Thread: Proposal: Buf-chi
View Single Post
06-23-2012, 11:48 AM
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,202
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
No I didn't, what happened?

Ennis is a talented player who can play wing and center. Am I wrong?

With the recent center draftees and Hodgson on the roster, its likely Ennis will go back to wing when those two hit the NHL. Thus my point about already having a Kane like player on the wing.

Roy has nothing to do with it.

Where did I say you have to be 6' tall to be a center? You're getting wound up over things I never said.

As for Kane being an upgrade in size from Roy, give me a break. Kane is 5'11" 181lbs and Roy is 5'9" 184lbs. Neither is big or physical and its a wash in the size department. Its pretty silly to argue Kane is an upgrade in size.

But again thats not the point.

I asked you why we need to add such a high cap hit (6.3mil) player thats a small winger? When we already have a much cheaper version of him already on the roster in Ennis. You got so hung up on my refering to Ennis as a wing you missed the point.

You may not have to be big to play center but you DO NEED size on your roster. Adding yet another small skill player, particulary in the top 6, is not something we need to do. Certainly not with a cap hit like Kane's.
Can you have too many skilled forwards? Cap hit is a concern, but if we lose Roy it's only ~$2+ million more.

I just don't see how "we already have Ennis" is an argument not to pick up a really good player because he's also short and may at some times play a similar position, like we've got one roster spot for wingers.

You also called Ennis a "winger" when AFAIK he will start the year as a center.

Also, Girgensons isn't a "lock" to make the team at all, and if he does it wont be for at least 3 years IMO. That's a long time, Ennis will be 25 by then, if he's still ripping it up at center would you risk moving him to wing because some rookie who plays center is NHL ready?

You also fail to realize that we'd be REPLACING Roy (who is on the team and if nothing else changes will be) a top 6 player who is small and the furthest thing from "physical", with Kane, a top 6 player who is very similar, just better and even slightly bigger. He's also got some playoff success, something people always bag on Roy about.

Just think, Roy out, Kane in. How is that not an upgrade? It's not like we're losing Stafford (a winger with size which we need more of) with Kane. Little skilled guy for slightly bigger more skilled guy.

I don't see how this is anything but an upgrade.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote