DEADLINE 2015: Value of Sens Players

Hoffman plus what for Kane though?

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

This is why he is our Director of Social Media.

SpezDispensed wrote:Hoffman plus what for Kane though?

I'd me more inclined to think that Winnipeg would have to add to Kane to compensate for the lack of maturity.

tim1_2 wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

This is why he is our Director of Social Media.

You fulfilled your purpose for the day; you made me smile. You can rest now.

TheAvatar wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

This is why he is our Director of Social Media.

You fulfilled your purpose for the day; you made me smile. You can rest now.

I told my boss that you said I could take the rest of the day off and she told me to stop wasting time on the internet.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:Hoffman plus what for Kane though?

I'd me more inclined to think that Winnipeg would have to add to Kane to compensate for the lack of maturity.

They need to add someone with extra maturity. Maybe Bogosian or Ladd. They both seem quite mature.

Ev wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:

Ev wrote:it doesn't make sense to capitalize on a young player's good rookie season to get a star player in return?

On pace for 25 goals+ in his rookie season and you want to get rid of him?   Speed to burn, oozes skill.  Who are you theoretically trading him for?

A guy like Evander Kane.

Do you remember when Michael Grabner scored 34 goals for the Islanders four years ago, as a rookie, at age 24? He's a good player but hasn't lived up to his expectations. I'd say they are almost identical players as well.

The point is if you can get a star for a guy who you don't know will be a star, you should do it, IMO.

I think my point here is there are other guys at different positions that you could trade before Hoffman. If it was a case where Hoffman was the make or break piece for a guy like Hall or Kane... then yah, I'm not that naive to realize that Hoffman's upside is probably the same as Kane or Hall's downside but again I don't think they should be looking to trade Hoffman.

tim1_2 wrote:

TheAvatar wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

This is why he is our Director of Social Media.

You fulfilled your purpose for the day; you made me smile.  You can rest now.

I told my boss that you said I could take the rest of the day off and she told me to stop wasting time on the internet.

Give me her name and number. I will take care of this.

SpezDispensed wrote:

Ev wrote:it doesn't make sense to capitalize on a young player's good rookie season to get a star player in return?

On pace for 25 goals+ in his rookie season and you want to get rid of him? Speed to burn, oozes skill. Who are you theoretically trading him for?

Not to mention he plays a two-way game, ie: he's not one dimensional

Ev wrote:I don't see how that is trolling. I think you can get a much bigger forward piece using Hoffman given his hot-ish season rather than some of our other young pieces.

Hoffman now may very well be Conacher when we traded Bishop for him. I would be very surprised if he didn't come down to earth next season. Call it sophomore slump or whatever, when it comes to next year he will be up on the whiteboard in the opposing team's room. He might score 30 this season and that will definitely put a target on him. Even if he doesn't get to 30, if he's the team's leading goal scorer other teams will play him a lot tighter.

I'm not advocating trading him, but it could very well be that this is as high as his value will ever go.

I think I'd take Hoffman over Kane. Hoffman is a controllable players with many of the same qualities as Kane. Yes, Kane is better but I'm not discounting the fact that Hoffman could turn out to be a more mature Kane-lite,

TheAvatar wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

TheAvatar wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

This is why he is our Director of Social Media.

You fulfilled your purpose for the day; you made me smile.  You can rest now.

I told my boss that you said I could take the rest of the day off and she told me to stop wasting time on the internet.

Give me her name and number. I will take care of this.

You have no idea how tempting this actually is.

SpezDispensed wrote:

Ev wrote:it doesn't make sense to capitalize on a young player's good rookie season to get a star player in return?

On pace for 25 goals+ in his rookie season and you want to get rid of him?   Speed to burn, oozes skill.  Who are you theoretically trading him for?

In a package for someone who has scored 30+ more than once? As I said in the previous post, other teams will focus on him a lot more next season. He's not strong enough to power through that kind of tight checking, so he will rely on his speed. Might be enough, never know, but what I do know is that it's very rare.

But I'll repeat that I am not advocating trading him. Just when you are drawing up next year's offensive expectations I would not put him at 25-30 goals. Not just yet.

It's a useless stat, I know, but he is so far ahead of every one on the team in +/- that I'd be very reluctant to move him now. Mind you, last season Turris was in the same boat and look at him now.

Hoffman has so many more tools than Conacher it's kind of upsetting to see the comparison. Hoffman can literally score from anywhere on the ice with his shot and can create chances with his speed alone. Conacher's goals combined make for about 10 feet of work, there's nothing wrong with that but he was not a goal scorer like Hoffman. There was nothing natural about what Conacher did.

Is it possible Hoffman comes down to earth in the next little bit? Sure. But why the hell would you dump all your resources in a player, be as patient as the Sens have been only for him to break out and then you trade him for the reasons you are stating above? He might decline, he's a 24 year old rookie, he's value is high now... there is just no real foresight to that line of thinking or justification for it.

If like Ev said he's the make or break piece in a deal for a star, sure I get it but you do not trade your leading goal scorer on a team that's struggling to score goals. It's insane to think otherwise.

SpezDispensed wrote:Holy Dung, ssf made a long post that all made sense!

Earlier today he thought exactly what I posted. He's turned the corner, finally.

We finally have a nice shiny young winger in The Hoff, and now we want to trade him.

NEELY wrote:Hoffman has so many more tools than Conacher it's kind of upsetting to see the comparison.  Hoffman can literally score from anywhere on the ice with his shot and can create chances with his speed alone.  Conacher's goals combined make for about 10 feet of work, there's nothing wrong with that but he was not a goal scorer like Hoffman.  There was nothing natural about what Conacher did.

Is it possible Hoffman comes down to earth in the next little bit?  Sure.  But why the hell would you dump all your resources in a player, be as patient as the Sens have been only for him to break out and then you trade him for the reasons you are stating above?  He might decline, he's a 24 year old rookie, he's value is high now... there is just no real foresight to that line of thinking or justification for it.

If like Ev said he's the make or break piece in a deal for a star, sure I get it but you do not trade your leading goal scorer on a team that's struggling to score goals.  It's insane to think otherwise.

Not comparing the players. Grabner was a better example.

What resources have they spent on Hoffman? It's not like he laboured in Bingo. He was a very useful players there and his salary, even though it was paid by Ottawa, was pretty low.

tim1_2 wrote:We finally have a nice shiny young winger in The Hoff, and now we want to trade him.

He is shining on the third line (minutes-wise). We have no idea if he can actually keep it up playing top-six minutes.