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

[MOGlLNY]

Nevermind we are talking in circles in here and I’m just adding to it by saying the same. Delete

 

[KrakenSabresMike]

For all this back and forth, if we can get someone like Cirelli for the 11th ( or probably less than that) which would you rather have

Mitts at 7+ for 7 years plus this year’s first in the bag, or some combination of henri/rosen/ whatever not super premium, but good asset we trade to Tampa or

Byram + Cirelli but this year’s first or some of the pieces above are gone.

Personally, I would take option 2 every time because I think it gives us more of what we needed and the defenseman that we have gotten out of it is able to play for us now and just starting to hit his peak

 

[itwasaforwardpass]

For all this back and forth, if we can get someone like Cirelli for the 11th ( or probably less than that) which would you rather have

Mitts at 7+ for 7 years plus this year’s first in the bag, or some combination of henri/rosen/ whatever not super premium, but good asset we trade to Tampa or

Byram + Cirelli but this year’s first or some of the pieces above are gone.

Personally, I would take option 2 every time because I think it gives us more of what we needed and the defenseman that we have gotten out of it is able to play for us now and just starting to hit his peak

If we can get Cirelli and not spend Ostlund/Savoie/Wahlberg then it makes this trade look a lot better. I don't think it should cost those prospects but I doubt we get Cirelli.

I'm not sure if Adams sees center as big enough a need, or if he is willing to trade prospect/picks for it. My guess is besides bottom six defensive grinders, he views most holes fillable in house. Thats the impression he's given at least.

 

[Fjordy]

If we can get Cirelli and not spend Ostlund/Savoie/Wahlberg then it makes this trade look a lot better. I don't think it should cost those prospects but I doubt we get Cirelli.

I'm not sure if Adams sees center as big enough a need, or if he is willing to trade prospect/picks for it. My guess is besides bottom six defensive grinders, he views most holes fillable in house. Thats the impression he's given at least.

Well we don't have a 3C and we don't even know what Thompson and Cozens will look like next season, it seems clear that the center position is a priority for improvement.

 

[debaser66]

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.

Thanks for your answer, I appreciate post like this.

 

[MOGlLNY]

For all this back and forth, if we can get someone like Cirelli for the 11th ( or probably less than that) which would you rather have

Mitts at 7+ for 7 years plus this year’s first in the bag, or some combination of henri/rosen/ whatever not super premium, but good asset we trade to Tampa or

Byram + Cirelli but this year’s first or some of the pieces above are gone.

Personally, I would take option 2 every time because I think it gives us more of what we needed and the defenseman that we have gotten out of it is able to play for us now and just starting to hit his peak

You’re not wrong and I agree but likely we also could have spent the 11th to get a defenseman lol

 

[KrakenSabresMike]

You’re not wrong and I agree but likely we also could have spent the 11th to get a defenseman lol

I don’t remember a similar trade of a top 15 for a D we want - last one a 1 + 2 + 6 + player for risto ( who should be valued way way lower than Byram with any valuation of his actual play + age/contract + pedigree and ceiling long potential - only rhd is in Risto favor - many people here were made we exposed borgen over him in the draft and felt he was worth a high mid round pick at best/were willing to give him away free in expansion) - so I think in a vacuum your not wrong but I think it would cost way more than 11 to get that player. Top 6 ish Pending RFA fwd on the other hand go for that type of cost or less all the time

That’s why this is value wise a very good trade - the D will always cost more to trade for vs where mitts is in his contract/career

 

[joshjull]

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.

No, I didn’t. You’re not getting the point I was trying to make. I’ll explain further in the hopes of clarifying.

My post you initially quoted was the succinct version of my thoughts. The following are the thoughts behind that post fleshed out.

In my debate with @Rowley Birkin , one of the things I asserted was that Byram is as redundant as Mitts due to Dahlin/Power. He disagreed and we went back and forth over for a bit. A little after that I read his response to @Fjordy. He (Fjordy) was questioning the logic of adding another dman to the top 4 with a similar skill set to Dahlin/Power.

I was quite surprised to see his response to this. Basically it’s not problem if he doesn’t fit in the top 4. We can just spread the 3 of them out over 3 pairs and roll them. That we should also add a defensive dman to make it possible. I had a few thoughts in my head reading that and I responded with the succinct version. Which for me is a rarity. Lesson learned.

The thinking behind it…….

1) Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs equally like they frequently do with centers. If those three are on 3 separate pairs. Then Byram would really be on a 3rd pairing getting less minutes than he ever has in his career. Thats not happening either.

