Confirmed with Link: Casey Mittelstadt traded to COL for D Bo Byram. Straight up.

[Chainshot]

I don't get what's wrong with paying excellent defenseman like other teams against the cap you try to work your way around it with trades or accept a weakness that every team has somewhere typically. This idea that we can only play 2 defenseman on our PP units isn't really a big deal most of the game is played at even strength. Also with our personnel you can justify using 2 D-man on one of your PP units it isn't a crime to use 2 of them. Same deal with whining about paying a 3rd center another big deal i'm not sure Byram is going to be getting as much as people think.

If they want to emulate teams, look at how the Knights have their defense structured cap-wise. They have three regulars I would take in a heartbeat over any of the Sabre 4-7 guys all under $3M per year. Throw in Korczak breaking in on an ELC and it's excellent structuring of their cap. Hell, they may even put Theodore up on the block and he's an absolute value at $5.2M.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

If they want to emulate teams, look at how the Knights have their defense structured cap-wise. They have three regulars I would take in a heartbeat over any of the Sabre 4-7 guys all under $3M per year. Throw in Korczak breaking in on an ELC and it's excellent structuring of their cap. Hell, they may even put Theodore up on the block and he's an absolute value at $5.2M.

look at any of the top teams cap structure, there are several f and d who play roll positions for well under their market value

thats the type of depth player you give up a 1st for, a key roll player signed for 2-3 million less than what a comparable player would get on 2-3 year deal

jt compher at 2.75 mil instead of 5.5 or whatever he got

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

If they want to emulate teams, look at how the Knights have their defense structured cap-wise. They have three regulars I would take in a heartbeat over any of the Sabre 4-7 guys all under $3M per year. Throw in Korczak breaking in on an ELC and it's excellent structuring of their cap. Hell, they may even put Theodore up on the block and he's an absolute value at $5.2M.

its the 4-7 million deals that hamstring an nhl team

 

[Mattilaus]

look at any of the top teams cap structure, there are several f and d who play roll positions for well under their market value

thats the type of depth player you give up a 1st for, a key roll player signed for 2-3 million less than what a comparable player would get on 2-3 year deal

jt compher at 2.75 mil instead of 5.5 or whatever he got

Unfortunately a team with a JT compher at 2.75 aren't going to/don't usually have a need to trade him. We are also unlikely to get such deals in the FA market as we all acknowledge we generally need to overpay right now to get talent given our situation. We need to make the deals where we can to get the team back to respectability and we can worry about the cap in 2 or 3 years in 2 or 3 years. I am not saying give Joshua 10 million, but we are going to have to live with paying an extra mil or two on people we bring in because it will likely be the only way we can get anybody of worth.

Other teams find ways out of cap trouble all the time. We need to get players now and then get rid of the cap problems later and if Adams can't do that then he needs to go.

 

[joshjull]

You're another poster i highly respect Josh , and have done for a long time.

You don't need to patronise me here though. I know/fully appreciate what Mitts brought & have in more recent times been one of his bigger supporters on this forum. Not to the extent you are - but probably more than most.

Many of your points are answered in the above response to @Sabresfansince1980. Most notably that Mitts doesn't need to be & won't be replaced 'like for like' .

I read your response to @Sabresfansince1980 and responses to a few others. The foundation of your arguments is a false premise.

We didn’t have 3 offensive centers and needed a defensive center to change the mix. We had an offensive dynamo (Tage), a guy with matchup pedigree (Cozens) and a playmaking two way center (Mitts). Thats a great skill mix for a teams top 3 centers. Before you try to argue about Cozens, thats how Lindy sees him, has talked about him and plans to use him. I’ll never understand why Donny wouldn’t fully commit to it.

It also wouldn’t be unusual to have your top 3 centers with a combined cap hit of 21mil. The odd part in this scenario is it would be even across the board (7mil/7mil/7mil) as opposed to something like 10mil/7mil/4mil. None of them would have cap hits in the top 60 among forwards next season and as a group would be a bargain going forward.

That was the advantage gained with the Tage/Cozens deals. We would have 3 top six capable centers signed to long term fair deals. This is one of the reasons I wanted to keep all three of them.

I think you are guilty of over emphasising his importance to the team to be honest.

Based on how you’re framing this leads me to believe you view Mitts as just the 3rd of our 3 offensive centers. The best candidate to move out for that “desperately needed” defensive center. Through that prism I can see why you feel I’m overemphasizing his importance.

