His numbers are irrelevant. He is coming off a long term concussion and it remains to be seen if he can still play/produce.

Right now, he is a detriment in any trade. He needs to rebound (recover might be a better word) before he can be moved for anything of interest.
- Mentalorgasm5

Well I'm only going off of the rumor that Ennis for Hoffman is being discussed. We're both assuming Ennis isn't enough, which is why I asked you what else would have to be included. Ted Dibiase taught me that everyone has a price.

And their #s ARE sort of relevant, Hoffman has a much smaller body of work and all of his success was post 25 years of age heading into a contract outing. Is he a fluke? I don't think so but its not as if there is no risk with Hoffman and nothing but risk with Ennis.

If we are adding Vesey and Nash (this is assuming no #91) then you can make it work.

I agree on next year UFA if we already have Stamkos
- sbroads24

They sign Vesey and trade Ennis for Hoffman, now Nash is a 3rd liner. Hell even if Ennis stays Nash might be a 3rd liner.

Nash 7.8
Moulson 5
Gionta 4.25

They sign Vesey and trade Ennis for Hoffman, now Nash is a 3rd liner. Hell even if Ennis stays Nash might be a 3rd liner.

Nash 7.8
Moulson 5
Gionta 4.25


- dadeadhead

I like Ennis but there is 0 chance he'd be above Nash on a depth chart.

Even if he was. I'm fine with having 3 lines of talented players.

Well I'm only going off of the rumor that Ennis for Hoffman is being discussed. We're both assuming Ennis isn't enough, which is why I asked you what else would have to be included. Ted Dibiase taught me that everyone has a price.

And their #s ARE sort of relevant, Hoffman has a much smaller body of work and all of his success was post 25 years of age heading into a contract outing. Is he a fluke? I don't think so but its not as if there is no risk with Hoffman and nothing but risk with Ennis.
- Phatjohnsn

If we get Hoffman, I don't see ennis being involved in the trade. The numbers imo hold no grounds. He missed more than half the season with a concussion. We don't even know if he is a go for this season.

If I'm a GM, I look at all the previous players that had serious concussion, it's usually the first of many. Ennis needs to go a full year without missing time because of a concussion before we can get anything of value for him.

Trade Moulson, #8, a 3rd and retain 1/2 of Moulson's salary for Hartnell and the #3 pick.

If we get Hoffman, I don't see ennis being involved in the trade. The numbers imo hold no grounds. He missed more than half the season with a concussion. We don't even know if he is a go for this season.

If I'm a GM, I look at all the previous players that had serious concussion, it's usually the first of many. Ennis needs to go a full year without missing time because of a concussion before we can get anything of value for him.
- Mentalorgasm5

You never know. Ottawa won't spend to the cap and in Ennis' cost certainty could be appealing.

If we get Hoffman, I don't see ennis being involved in the trade. The numbers imo hold no grounds. He missed more than half the season with a concussion. We don't even know if he is a go for this season.

If I'm a GM, I look at all the previous players that had serious concussion, it's usually the first of many. Ennis needs to go a full year without missing time because of a concussion before we can get anything of value for him.
- Mentalorgasm5

So you're tossing that rumor in the garbage then and I'm not? Agree to disagree.

I'd still prefer to trade Ennis+ for Hoffman (if that is a thing) than anything for Rick Nash, which is my original point.

If the Rangers want Stamkos they will figure out a way to make it work with or without us trading for Nash. It shouldn't effect either of our plans.

I'm in the minority but I believe Nash fits perfectly here for two years.

Add Nash and Vesey and this I a playoff top 6.
- sbroads24

Let me paint a picture...

Person A:
60 GP
15 Gs
21 As
36 pts
Makes 7.5M for 2 more years.

Person B:
65 GP
20 Gs
15 As
35 Pts
Makes 5.25M for 2 more years.

Player B, you b!tch and moan and cry and piss about that he is an overpaid POS that needs to be gone almost as much as you cry about Bogosian.

Player A is Rick Nash last year on a team that made the playoffs. Player A also had a brillian 65 GP, 26 Gs, 13 As, and 39 pts in his first season in NYR when they went to the Stanley Cup.

Trade Moulson, #8, a 3rd and retain 1/2 of Moulson's salary for Hartnell and the #3 pick.
- adambuffalo

So you have Hartnell essentially at 7.25 hit the next 3 years........

You never know. Ottawa won't spend to the cap and in Ennis' cost certainty could be appealing.
- Slump Buster

I don't see how Ennis is appealing. He carries a 4 6 million cap hit, and no one, at the moment at least, knows if he can play, and what he will do once he returns.

Pretend your a GM, are you giving up anything substantial for a player with question marks? If Ennis and Hoffman's numbers are similar, why take the chance the player returning from a concussion?

Let me paint a picture...

