All Offseason Trades

Flo The Action wrote:

Ev wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:Nice to see Dorion staying on budget. Why we ain't trying to sign Eriksson is beyond me.  Fits anywhere on the wing on the top 3 lines, kills PK. Could fill a spot anywhere there is one.  Rumors he'll only cost around 6.5

You haze zero idea if they are going to try to sign Eriksson. Why the baseless hate?

Based on everything we've heard so far Dorion isn't trying to land him. He'll be town after a 3rd liner(and that's if they don't settle on Chiasson instead)

And I think off should probably be getting at least 5 mill per. I also disagree that's he's past his prime. He's right in it. Under Boucher he could very well become better defensively while staying a 25-30 goal player

that isn't true. We haven't heard anything specifically about Eriksson or any player. it would be stupid for him to say exactly what he is trying to do.

Until Eriksson signs somewhere, I wouldn't put it past us trying to sign him. They would be very coy about it.

Hoffman statistically is past his prime for scoring.

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:Mike Hoffman has more goals and nearly the same points as Eriksson over the last two years.  His +/-, especially relative to the team he's on, is better, so this whole thing about Hoffman being horrible on the defensive side of the puck is hogwash.  He's 4 years younger so likely will grow those totals.  If you tell me that Eriksson is worth $6.5M x 5 years then what's Hoffman worth?  And don't tell me that Eriksson has scored a ton of goals in the past -- how many will he score over the next five?

You using +/- as an indicator of defensive play is "Hogwash". I bet you would say the reverse in defending Karlsson. Eriksson is extremely superior in the defensive side of the game and it isn't even a debate. If both have the same points and nearly the same goals, Eriksson trumps Hoffman by a landslide in two-way play. You take Eriksson every time. Hoffman is also past his prime just like Eriksson.

Right now, Hoffman is worth 5 max, 4-4.5 in reality.

Hogwash or not, this is a business and you don't give a contract to a UFA based on past services rendered. You look at what this player will bring over the course of the next contract.

I am not arguing that Hoffman is worth $6.5M. I'm just saying there is no way you can justify giving an aging player more money than an up-and-coming one. I don't think Hoffman is all that bad defensively, it's just that's not his strong suit. He's a sniper and a lightning fast skater. You put him on the ice to provide offense and you pair him up with linemates who will complement his skills with their defensive acumen. While I don't doubt that Eriksson is a better player, overall, I don't think the difference is enough to validate paying him an extra $2-2.5M for five years. I would also argue that in 2 years' time Hoffman will be the better player overall (as Eriksson loses a step and Hoffman learns how to better position himself in the defensive zone).

The +/- numbers are certainly not hogwash when you normalize them to the team. Eriksson's were very good this past season (2nd on team) but pretty bad the season before. Hoffman's were very good the previous season (2nd among forwards) but not so good this past season. Is that alarming? Perhaps he was so set on getting goals (in his contract year) that his defense suffered? Or maybe he was getting more icetime against stronger competition? Or maybe the Sens just sucked (after Turris went down)? Not sure, but this is certainly something the new coaching staff needs to consider (zone starts, linemates, coaching -- when it comes to Hoffman). He has a rare skill with his speed and shot, the other stuff can be improved.

I don't want to trade Hoffman with Boucher coming in

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:Mike Hoffman has more goals and nearly the same points as Eriksson over the last two years.  His +/-, especially relative to the team he's on, is better, so this whole thing about Hoffman being horrible on the defensive side of the puck is hogwash.  He's 4 years younger so likely will grow those totals.  If you tell me that Eriksson is worth $6.5M x 5 years then what's Hoffman worth?  And don't tell me that Eriksson has scored a ton of goals in the past -- how many will he score over the next five?

You using +/- as an indicator of defensive play is "Hogwash". I bet you would say the reverse in defending Karlsson. Eriksson is extremely superior in the defensive side of the game and it isn't even a debate. If both have the same points and nearly the same goals, Eriksson trumps Hoffman by a landslide in two-way play. You take Eriksson every time. Hoffman is also past his prime just like Eriksson.

Right now, Hoffman is worth 5 max, 4-4.5 in reality.

I think Karlsson and Hoffman are about the same defensively. Both solid but victims of lazy "great offense = bad defense" analysis.

I have no problem with Hoffman's 2-way play. I find he hustles back and plays the puck hard on the backcheck. He's tenacious. That's a guy that always wants the puck and will fight to go get it.

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:Mike Hoffman has more goals and nearly the same points as Eriksson over the last two years.  His +/-, especially relative to the team he's on, is better, so this whole thing about Hoffman being horrible on the defensive side of the puck is hogwash.  He's 4 years younger so likely will grow those totals.  If you tell me that Eriksson is worth $6.5M x 5 years then what's Hoffman worth?  And don't tell me that Eriksson has scored a ton of goals in the past -- how many will he score over the next five?

You using +/- as an indicator of defensive play is "Hogwash". I bet you would say the reverse in defending Karlsson. Eriksson is extremely superior in the defensive side of the game and it isn't even a debate. If both have the same points and nearly the same goals, Eriksson trumps Hoffman by a landslide in two-way play. You take Eriksson every time. Hoffman is also past his prime just like Eriksson.

Right now, Hoffman is worth 5 max, 4-4.5 in reality.

I think Karlsson and Hoffman are about the same defensively. Both solid but victims of lazy "great offense = bad defense" analysis.

