HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Ennis?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2011, 12:58 AM
  #51
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresFanNorthPortFL View Post
I'm confused....

So most of you would be happy to trade Stafford, and now Adam but you are having a hard time trading Ennis????

Have you been watching the Sabres the last few years....we are a bunch of midgets! I don't want to see Ennis go but we are back to pick 2 and trade the rest. Last year we had Kennedy, now we are including Byron, who's another midget.

Would you like the Sabres to switch their colors to more of a brighter blue and call themselves the SMURFS???????

Come on, Adam is pretty much the only center in the pipe line, and a guy with size. I'm sure as heck that Pegual has come out and said he likes the Broad Street Bully days, and will bring an element of size and toughness to this team.

I put Ennis on the 2nd short list, only to be dealt for quality in return. Not untouchable but he isn't the sweetner. The guy has got talent. This team needs to be bigger.
The Sabres have quietly gotten bigger. Morrisonn, Weber, Niedermayer, McCormick -- they all have size and know how to use it.

The "smurf" label is no longer accurate, IMO.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 12:59 AM
  #52
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
The Sabres have quietly gotten bigger. Morrisonn, Weber, Niedermayer, McCormick -- they all have size and know how to use it.

The "smurf" label is no longer accurate, IMO.
We have a ton of small guys, and still could use some more toughness. We've gotten a bit bigger with the additions you mentioned (sans Needs, that was a little gracious of you)... but we could still use some more size and definitely some more toughness.

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 01:13 AM
  #53
Ron Barr
Doing it to Death
 
Ron Barr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bdddddddet
Posts: 5,820
vCash: 500
We don't have many fighters, but you really don't need them in today's NHL. You need big players who are strong, but still fast and have skill. Sticking up for a teammate still has a place in the game for sure, but guys like Parros, Bissonette, etc don't make a team much better than they already are.

We actually have a fairly large team around Gerbe, Roy and Ennis. Although Vanek isn't a hitter, he still has some good size, and uses it a lot to score goals (he can be pretty hard to take off the puck when he isn't being lazy). Stafford can use his size pretty well too. Myers has been playing much more physical this year, and is gonna be an absolute beast in the future. Not to mention most of our bottom line players (Grier, McCormick, Gaustad, Kaleta, Morrisonn, Weber, Montador).

I think some people around here focus too much on having a few little guys as being "a small team". If you compare out entire line-up to other teams around the league, it's really not that bad.

Ron Barr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 01:13 AM
  #54
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
We have a ton of small guys, and still could use some more toughness. We've gotten a bit bigger with the additions you mentioned (sans Needs, that was a little gracious of you)... but we could still use some more size and definitely some more toughness.
We've come a long way in just a couple of years. On the defensive side of the ledger, Weber/Morrisonn have been great together the past several weeks. They remind me a little of what McKee/Warrener brought to the table in years past -- a reliable, physical shut down pair.

Myers is a physical force when he wants to be. Just ask Downie. Montador has always beem willing to get his hands dirty. Sekera doesn't shy away from contact if the occasion calls for it.

As far as the forwards go, McCormick has been a physical force this year. Niedermayer, for all his flaws, is difficult to knock off the puck when he's on his game. Grier, Goose, and Kaleta provide another layer of toughness. Vanek and Stafford both have good size, and Hecht is no slouch along the boards.

That leaves Gerbe (who plays like he's 6-4), Byron, Ennis, Pominville, and Connolly as the only real physical midgets on the team.

We're not as small and smurfy as is commonly believed.
.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 04:56 AM
  #55
SECRET SQUIRREL
Registered User
 
SECRET SQUIRREL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Clarence
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
The only way I would consider trading Ennis at this point is if it were something along the lines of a straight up trade for someone like Logan Couture. Swapping great young talents and fixing our center depth would be worth it IMO.

SECRET SQUIRREL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 05:19 AM
  #56
sand1138man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 575
vCash: 500
It would be the stupidest move the Sabres could make, trading Ennis that is. I dont know how the person who made this thread can use the fact that we have Adam, gerbe, kassian and byron to justify trading ennis. Ennis is better then all of Adam, Kassian and Byron put together and has proved himself way more
then any of them have. The only thing more laughable then actually trading him is the reason this thread gives to justify it. How can anyone think that Kassian, byron, and Adam are good reasons to trade Ennis???? It makes no sense.