I would argue that having Byram IS certainly more valuable when you consider the array of top 6/top 9 forward players/prospects in the system compared to what we have on the back end. No - none of these players are a carbon copy of Mitts - and yes - we do have Dahlin/Power - but after that it's embarrassingly bare by comparison. We have needed to make a F for D 'hockey trade' of this type for a long time. Adams even admitted that himself. The only surprise is that we got a player like Byram when most people expected/demanded more of a right shot shut down type. Adams' well documented interest in Chychrun should have given people clues... I really like it - but i probably value the transition game more than most.

I hope that works out to be the case. But that will hinge on a bunch of other adds to the roster taking place. It has nothing to do with our prospects.

I value the transition game as well. You don’t need two franchise level dman and Byram to successfully run a transition game. You need dmen who can move the puck quickly with a good first pass and can skate. Someone like Sammy fits the bill. Another dman like him is what was needed.

The advantage of having guys like Dahlin/Power is supposed to be you don’t need to go after guys like Byram.

Last paragraph is great & this is the outlook the haters need to take.

I think I its the only fair way to look at the situation. Now we wait to see how Adams fleshes out the roster.

 

[joshjull]

Jenner isn't happening for a number of reasons. And I'm not saying you are wrong when you suggest Adams will target more of a low end prototypical '4C' as opposed to what most of us are hoping for.

But Adams has more tradable assets than any other GM in the league to offer teams. He also has highly rated prospects that he'll need to move on from sooner than later.... He can afford to 'over pay' in this situation.

If he does go the route you're suggesting - it will absolutely be by choice rather than necessity.

I think what they ultimately think of Krebs will have a huge bearing. It will be interesting to see what type of extension he gets, assuming that happens before any move for another centre....

I’m not making a suggestion. I’m repeating what Adams said he is looking for.

 

[joshjull]

You either pair Byram with Dahlin, or you roll three pairs each with a more prototypical stay at home partner.

Or you give yourself the flexibility to do both...

Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs. Either Byram is the answer to fleshing out our top 4 or he was the wrong dman to acquire.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs. Either Byram is the answer to fleshing out our top 4 or he was the wrong dman to acquire.

of all people Id expect you not to boil a game as complex as hockey down to a binary position and I know given the other posts that you arent actually doing that even though you've just clearly posted it

but I also have a lesser opinion of mitts than you do so i dont need byram to be as vital to the sabres roster to justify losing mitts for him

 

[joshjull]

of all people Id expect you not to boil a game as complex as hockey down to a binary position and I know given the other posts that you arent actually doing that even though you've just clearly posted it

but I also have a lesser opinion of mitts than you do so i dont need byram to be as vital to the sabres roster to justify losing mitts for him

The Mitts trade was about acquiring a dman to round out the top 4. That desired result is either going to happen or it’s not. That is binary. It’s also not an assertion about anything else. I’m getting a good chuckle though out of the idea that this is me somehow making the sport of hockey itself binary.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The Mitts trade was about acquiring a dman to round out the top 4. That desired result is either going to happen or it’s not. That is binary. It’s also not an assertion about anything else. I’m getting a good chuckle though out of the idea that this is me somehow making the sport of hockey itself binary.

no you arent because you know thats not what i posted

 

[Rowley Birkin]

I read your response to @Sabresfansince1980 and responses to a few others. The foundation of your arguments is a false premise.

We didn’t have 3 offensive centers and needed a defensive center to change the mix. We had an offensive dynamo (Tage), a guy with matchup pedigree (Cozens) and a playmaking two way center (Mitts). Thats a great skill mix for a teams top 3 centers. Before you try to argue about Cozens, thats how Lindy sees him, has talked about him and plans to use him. I’ll never understand why Donny wouldn’t fully commit to it.

It also wouldn’t be unusual to have your top 3 centers with a combined cap hit of 21mil. The odd part in this scenario is it would be even across the board (7mil/7mil/7mil) as opposed to something like 10mil/7mil/4mil. None of them would have cap hits in the top 60 among forwards next season and as a group would be a bargain going forward.

That was the advantage gained with the Tage/Cozens deals. We would have 3 top six capable centers signed to long term fair deals. This is one of the reasons I wanted to keep all three of them.

