All Offseason Trades

So Dorion is just status quou but in a sharp suit and less grey hair?

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

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

Eriksson is not worth that much.

Cap going up to $73M with the 5% escalator factor. Floor is at $54M. Sens are just below the floor with Ceci, Hoffman, Chiasson, Puempel still to sign. That's $10M for three of those four. Could not bring in a $6M+ player unless someone else is moved out.

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

6.5 is getting too much...

PTFlea 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

6.5 is getting too much...

I don't think so.mmaybe not for 7 years but 5?
He's not just a pure offencive guy. Plays both the left and the right wing. Kind of guy that fits in everywhere. Players aren't getting any cheap

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?

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?

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.

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.

He'll get Nyquist money imo, 4.75 x 5

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.

Hoffman isn't solid defensively. There's a reason he has been benched by coaches at every level. He is getting better but he's hard to coach and plays the game the way he wants

Ev 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.

Hoffman isn't solid defensively. There's a reason he has been benched by coaches at every level. He is getting better but he's hard to coach and plays the game the way he wants

He's routinely the first guy back to defend against the counter from other teams. He uses his speed effectively in defensive situations. I agree that Eriksson is better but Hoffman is fine.

If your misgivings are legit, you can count on Guy "Brain Rapist" Boucher to get inside The Hoffs head and make him play the right way.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev 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.

Hoffman isn't solid defensively. There's a reason he has been benched by coaches at every level. He is getting better but he's hard to coach and plays the game the way he wants

He's routinely the first guy back to defend against the counter from other teams. He uses his speed effectively in defensive situations. I agree that Eriksson is better but Hoffman is fine.

If your misgivings are legit, you can count on Guy "Brain Rapist" Boucher to get inside The Hoffs head and make him play the right way.

I hope he's traded this weekend actually.

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

Smith is a guy I don't expect at all to stay at the level he played last season. Not even close

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