2) If Byram isn’t in the top 4 and we had to get another dman (defensive dman). That means a different skill set was needed for the top 4 and his were redundant. Rowley is effectively admitting that with this take. Though I doubt he sees it that way.

3) Byram is a top 4 dman with top pairing upside. The question I have, as do others, is whether his skill set is the right fit. We all assume/expect him in the top 4.

My initial post was calling bullshit on the unrealistic scenario Rowley laid out. It’s doesn’t answer the question of how Byram fits in top 4. Plus, no one is going to roll 3 pairs equally and Byram isn’t a bottom pairing dman. If he was, he’s not someone we would have traded Mitts for. Thus he would be the wrong dman to target.



I can understand why you didn’t get it. You would need a little ESP to do so.

 

[Dingo44]

No, I didn’t. You still don’t understand the point I was trying to make. I’ll explain further the hopes of clarifying.

Most post you initially quoted was the succinct version of my thoughts. The following are the thoughts behind that post fleshed out.

In my debate with @Rowley Birkin , one of the things I asserted was that Byram is as redundant as Mitts due to Dahlin/Power. He disagreed and we went back and forth over for a bit. A little after that I read his response to @Fjordy. He was questioning the logic of adding another dman to the top 4 with a similar skill set to Dahlin/Power.

I was quite surprised to see his response but that this not problem if he doesn’t fit in the top 4. We can just spread the 3 of them out over 3 pairs and roll them. That we should also add a defensive dman to make it possible. I had a few thoughts in my head reading that and I responded with the succinct version. Which for me is a rarity. Lesson learned.

The thinking behind it…….

1) Teams don’t roll 3 d-pairs equally like they frequently do with centers. If those three are on 3 separate pairs. Then Byram would really be on a 3rd pairing getting less minutes than he ever has in his career. Thats not happening either.

2) If Byram isn’t in the top 4 and we had to get another dman (defensive dman). That means a different skill set was needed for the top 4 and his were redundant. Rowley is effectively admitting that with this take. Though I doubt he sees it that way.

3) Byram is a top 4 dman with top pairing upside. The question I have, as do others, issue, is whether he’s skill set is the right fit. We all assume/expect him in the top 4.

My initial post was calling bullshit on the unrealistic scenario Rowley laid out. No one is going to roll 3 pairs equally and Byram isn’t a bottom pairing dman. If he was, he’s not someone we would have traded Mitts for. Thus he would be the wrong dman to target.

I can understand why you didn’t get it. You would need a little ESP to do so.

I think we can assume the Sabres see Samuelsson as a top 4 partner for one of the other "big 3".

So, Byram is either playing with Dahlin, Power, or Sammy.

I'm guessing we see all three until the top 4 are working (hopefully)

Dahlin - Byram
Power - Samuelsson

Dahlin - Power
Byram - Samuelsson

Dahlin - Samuelsson
Power - Byram

Maybe they move Clifton up in that rotation but then Samuelsson is pretty pricey for a bottom pair D - though we are going to have injuries and competition to get back in the top 4 is good.

Interesting to see how Ruff manages it - especially with Ryan Johnson right there, and then who knows what happens with Joker (who they really seem to like).

No matter what this board feels, a top 7 of Dahlin/Power/Byram/Samuelsson/Clifton/Joker/R.Johnson has the potential to be one of the best groups in the league. All depends on Ruff and both usage and development.

 

[MOGlLNY]

I'm very intrigued to see how Byram and Samuelsson end up together. They will either be really great or get absolutely cratered. No in between

 

[BobRossColton]

Did your fanbase have a dream winger for mittelstadt to play with?

 

[Beerz]

Did your fanbase have a dream winger for mittelstadt to play with?

Jeff Skinner.

Interested?

 

[BobRossColton]

Jeff Skinner.

Interested?

That didn't actually help me.

 

[Zman5778]

Did your fanbase have a dream winger for mittelstadt to play with?

Not really. He worked well with a number of different combos here. Started really well with Benson and Greenway. Did well with Tuch and Skinner.

When he got traded to Colorado, I think a lot of us immediately thought that Nuke (whoops) or Lehky would be ideal to pair with Mitts.

 

[BobRossColton]

Not really. He worked well with a number of different combos here. Started really well with Benson and Greenway. Did well with Tuch and Skinner.

When he got traded to Colorado, I think a lot of us immediately thought that Nuke (whoops) or Lehky would be ideal to pair with Mitts.

Yeah Nuke would've been nice but bednar seemed to juggle his linemates. If Gabe comes back, he could be nice cause Gabe's good with deflecting and net front areas

 

[Zman5778]

Yeah Nuke would've been nice but bednar seemed to juggle his linemates. If Gabe comes back, he could be nice cause Gabe's good with deflecting and net front areas

There'd be some flexibility there too, as I think Moose would work well with Mitts too. Then could pair MacK with Gabe.