Given how I expect our team as a whole to be constructed in the coming years - i don't believe paying a third line centre $7m/per right now is an effective strategy. Given the choice of either paying a #3C or a #3D the same money - i would always favour the latter. It's clear that you would always favour the former & i assume we will never agree about this.

And as I've already said - it doesn't really matter what either of us think - because it was very clear that Adams was not going to commit long term to Mitts in the way that you wanted.

Based on how you’re framing this leads me to believe you view Mitts as just the 3rd of our 3 offensive centers. The best candidate to move out for that “desperately needed” defensive center. Through that prism I can see why you feel I’m overemphasizing his importance.

Bolded - yes - that is no slight on Mitts as a player or to say that he is decidedly better or worse than the other two either. It's just how i view the construction of the team.

Tage = all situations #1 line (offensively biased)
Cozens = premier two way line
#3 = offensively biased / sheltered line (right now i think it's Krebs but could be one of the prospects in near future)
#4 = shut down line (this is the guy Adams referred to in the presser which you're in turn referring to below - i don't think it's going to be a Cirelli type like many hope for but he's not going to be a plug either - at worst I'm hoping for 2024s answer to Johan Larsson).

In terms of usage i could easily see situations where line '4' gets more ice than line '3'.

I think given the sheer number of offensively focused young players/prospects we already have in the system - paying Mitts to fill the '3C' / top 6 fill in role would be poor use of resources.

I hope that works out to be the case. But that will hinge on a bunch of other adds to the roster taking place. It has nothing to do with our prospects.

I don't think this team really needs that many adds :

- up to four forwards (i am assuming that Krebs is extended to fill one of those spots & the other roles are very much defensive snd/or physical 'bottom 6' type of players who (for most other teams) are not typically hard to acquire.

- one bottom pair defence first, ideally physical D

- backup goalie

While i don't envisage any more of the prospects making the roster out of the gate - i think you do have to factor them in sooner or later. Do they have a potential opening within the next year or two ? If not - then you have to think about moving on from one or more. Rosen will be D+4, Savoie/Kulich/Ostlund D+3. On the back end Johnson will be D+6. All former R1 picks.

I value the transition game as well. You don’t need two franchise level dman and Byram to successfully run a transition game. You need dmen who can move the puck quickly with a good first pass and can skate. Someone like Sammy fits the bill. Another dman like him is what was needed.

The advantage of having guys like Dahlin/Power is supposed to be you don’t need to go after guys like Byram.

Dahlin is already who he is but I don't think we need to put pressure on Power to become a 'franchise' level player despite his draft position / contract etc.

If you can't see the potential advantages of being able to roll all three at different times, or being able to put any 2/3 combination on the ice at any given time - there's nothing more i can say. You look around the league and this type of player is dominating more than ever before...

I’m not making a suggestion. I’m repeating what Adams said he is looking for.

Covered above. I think that people hoping for a Cirelli will be disappointed - but whoever we get will be playing an important role on this team.

Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs. Either Byram is the answer to fleshing out our top 4 or he was the wrong dman to acquire.

My point is that you have flexibility to do a number of things. Split them up AND play them together if necessary.

In recent years you can look at TB having Hedman/Sergachev/McDonagh during their cup runs (and maybe in future runs).

Most teams don't do it because it's very hard to acquire these type of players.

@Push Dr Tracksuit seems to have jumped in on this arguement - i would agree with him. You are making this very black & white when it doesn't need to be. Byram wasn't the guy i was expecting at all - but I'm even more excited about this than i would have been if we'd traded Mitts for Samuelsson 2.0.

 

[Dubi Doo]

Given how I expect our team as a whole to be constructed in the coming years - i don't believe paying a third line centre $7m/per right now is an effective strategy. Given the choice of either paying a #3C or a #3D the same money - i would always favour the latter. It's clear that you would always favour the former & i assume we will never agree about this.

And as I've already said - it doesn't really matter what either of us think - because it was very clear that Adams was not going to commit long term to Mitts in the way that you wanted.


Bolded - yes - that is no slight on Mitts as a player or to say that he is decidedly better or worse than the other two either. It's just how i view the construction of the team.

Tage = all situations #1 line (offensively biased)
Cozens = premier two way line
#3 = offensively biased / sheltered line (right now i think it's Krebs but could be one of the prospects in near future)
#4 = shut down line (this is the guy Adams referred to in the presser which you're in turn referring to below - i don't think it's going to be a Cirelli type like many hope for but he's not going to be a plug either - at worst I'm hoping for 2024s answer to Johan Larsson).

