Let me preface this by saying that having more centers is always a good thing and I have no doubt Darcy will look to see what's available. BUT...
With the emergence of Ennis as a center and the acquisition of Hodgson, how much of a priority is a "#1 center"?
Earlier in the season, I think most of us would have considered breaking the bank to acquire a #1, giving up assets like McNabb, Ennis, Sekera. Does Ennis and Hodgson playing well at center change how much you're willing to give to get a #1 center?
For me, it's no longer a #1 priority and I'm very uneasy about parting with any of Ennis, McNabb or Sekera unless it's a REALLY good #1C.
Let me preface this by saying that having more centers is always a good thing and I have no doubt Darcy will look to see what's available. BUT...
With the emergence of Ennis as a center and the acquisition of Hodgson, how much of a priority is a "#1 center"?
Earlier in the season, I think most of us would have considered breaking the bank to acquire a #1, giving up assets like McNabb, Ennis, Sekera. Does Ennis and Hodgson playing well at center change how much you're willing to give to get a #1 center?
For me, it's no longer a #1 priority and I'm very uneasy about parting with any of Ennis, McNabb or Sekera unless it's a REALLY good #1C.
I think you still draft quality centers come June, but I don't think you need to make a trade for a NHL ready center this off season. Unless they plan on moving Roy -- a lot will depend on what they do with him. You definitely don't lose Sekera or Ennis, either. Their upside going forward is unlikely to be matched by a trade offering. Not to mention that right now Sekera's contract is looking like one hell of a bargain.
Let me preface this by saying that having more centers is always a good thing and I have no doubt Darcy will look to see what's available. BUT...
With the emergence of Ennis as a center and the acquisition of Hodgson, how much of a priority is a "#1 center"?
Earlier in the season, I think most of us would have considered breaking the bank to acquire a #1, giving up assets like McNabb, Ennis, Sekera. Does Ennis and Hodgson playing well at center change how much you're willing to give to get a #1 center?
For me, it's no longer a #1 priority and I'm very uneasy about parting with any of Ennis, McNabb or Sekera unless it's a REALLY good #1C.
I think it was always "wishful thinking" that we were going to trade for a #1 center.
I think the priority come draft time, still needs to be center.
I think Adam's development will have an effect, but only in a longer term outlook. For this summer it's not necessary to try and make a big splash with a top veteran C, and probably not that likely or affordable in both player value and cap wise. I'd love to insert top center X by the time Roy's contract is up, but I just don't think that's likely.
Better to get that player the way 90% of teams do...by drafting him. Grigorenko might not be possible, but perhaps a trade up can get Galchenyuk (if Buffalo truly sees him as close to NHL ready). But even if an upgrade can't be made prior to Roy leaving (assuming he's not re-signed), the main goal is still to have three balanced scoring lines regardless of the exact skill level of the various pieces. Maybe Buffalo can solidify those lines anyway, at least until Roy is gone.
With the emergence of Ennis as a center and the acquisition of Hodgson, how much of a priority is a "#1 center"?
For me, it's no longer a #1 priority and I'm very uneasy about parting with any of Ennis, McNabb or Sekera unless it's a REALLY good #1C.
For me, it is still a priority and involves replacing Roy with at least an equally-proficient veteran center (i.e. Stastny). Ennis and Hodgson are solid options in the #2 complementary role but I don't think either is ready to carry a team as the top center.
I am however far more reluctant now to part with Ennis unless a franchise center the likes of Getzlaf or Eric Staal is involved.
To fill the system with as many high quality center prospects as we can. So in the future we wont ever have a gap in the system like we had from the time the captains left up until this year.
Right now we have
Roy
Ennis
Hodgson
Adam
Sundher
Catenacci
Hopefully we can add another a top quality center prospect or two in the draft.
The conversation could be do they have a #1C in Hodgson or Ennis already?
The conversation could also be about do they need a #1C or do they need to get a 3rd guy to go along with Ennis and Hodgson that is also under 25yo and have a solid trio of centers as a part of the "young core" of the team moving forward?
Personally, I'd love it if the Sabres could figure out a way to acquire an under 25yo center to go with Ennis and Hodgson that would allow the Sabres to continue to roll out their top 3 lines with a skilled center, a skilled winger, and a hard working physical winger like they are right now.
I like that formula. Kind of like going with one puck mover and one defensive D on the back end.
Let me preface this by saying that having more centers is always a good thing and I have no doubt Darcy will look to see what's available. BUT...
With the emergence of Ennis as a center and the acquisition of Hodgson, how much of a priority is a "#1 center"?
Earlier in the season, I think most of us would have considered breaking the bank to acquire a #1, giving up assets like McNabb, Ennis, Sekera. Does Ennis and Hodgson playing well at center change how much you're willing to give to get a #1 center?
For me, it's no longer a #1 priority and I'm very uneasy about parting with any of Ennis, McNabb or Sekera unless it's a REALLY good #1C.
It's still the #1 priority, IMO. A 15 game hot streak by Ennis and Hodgson is not enough to convince me otherwise. Ennis is great at center but he can be just as great on the wing if a legit #1 came to town.
#1 center is still the top priority for this team. It's not "ohmygod we have to give up the farm for one today" important, but nothing else is a more important hole on this team.
Put it this way: when we have no equivalent for the Pens or Rangers top centers in the playoffs (jinxed it!), this will be more painfully clear.
It's still the #1 priority, IMO. A 15 game hot streak by Ennis and Hodgson is not enough to convince me otherwise. Ennis is great at center but he can be just as great on the wing if a legit #1 came to town.
Honestly I don't think that's true. IMO, center is a better position for Ennis then wing. He just seems to play better up the middle then on the wing.
#1 center is still the top priority for this team. It's not "ohmygod we have to give up the farm for one today" important, but nothing else is a more important hole on this team.
Put it this way: when we have no equivalent for the Pens or Rangers top centers in the playoffs (jinxed it!), this will be more painfully clear.
So your ridiculous premise is we need to acquire a Crosby, Malkin or B.Richards type in order to be a true contender. How exactly are we going to do that?
Just out of curiousity, which Bruin center is on their level?
It should still be the top priority. Whether or not Darcy is able to get one is another story, but it should still be the main focus for the off-season.
I still think size at center is #1 need. I think Ennis has 80 point potential at center, Hodgson 60+ points. We need someone like Guastad, but a better skater, younger. Martin Hanzal for Roy.
So your ridiculous premise is we need to acquire a Crosby, Malkin or B.Richards type in order to be a true contender. How exactly are we going to do that?
Just out of curisousity which Bruin center is on their level?
Would you concede that the Bruins are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule?
What exactly are those pining for the mythical #1 center looking for? Who fits this description? and who would actually be available that fits this decsription?
Its easy to talk in vague hypotheticals that you want a #1 center. But who could we realistically acquire that would placate those pining for the mythical #1?
What exactly are those pining for the mythical #1 center looking for? Who fits this description? and who would actually be available that fits this decsription?
Its easy to talk in vague hypotheticals that you want a #1 center. But who could we realistically acquire that would placate those pining for the mythical #1?
Was Hodgson realistically available at the trade deadline? Trying to answer that is impossible since nobody knows who could be gotten.
I think Roy is expandable this offseason and we acquire a Goose-type 3rd line C. Ennis and Hodgson look to be our top 2 centres moving forward, both showing that they have the capability to be be a true #1. Sure there is a chance it doesn't work out, but our C situation is a lot better than it was at the start of the season. Miles ahead. We absolutely still need depth at the position, but I think the focus has been shifted to size and strength.