 

[BobRossColton]

There'd be some flexibility there too, as I think Moose would work well with Mitts too. Then could pair MacK with Gabe.

Since you're the only one answering, who would you have traded for to solely play with mitts?

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Since you're the only one answering, who would you have traded for to solely play with mitts?

No one as he changes his game to fit his linemates. Unless he was locked into a dedicated role it wouldn't make sense

 

[Zman5778]

Since you're the only one answering, who would you have traded for to solely play with mitts?

In a world where the cap isn't a thing?

Stone and Mitts would be a helluva 2-way pair.
Rantanen would be very very high on my list.
Kreider would be good.

He does well with guys that work well along the boards and guys that he can rotate/cycle with seamlessly. So they've gotta have some level of IQ.

 

[Zman5778]

No one as he changes his game to fit his linemates. Unless he was locked into a dedicated role it wouldn't make sense

I do think he wouldn't fit well with another pass-first guy though. Mitts is hesitant enough to shoot as is.

Which is why in my list above, I didn't include guys like Marner or Kaprizov or Panarin.

 

[Chainshot]

At different times in the last couple of years, Mittelstadt got or kept Skinner and Tuch going. He did energized utility work with Greenway and Benson. Last year he had a month where he unlocked Vic Olofsson for what, a 9-goal January playing mostly with waiver bait Tyson Jost as the other winger.

He's a chameleon. It's part of his appeal.

 

[BobRossColton]

I do think he wouldn't fit well with another pass-first guy though. Mitts is hesitant enough to shoot as is.

Which is why in my list above, I didn't include guys like Marner or Kaprizov or Panarin.

Marchessault, Mercer, debrusk hyman Crouse

 

[Rowley Birkin]

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

Potentially/up to 6 bottom of the roster type players. That's a much different situation to be in compared to needing just one or more 'core' players. These type of players should not be hard to acquire.

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.

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.

At this point we're probably disagreeing based on semantics more than anything else. I'm not suggesting that they have to roll three pairs equally & rigidly, with one guy on each pair at all times. I'm suggesting that they have flexibility to move each of them around depending on situation. That's what Tampa did with their 'big 3' IIRC despite all of them being lefties listed as LD1, LD2 & LD3 on their depth chart. Most people seem to want to create rigid roles for players who exactly match their preferred prototype. EG the 'we need a RHS Samuelsson clone to play with Power' line of thinking. Which i understand - but i think the game has moved away from.

I haven't forgotten Samuelsson at all. I really like the prospect of having them as our 'top four' - my only worry with Samuelsson is his health issues / inability to stay fit for a full season. I'm not suggesting anywhere that we need to add another D outside of a prototypical 'bottom pair' guy who brings a physical element they don't currently have. To make room for this player I'd look at moving on from both Jokiharju & Bryson.

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.

If your 'worst case' scenario is Byram emerging as our '#4 dman' i honestly can't understand why you don't like the trade. Outside of your man crush for Mitts, obviously...

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

It should be pretty obvious by now - but around the entire league - good, young defensemen with team control are just about the most valuable commodity in the game. If a team has one - they tend to keep hold of them.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

I think we can assume the Sabres see Samuelsson as a top 4 partner for one of the other "big 3".

So, Byram is either playing with Dahlin, Power, or Sammy.

I'm guessing we see all three until the top 4 are working (hopefully)

Dahlin - Byram
Power - Samuelsson

Dahlin - Power
Byram - Samuelsson

Dahlin - Samuelsson
Power - Byram

Maybe they move Clifton up in that rotation but then Samuelsson is pretty pricey for a bottom pair D - though we are going to have injuries and competition to get back in the top 4 is good.

Interesting to see how Ruff manages it - especially with Ryan Johnson right there, and then who knows what happens with Joker (who they really seem to like).

No matter what this board feels, a top 7 of Dahlin/Power/Byram/Samuelsson/Clifton/Joker/R.Johnson has the potential to be one of the best groups in the league. All depends on Ruff and both usage and development.

(continuing from my above post & also in response to @joshjull...)

This is closer to what i was getting at with my original arguement - but i also don't think the rotation would need to be limited to the top two pairs. There could be in game situations where you split the three of them up & you involve a Clifton in that mix.

My comment about adding a defensive/physical guy in place of Jokiharju is from looking at that group of seven as a whole. Not (as Josh is suggesting) that we need to sign/trade for a guy to partner Byram on the bottom pair for 82 games.