In terms of usage i could easily see situations where line '4' gets more ice than line '3'.

I think given the sheer number of offensively focused young players/prospects we already have in the system - paying Mitts to fill the '3C' / top 6 fill in role would be poor use of resources.



I don't think this team really needs that many adds :

- up to four forwards (i am assuming that Krebs is extended to fill one of those spots & the other roles are very much defensive snd/or physical 'bottom 6' type of players who (for most other teams) are not typically hard to acquire.

- one bottom pair defence first, ideally physical D

- backup goalie

While i don't envisage any more of the prospects making the roster out of the gate - i think you do have to factor them in sooner or later. Do they have a potential opening within the next year or two ? If not - then you have to think about moving on from one or more. Rosen will be D+4, Savoie/Kulich/Ostlund D+3. On the back end Johnson will be D+6. All former R1 picks.


Dahlin is already who he is but I don't think we need to put pressure on Power to become a 'franchise' level player despite his draft position / contract etc.

If you can't see the potential advantages of being able to roll all three at different times, or being able to put any 2/3 combination on the ice at any given time - there's nothing more i can say. You look around the league and this type of player is dominating more than ever before...


Covered above. I think that people hoping for a Cirelli will be disappointed - but whoever we get will be playing an important role on this team.


My point is that you have flexibility to do a number of things. Split them up AND play them together if necessary.

In recent years you can look at TB having Hedman/Sergachev/McDonagh during their cup runs (and maybe in future runs).

Most teams don't do it because it's very hard to acquire these type of players.

@Push Dr Tracksuit seems to have jumped in on this arguement - i would agree with him. You are making this very black & white when it doesn't need to be. Byram wasn't the guy i was expecting at all - but I'm even more excited about this than i would have been if we'd traded Mitts for Samuelsson 2.0.

I think the issue is, we have our 'sort-of' Hedman (Dahlin) and *hopefully* our 'sort-of' Sergachev (Power), but we currently lack a McDonagh. That's the type of player many of us wanted. Sammy could be that guy, but he had an off year last year from what I watched, and he's incredibly injury prone.

I'm not giving up on Byram by any means. He has quite the potential. I just have a hard time penning him in the lineup unless I put him or Power with Dahlin. Byram's time with Dahlin came with highs and chaos; I'm not sure I want that type of chaos on the top pairing (how much is due to Granato, though?). I believe Power-Dahlin have had some nice stats together, so maybe there's something there, then Byram can focus on driving play on the second pairing.

Now, if Dahlin can go back to the level of play we saw for the first half of the 2022-2023 season, then he'll likely elevate the play enough for anyone he's paired with. Lindy is a big time X factor in this all, too. I'm assuming/hoping he's going to make life a hell of a lot easier on our defensemen. Also, let's see what Adams does this offseason.

I'm concerned about the trade but am firmly in the camp of 'time will tell'.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

@Push Dr Tracksuit seems to have jumped in on this arguement - i would agree with him. You are making this very black & white when it doesn't need to be. Byram wasn't the guy i was expecting at all - but I'm even more excited about this than i would have been if we'd traded Mitts for Samuelsson 2.0.

Ive been saying for 3 years now that I didnt think the sabres had plans to keep mitts around for another contract. Especially given the contracts to cozens and thompson. If thats true, which is pure speculation based on how they treated other players vs mitts, then trading mitts for byrum is trading an asset with expiring value for another asset. I also only think that its only this board that the trade is not considered a good deal for Buffalo.

again we get back to well how good would mitts have been under good coaches? well we know how good byrum was under good coaches, he was a dman that on a team with good dmen was still being used on average 18:58, 21:52, and 19:50 a night including being their third most used dman in 21 and his minutes went up in the 22 playoffs at the ripe old age of 20 and 21

the hate byrum gets around here does not mesh with what he has accomplished in his young career, hes one of the top young players in league and almost no one talks about him that way

 

[Rowley Birkin]

Ive been saying for 3 years now that I didnt think the sabres had plans to keep mitts around for another contract. Especially given the contracts to cozens and thompson. If thats true, which is pure speculation based on how they treated other players vs mitts, then trading mitts for byrum is trading an asset with expiring value for another asset. I also only think that its only this board that the trade is not considered a good deal for Buffalo.

again we get back to well how good would mitts have been under good coaches? well we know how good byrum was under good coaches, he was a dman that on a team with good dmen was still being used on average 18:58, 21:52, and 19:50 a night including being their third most used dman in 21 and his minutes went up in the 22 playoffs at the ripe old age of 20 and 21

the hate byrum gets around here does not mesh with what he has accomplished in his young career, hes one of the top young players in league and almost no one talks about him that way

I totally agree.