I have no problem with Hoffman's 2-way play. I find he hustles back and plays the puck hard on the backcheck. He's tenacious. That's a guy that always wants the puck and will fight to go get it.

Nailed it.

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:Mike Hoffman has more goals and nearly the same points as Eriksson over the last two years.  His +/-, especially relative to the team he's on, is better, so this whole thing about Hoffman being horrible on the defensive side of the puck is hogwash.  He's 4 years younger so likely will grow those totals.  If you tell me that Eriksson is worth $6.5M x 5 years then what's Hoffman worth?  And don't tell me that Eriksson has scored a ton of goals in the past -- how many will he score over the next five?

You using +/- as an indicator of defensive play is "Hogwash". I bet you would say the reverse in defending Karlsson. Eriksson is extremely superior in the defensive side of the game and it isn't even a debate. If both have the same points and nearly the same goals, Eriksson trumps Hoffman by a landslide in two-way play. You take Eriksson every time. Hoffman is also past his prime just like Eriksson.

Right now, Hoffman is worth 5 max, 4-4.5 in reality.

I think Karlsson and Hoffman are about the same defensively. Both solid but victims of lazy "great offense = bad defense" analysis.

I have no problem with Hoffman's 2-way play. I find he hustles back and plays the puck hard on the backcheck. He's tenacious. That's a guy that always wants the puck and will fight to go get it.

We watching the same player? Fighting to go get it? That's the opposite of what he does. If he was Mr. Perfect he would be playing 20 mins + a game.

Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:

wprager wrote:Mike Hoffman has more goals and nearly the same points as Eriksson over the last two years.  His +/-, especially relative to the team he's on, is better, so this whole thing about Hoffman being horrible on the defensive side of the puck is hogwash.  He's 4 years younger so likely will grow those totals.  If you tell me that Eriksson is worth $6.5M x 5 years then what's Hoffman worth?  And don't tell me that Eriksson has scored a ton of goals in the past -- how many will he score over the next five?

You using +/- as an indicator of defensive play is "Hogwash". I bet you would say the reverse in defending Karlsson. Eriksson is extremely superior in the defensive side of the game and it isn't even a debate. If both have the same points and nearly the same goals, Eriksson trumps Hoffman by a landslide in two-way play. You take Eriksson every time. Hoffman is also past his prime just like Eriksson.

Right now, Hoffman is worth 5 max, 4-4.5 in reality.

I think Karlsson and Hoffman are about the same defensively. Both solid but victims of lazy "great offense = bad defense" analysis.

I have no problem with Hoffman's 2-way play. I find he hustles back and plays the puck hard on the backcheck. He's tenacious. That's a guy that always wants the puck and will fight to go get it.

We watching the same player? Fighting to go get it? That's the opposite of what he does. If he was Mr. Perfect he would be playing 20 mins + a game.

I'll provide direct examples this season.

I agree that he skates hard on the back check and tries to get the puck back. He doesn't do it by piling the other player into the boards, true. In the offensive zone he doesn't go into the corners and rarely drives the net. But his shot is good enough from the perimeter to score 30, so not sure if I'd want to change that. Would he be a more effective player if he drove the net? Maybe not. He's not Pageau.

Where I do find he's lacking is defensive positioning when he's *not* chasing the puck carrier. He just doesn't look like he knows where he's supposed to be. But that should be teachable, so long as he's willing (which I think he is).

Patrick Sieloff for Alex Chiasson (Chiasson then signs an 800K contract for one year with Calgary).

PTFlea wrote:Patrick Sieloff for Alex Chiasson (Chiasson then signs an 800K contract for one year with Calgary).

Nice add for the Flames.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

PTFlea wrote:Patrick Sieloff for Alex Chiasson (Chiasson then signs an 800K contract for one year with Calgary).

Nice add for the Flames.

Nice subtract for the Sens.

Things just didn't work out for him up here. But a 6'4" 4th liner who used to know how to put the puck in the net for $800K? Why not.

wprager wrote:Things just didn't work out for him up here.  But a 6'4" 4th liner who used to know how to put the puck in the net for $800K?  Why not.  

How is he getting less money than he did in Ottawa? I thought if you get tendered a qualifying offer it's gotta be for the minimum value...isn't that why we couldn't trade Weird crotch?

Michallica wrote:

wprager wrote:Things just didn't work out for him up here.  But a 6'4" 4th liner who used to know how to put the puck in the net for $800K?  Why not.  

How is he getting less money than he did in Ottawa?  I thought if you get tendered a qualifying offer it's gotta be for the minimum value...isn't that why we couldn't trade Weird crotch?

Hey, yeah, what's that?

Not exactly sure, but I believe the deadline to extend a QO had expired or was about to. He was, essentially, signed as a UFA for $800K. The Sens traded the rights to him for that other player and then he signed as a UFA with the Wings. Maybe a team acquiring the rights does not require to do the QO? Maybe they just traded for the rights to negotiate with him for the few hours until he became a UFA and then as soon as he did they signed him.

That's very silly. So we could sign Wiercioch to a lower amount and trade him for a 5th instead of letting him walk? Or a team could offer a piece of Dung and sign Wiercioch to 800K?

Once traded the team doesn't have to sign him at the qualifying offer

Well, Diddle, as if Wiercioch doesn't have some value then. A 4th or 5th, come on...