Byfield
Registered User
- Jan 15, 2021
- 252
- 250
Come one, come all.
The Kings should be fielding some calls for him by now.
What would your team offer?
The Kings should be fielding some calls for him by now.
What would your team offer?
Lol why would they sell on a kid just starting to break out?
Byram for Byfield
People also said this about Jack Hughes. Byfield's only 20 and just had a near ppg playoffsPeople said this about Puljujarvi, Kravtsov, Yakupov, and countless other disappointments.
Byfield looks more like them, than he does a star in the NHL IMO.
If I were LA I would try to trade him to Toronto as a package for Matthews.
lol, Bit of a difference with Byfield. He just needs to grow into his frame.People said this about Puljujarvi, Kravtsov, Yakupov, and countless other disappointments.
Byfield looks more like them, than he does a star in the NHL IMO.
If I were LA I would try to trade him to Toronto as a package for Matthews.
And that’s the thread. I’m not a huge Byfield supporter and I completely agree.If you’re LA you go down with the ship w Byfield. Just not worth trading him at his lower value now.
lol, Bit of a difference with Byfield. He just needs to grow into his frame.
People also said this about Jack Hughes. Byfield's only 20 and just had a near ppg playoffs
This x 4,912,630Kings should not be fielding offers and will not be fielding offers.
Huh? I guess you just don't like him as a player because for some reason you seem to think he's a bust when he's actually been progressing quite well from my POVSame excuse was used for Puljujarvi.
I can and have given plenty more examples than you can.
My point was unless you believe he's more like Hughes, chances are his value is as high as it's ever going to be right now. The whole "Why trade him when his value is at his lowest?" is a nonsense statement made by people who are bad at gambling and understanding basic math.
Huh? I guess you just don't like him as a player because for some reason you seem to think he's a bust when he's actually been progressing quite well from my POV
Bingo, except "need" to trade should be open minded as to whether or not an offer that is sufficiently profitable is tendered. Then it becomes a matter of do you keep the hand you have, or do you hope the profitable offer has enuf upside to pay off.I don’t think Byfield is untouchable, it’s just that we have no need to trade him and we do have some reason to keep him. But none of this matters if GM Blake keeps McClellan as coach. Now if there was a deal for a top five prime goaltender AND a deal to unload Petersen’s contract, then perhaps. Especially after we sign Gavrikov, if that happens.
Byfield is a larger and more skilled player. No doubt he'll be a very good player.Same excuse was used for Puljujarvi.
I can and have given plenty more examples than you can.
My point was unless you believe he's more like Hughes, chances are his value is as high as it's ever going to be right now. The whole "Why trade him when his value is at his lowest?" is a nonsense statement made by people who are bad at gambling and understanding basic math.
Whenever I see people “post stats” without actually saying the numbers, it’s never actually as impressive as it’s made out to be. 1 goal, 4 points in 6 games. Team worst -5 as well.People also said this about Jack Hughes. Byfield's only 20 and just had a near ppg playoffs