Didn’t take him for free

Why???

While this deal wouldn't prove this theory (because a draft pick is the asset going the other way), one reason that teams do not claim someone for free has to do with the number of allotted contracts a team has.

A great example of this was the recent accuisition of Alex Galchenyuk by Toronto. Galchenyuk was placed on waivers: he was, for all intents and purposes, free, yet Toronto did not claim him. Instead, they traded for him. Why would they do this? Because adding Galchenyuk would have put them closer to the 50 contract limit. This was a case where trading for someone that was "free" was actually a strategic decision.

Now, this particular deal does not accomplish this, as a draft pick (and not a contracted player) is moving the other way. I am merely pointing out why it could be possible.

Unlike Galchenyuk, Byron has 3 years left at way too much money for anyone to claim him and play on their third or fourth line. No one is giving up assets to get Byron. However if you attach a pick to Byron you might get some nibbles.

I completely agree and wasn't arguing that this was going to happen to Byron. If you read the post, you would have seen that I was merely explaining why teams trade for players that they could have potentially received for free off of waivers. I frankly don't really care either way what happens. Only one team wins the Cup each year, and it's not going to be one of these two this year.

I did read the whole thing! Definitely interesting and I understand the why, just thought I’d add my two debts about value and reaffirm that this doesn’t apply to Byron.