Person A:
60 GP
15 Gs
21 As
36 pts
Makes 7.5M for 2 more years.

Person B:
65 GP
20 Gs
15 As
35 Pts
Makes 5.25M for 2 more years.

Player B, you b!tch and moan and cry and piss about that he is an overpaid POS that needs to be gone almost as much as you cry about Bogosian.

Player A is Rick Nash last year on a team that made the playoffs. Player A also had a brillian 65 GP, 26 Gs, 13 As, and 39 pts in his first season in NYR when they went to the Stanley Cup.
- JVince11

2nd he had 42 points in 44 gp in 12/13's strike year.

So you have Hartnell essentially at 7.25 hit the next 3 years........
- dadeadhead

Hartnell and Tkachuk for less than $10m for 3 seasons.

Edited one of the Finns

Hartnell and Tkachuk for less than $10m for 3 seasons.
- adambuffalo

If you're going to 3, its for Puljujarvi

If you're going to 3, its for Puljujarvi
- dadeadhead

Yeah, caught that. Been thinking for weeks that 4 would be the highest we could move up to and automatically put Tkachuk.

So you have Hartnell essentially at 7.25 hit the next 3 years........
- dadeadhead

Hey I like Hartnell and I think he is playing really good hockey.. but at 34 years old. The end is goign to hit him VERY hard very soon.

Hartnell and Tkachuk for less than $10m for 3 seasons.

Edited one of the Finns
- adambuffalo

I'd rather have Troy Brouwer than Hartnell


younger

Let me paint a picture...

Person A:
60 GP
15 Gs
21 As
36 pts
Makes 7.5M for 2 more years.

Person B:
65 GP
20 Gs
15 As
35 Pts
Makes 5.25M for 2 more years.

Player B, you b!tch and moan and cry and piss about that he is an overpaid POS that needs to be gone almost as much as you cry about Bogosian.

Player A is Rick Nash last year on a team that made the playoffs. Player A also had a brillian 65 GP, 26 Gs, 13 As, and 39 pts in his first season in NYR when they went to the Stanley Cup.
- JVince11

Player A was acquired with a ton of assets and expected to be a top line LW. Player A had off ice issues. Player A still had off ice issues. Player A has never scored 40 goals. PLayer A has never made team Canada. Player A has never led the league in even strength goals.

PLayer B costs you very little, and has accomplished 10x more than player A

Edit: Switch all my A's with B's. IM too lazy

2nd he had 42 points in 44 gp in 12/13's strike year.
- dadeadhead

So every other year he is good? At 32 years old... and 7.5M..

I don't want it... I just absolutely do NOT want it. Nope.

I'd rather pay Eriksson the 5.5M he wants for 4 years and give up NO assets than trade for Rick Nash and help NYR out of their crap salary cap situation to make a pitch to Stamkos.

Player A was acquired with a ton of assets and expected to be a top line LW. Player A had off ice issues. Player A still had off ice issues. Player A has never scored 40 goals. PLayer A has never made team Canada. Player A has never led the league in even strength goals.

PLayer B costs you very little, and has accomplished 10x more than player A
- sbroads24

LOL...

Player A is no longer the same player he was when he accomplished anything. he is 32 years old... over paid.. and there is a reason why they are trying to move him.

Player B is 24 years old and finally on a good team.

Get a grip with reality.

What NYR gave up for him and his role there is 100% irrelevant to us.

You are trading for him to be a secondary piece. 25 goals 45-50 points.
- sbroads24

Yeah because that's the way he's trending... 36 points last year. Honestly, why not get Yak if it costs the same in assets yet only costs 2.5M in cap? Better than a guy who is 32.

Why is a tree not a very good friend??


Because they are always throwing shade at you.

Player A was acquired with a ton of assets and expected to be a top line LW. Player A had off ice issues. Player A still had off ice issues. Player A has never scored 40 goals. PLayer A has never made team Canada. Player A has never led the league in even strength goals.

PLayer B costs you very little, and has accomplished 10x more than player A
- sbroads24

Wanna fight?

Hot off the press. Sabres have it down to 2 players
Nylander and brown
- Buffalo39

Big brown fan..any word on day1 potential moves?

Player A was acquired with a ton of assets and expected to be a top line LW. Player A had off ice issues. Player A still had off ice issues. Player A has never scored 40 goals. PLayer A has never made team Canada. Player A has never led the league in even strength goals.

PLayer B costs you very little, and has accomplished 10x more than player A
- sbroads24

You do realize player B is Kane and A is Nash right?

LOL...

Player B is no longer the same player he was when he accomplished anything. he is 32 years old... over paid.. and there is a reason why they are trying to move him.

Player A is 24 years old and finally on a good team.

Get a grip with reality.
- JVince11

Nash is 1 year removed from having 11 more goals than Kane ever has.

It's not me that needs a reality check.