine his trade market, you consider the other roster options you have available. 

I believe they have decided to trade him and that the return will likely make the current roster worse.

But it may also create the space for other moves that will lead to an overall improvement.

I don’t have confidence that will be the case; I think Bo’s best years are ahead of him and I predict many “he wasn’t that good in Buffalo” posts in the future.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

“Byram is terrible” as an argument is, well, terrible.

If you’re talking performance he’s in the top half of the league, if you’re talking toolbox he’s in the top 1/4. He is the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman.

There are 3 good arguments for trading him: he wants a role that may not be available to him; he wants a contract that  may be an overpay for the role he will play; he has trade value that could be used to improve the team in other areas.

You have control over him for 2 years. You run the risk of arbitration or an offer sheet taking you down a path you’d rather not take, but none of those options result in untenable situations.

It’s a complicated situation but it’s not “bad” in and of itself. He has value both as a player and as an asset and you have flexibility in how you choose to proceed.

So you determine his contract demands, you determine his trade market, you consider the other roster options you have available. 

I believe they have decided to trade him and that the return will likely make the current roster worse.

But it may also create the space for other moves that will lead to an overall improvement.

I don’t have confidence that will be the case; I think Bo’s best years are ahead of him and I predict many “he wasn’t that good in Buffalo” posts in the future.

This.  So much this.

[Taro T]

And the biggest reason to have not liked the Bryram for Mittelstadt trade at the time was he was ~21 years old when he was brought in.  He's now actually finally close to his prime and SHOULD be ready to start putting it all together like most high pedigree D do around his current age.

Once again we'll have suffered through the growing pains and let somebody else reap the rewards of having him in the window you actually want him in.

[tom webster]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

“Byram is terrible” as an argument is, well, terrible.

If you’re talking performance he’s in the top half of the league, if you’re talking toolbox he’s in the top 1/4. He is the Sabres 2nd-best defenceman.

There are 3 good arguments for trading him: he wants a role that may not be available to him; he wants a contract that  may be an overpay for the role he will play; he has trade value that could be used to improve the team in other areas.

You have control over him for 2 years. You run the risk of arbitration or an offer sheet taking you down a path you’d rather not take, but none of those options result in untenable situations.

It’s a complicated situation but it’s not “bad” in and of itself. He has value both as a player and as an asset and you have flexibility in how you choose to proceed.

So you determine his contract demands, you determine his trade market, you consider the other roster options you have available. 

I believe they have decided to trade him and that the return will likely make the current roster worse.

But it may also create the space for other moves that will lead to an overall improvement.

I don’t have confidence that will be the case; I think Bo’s best years are ahead of him and I predict many “he wasn’t that good in Buffalo” posts in the future.

All this is why I don’t think they trade him without getting a significant return. They would prefer to keep him but he would like to be traded and not because he hates it here or doesn’t like the team’s direction. He wants to be the man and doesn’t see that as likely as long as Dahlin and Power are here. My feeling is that Buffalo would love to sign him to an extension.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, tom webster said:

All this is why I don’t think they trade him without getting a significant return. They would prefer to keep him but he would like to be traded and not because he hates it here or doesn’t like the team’s direction. He wants to be the man and doesn’t see that as likely as long as Dahlin and Power are here. My feeling is that Buffalo would love to sign him to an extension.

No shame in being the Ekblad, the Sergachev or the Guy Lapointe.

I hope they can get something done.

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

And the biggest reason to have not liked the Bryram for Mittelstadt trade at the time was he was ~21 years old when he was brought in.  He's now actually finally close to his prime and SHOULD be ready to start putting it all together like most high pedigree D do around his current age.

Once again we'll have suffered through the growing pains and let somebody else reap the rewards of having him in the window you actually want him in.

Another reason is that Byram’s metrics have been relatively terrible outside of a small cherry picked collection of games unreflective of the lions share of underlyings which accurately reflect the poor player he has been - and that his play here hasn’t been as good as Casey’s was 

this is Bowen Byram 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Thorny

[inkman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Another reason is that Byram’s metrics have been relatively terrible outside of a small cherry picked collection of games unreflective of the lions share of underlyings which accurately reflect the poor player he has been - and that his play here hasn’t been as good as Casey’s was 

this is Bowen Byram 

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

Well, yes.

People keep making it out that you have to get rid of one of Power or Byram because with them there are 3 offensive D-men on the team while wanting 2 Offensive, 2 2-way, and 2 Defensive D-men COMPLETELY overlooking the fact that Dahlin IS the team's best DEFENSIVE defenseman.  He is the DEFINITION of a 2 way defenseman.

Keep the "big 3" D-men; bring in another top 4 guy (ideally someone that allows Dahlin to fully unleash his offensive game; but if that doesn't work out, his offensive game is still pretty darn good when paired with Byram) and if Bernard-Docker plays well enough to also effectively be a top 4 guy, well then you've actually got a good thing in having 5 guys that can all be top 4 with one able to eat up 25+ minutes a night and 2 others able to eat up over 22 minutes per night.

Your 6 can be darn near anyone at that point: Clifton, one of the Ra-cha-cha kids, a FA you pick up off the street for a particular usage (PK, toughness, whatever), or even the undersized Bryson (NOT this kid's preference btw by any stretch of the imagination) and it doesn't really matter.  He won't get enough ice time to have HIS weaknesses fully exposed.

If both Samuelsson's and Clifton's contracts are gone, you CAN afford all 3 of the "big 3."  Whether Dahlin is paired with Byram or you're giving him a more defensive partner and letting Byram and Power run the 2A and 2B pairings; it SHOULD work.  And ideally having Kekaliainen in the room saying WTF are you weakening this part of the team that was already weak might cause somebody with decision making authority to ask that same question.

And IF Byram going out the door ends up being the grease that gets Robertson IN the door, well, then there is a logic to weakening this part of the team that was already weak as there can be other opportunities to bolster it.

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.)