Defencemen are generally under valued / under appreciated on this forum IMO and always have been. I remember the posters who wanted to trade Dahlin for example, also the posters now who want to trade Power. While they are also valuable - the perceived value of centres is generally overinflated by many here too. I think this 'Byram vs Mitts' arguement is more nuanced than that - but these are fundamental observations I've made over the years.

I'm excited to see what Lindy can do with this defensive group. People think of him as a defensive coach, old school, who favours tough physical play etc. But i think about the way he's unlocked certain players - Brian Campbell being the most obvious example. If these three guys continue to develop as expected - they will be the backbone of this team.

 

[debaser66]

I also was thinking why KA made this deal when he made it, and even at equal value he should have gotten extra value from COL needing that type of player for the playoffs now, while Mitts could have been traded around the draft and there would have been also more options available, one that fits more the actual need (RD with physical edge, responsible D zone/shut down, good first pass)

 

[joshjull]

Ive been saying for 3 years now that I didnt think the sabres had plans to keep mitts around for another contract. Especially given the contracts to cozens and thompson. If thats true, which is pure speculation based on how they treated other players vs mitts, then trading mitts for byrum is trading an asset with expiring value for another asset. I also only think that its only this board that the trade is not considered a good deal for Buffalo.

again we get back to well how good would mitts have been under good coaches? well we know how good byrum was under good coaches, he was a dman that on a team with good dmen was still being used on average 18:58, 21:52, and 19:50 a night including being their third most used dman in 21 and his minutes went up in the 22 playoffs at the ripe old age of 20 and 21

the hate byrum gets around here does not mesh with what he has accomplished in his young career, hes one of the top young players in league and almost no one talks about him that way

The majority of posters who have issues with this trade feel about the same as I do. That it was a fair value trade for a talented kid with a ton of upside. We just question if he is the right fit. No one has to hate Byram to feel this way about the deal. Though I’m sure a few do.

Byram is not one of the best young players in the game. But he does have that upside potential. This past season was his first full one in NHL due to injuries. That and the normal inconsistencies of a player his age are big reason he hasn’t hit his potential. Hopefully he stays healthy and find consistency going forward.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

I also was thinking why KA made this deal when he made it, and even at equal value he should have gotten extra value from COL needing that type of player for the playoffs now, while Mitts could have been traded around the draft and there would have been also more options available, one that fits more the actual need (RD with physical edge, responsible D zone/shut down, good first pass)

This is pretty flawed logic. And even if you think that Byram is a poor fit - don't act like the type of player you are describing as a good fit is easy to acquire.

 

[joshjull]

Given how I expect our team as a whole to be constructed in the coming years - i don't believe paying a third line centre $7m/per right now is an effective strategy. Given the choice of either paying a #3C or a #3D the same money - i would always favour the latter. It's clear that you would always favour the former & i assume we will never agree about this.

I said in a previous post that either approach works. I don’t have a preference.

I don't think this team really needs that many adds :

- up to four forwards (i am assuming that Krebs is extended to fill one of those spots & the other roles are very much defensive snd/or physical 'bottom 6' type of players who (for most other teams) are not typically hard to acquire.

- one bottom pair defence first, ideally physical D

- backup goalie

While i don't envisage any more of the prospects making the roster out of the gate - i think you do have to factor them in sooner or later. Do they have a potential opening within the next year or two ? If not - then you have to think about moving on from one or more. Rosen will be D+4, Savoie/Kulich/Ostlund D+3. On the back end Johnson will be D+6. All former R1 picks.

I said a bunch of players. You just listed potentially 6 players added. Where is the disagreement?

My point is that you have flexibility to do a number of things. Split them up AND play them together if necessary.

This is describing playing minutes outside their normal pairs. Which means they're all in the top 4 but getting extra shifts outside that. It’s not the same thing as rolling 3 d-pairs. Which is not something teams do. It would be one of them on the 3rd pairing.

In recent years you can look at TB having Hedman/Sergachev/McDonagh during their cup runs (and maybe in future runs).