Gerbe - good but not as good as Ennis

Kassian - def not proven at all (has he even played in the NHL)

Adam- Not proven at all, totally overhyped

Byron - has only played a few NHL games and is also totally unproven.

Ennis - One of the best players we have, has amazing potential and has already been one of the best players we had on the ice during a playoff series.

Why trade a player that makes you feel like he can score anytime he gets the puck???

I dont get the concept of trading a proven good player because we have other players that may or may not be good somwhere down the line??

sand1138man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 05:32 AM
  #57
sand1138man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
I'd be open to it, but I need to see names of the player(s) coming back before I commit one way or the other. I probably don't trade him for Berglund because I think Ennis has a higher ceiling.

I'm much more willing to look at dealing Luke Adam in a package for Weiss or a Vermette-type center.
What has Luke Adam done to make you think that we would get anything at all for him. He's not even good enough to be in the starting line up of the 10th place Sabres right now, so what other team is going to want him? We'd have to give up a 1st round pick with him or pair him with a player who is better. No one is going to make a trade for him is he is the largest best part of that package.

sand1138man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 10:07 AM
  #58
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by sand1138man View Post
What has Luke Adam done to make you think that we would get anything at all for him. He's not even good enough to be in the starting line up of the 10th place Sabres right now, so what other team is going to want him? We'd have to give up a 1st round pick with him or pair him with a player who is better. No one is going to make a trade for him is he is the largest best part of that package.
He's a 20 YO with a lot of upside. When trading present assets, you're looking for future assets. Adam is a future asset. So, a package of Adam and a pick (or another prospect) is what Florida would be looking for in exchange for Weiss.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 11:25 AM
  #59
JD SabreFan
Registered User
 
JD SabreFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JD SabreFan
I believe Ennis, Myers and Miller are key players that you build around.

JD SabreFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 01:50 PM
  #60
mgeise
Registered User
 
mgeise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,637
vCash: 500
I would certainly trade Ennis for a center with comparable offensive upside, but there are very few centers that would be attainable via trade with Ennis's offensive ability. It's definitely an interesting idea, as we are stocked with wingers.

mgeise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 07:08 PM
  #61
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
A lot of this is about getting Vanek a center, but maybe he's just a better player when he's the alpha dog on the line. Unless you can get something too good to pass up, I say you have to hold onto Ennis and see if Vanek can consistantly be the leader on this team. Then in the offseason, try to package Roy for a real #1 center (he's still our best trade bait), and have a line with vanek leading the way be a 1-2 punch with whoever we get for Roy+. Plus, on a selfish note, Ennis was my buddy's first ever draft pick, so I hope he works out here for his sake.

stokes84 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2011, 07:34 PM
  #62
SoFFacet
Registered User
 
SoFFacet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,453
vCash: 500
The most persuasive motivation behind trading Ennis, imo, is related to simply the number of short players the team has. With Ennis and Gerbe, plus now Byron, along with the general lack of toughness (real or perceived) dislpayed by other players such as Connolly and Roy, there is understandable concern that the roster might be being constructed with an inherent and critical flaw.

Many things regarding the concern remain uncertain. Are the Sabres too small? They certainly have more small players than usual. But those players often play 'bigger than their size.' Is that enough? Also they are surrounded by several large/tough players (Myers, Morrisonn, McCormick, Weber, etc). Do those players make up for it? Is there anything to make up for in the first place?

Overall due to the great degree of uncertainty I would be inclined to do nothing (regarding Ennis). As was mentioned earlier, he is a young asset that is playing well and will improve, at a very cheap price. Assets like Ennis that overplay their contract numbers are what facilitate the construction of loaded championship rosters.

SoFFacet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2011, 07:40 AM
  #63
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,653
vCash: 500
I'd love to see if the Sabres could pry Hodgson & Schneider out of Vancouver.

That is the type of move where I'd be fine with moving Ennis as part of a deal.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.