Most teams don't do it because it's very hard to acquire these type of players.

This doesn’t make sense in response to me posting….. “Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs. Either Byram is the answer to fleshing out our top 4 or he was the wrong dman to acquire.”

Tampa rolled 3 dmen. They didn’t roll 3 d-pairs. If Byram becomes the equivalent of one of those 3 dman, then he is clearly one of our top 4 dmen.

As an aside, you seem to have forgotten Sammy exists. We shouldn’t need to lean on 3 dmen like Tampa did. Acquiring Byram gives us 4 dmen who can and have played a good chunk of minutes 5v5. We have the potential to put together a very good top 4. That hinges on whether they can find the right pieces to fit together.

@Push Dr Tracksuit seems to have jumped in on this arguement - i would agree with him. You are making this very black & white when it doesn't need to be. Byram wasn't the guy i was expecting at all - but I'm even more excited about this than i would have been if we'd traded Mitts for Samuelsson 2.0.

You’re agreeing with a poster who quoted me with zero clue how I felt about this trade and most things relating to it. Only that I said if Byram turns out to be a bottom pairing dman, the trade didn’t work out. Hardly an earth shattering statement. Nor do I think it will happen.

Byram can turn out to be anything from our #2 dman down to our #4 dman. You’re right to be excited about him. I’m excited to see what he can do under Lindy as well. Even with my reservations about the trade. But in the unlikely event he falls out of the top 4, that would be quite a failure.

 

[debaser66]

This is pretty flawed logic. And even if you think that Byram is a poor fit - don't act like the type of player you are describing as a good fit is easy to acquire.

Maybe you like to elaborate why?
But just if you manage to keep a certain level of conversational conduct, thank you!

 

[KrakenSabresMike]

This is pretty flawed logic. And even if you think that Byram is a poor fit - don't act like the type of player you are describing as a good fit is easy to acquire.

Also now that Colorado is out what is mitts worth? Based on past precedent definitively not Byram at 22 yo as a top 4/developing top 5 pick D. Players better than mittlestadt who are RFA needing a contract usually go well below what you would think they would be. Examples Debrincat and buchnevich recently ( buch basically went for a 2!)

 

[Djp]

I also was thinking why KA made this deal when he made it, and even at equal value he should have gotten extra value from COL needing that type of player for the playoffs now, while Mitts could have been traded around the draft and there would have been also more options available, one that fits more the actual need (RD with physical edge, responsible D zone/shut down, good first pass)

Like what RD? One that you might think youd want for Mitts ih s older and a p poi tenyi as l cap dump ejilr ehere U24 NHL RD is available ?

 

[tsujimoto74]

I also was thinking why KA made this deal when he made it, and even at equal value he should have gotten extra value from COL needing that type of player for the playoffs now, while Mitts could have been traded around the draft and there would have been also more options available, one that fits more the actual need (RD with physical edge, responsible D zone/shut down, good first pass)

In recent years, players like Mitts (other good RFA forwards) have gotten pretty poor value in the summer (Reinhart, Buchnevich, etc.). There's no way the Sabres would've done better trading Mitts at/around the draft. If moving on was the plan regardless, they did it at the right time.

 

[Chainshot]

Adams interview with Seravelli, he indicated they weren't interested in moving Mittelstadt until near the time it happened. He also indicated he had been interested in Byram when they were shopping Eichel.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

You’re agreeing with a poster who quoted me with zero clue how I felt about this trade and most things relating to it. Only that I said if Byram turns out to be a bottom pairing dman, the trade didn’t work out. Hardly an earth shattering statement. Nor do I think it will happen.

Byram can turn out to be anything from our #2 dman down to our #4 dman. You’re right to be excited about him. I’m excited to see what he can do under Lindy as well. Even with my reservations about the trade. But in the unlikely event he falls out of the top 4, that would be quite a failure.

Again, it is in the orginal post that I’m well aware of the more complex discussion going on. In fact my complaint was that you took the much more complex discussion and boiled it down to a this or that statement.

 

[TehDoak]

In recent years, players like Mitts (other good RFA forwards) have gotten pretty poor value in the summer (Reinhart, Buchnevich, etc.). There's no way the Sabres would've done better trading Mitts at/around the draft. If moving on was the plan regardless, they did it at the right time.

Reinhart and Buch were both moved during summer of 2021 where cap space was at a premium.

If Adam’s would have waited until the summer he would have had more suitors.