Tyler Ennis Contract Thread

[Jame]

Actually, no, you really aren't understanding this.

Your right, I had no idea that 2 pages later you would attempt to worm out of your embarrassment by throwing your beliefs in the toilet.

But I am glad that you've "ceded x".


Please note that ceded positions cannot be returned to at a later convenience.

 

[JLewyB]

Your right, I had no idea that 2 pages later you would attempt to worm out of your embarrassment by throwing your beliefs in the toilet.

But I am glad that you've "ceded x".


Please note that ceded positions cannot be returned to at a later convenience.

he literally qualified the statement in page 1 or 2 of this thread. You guys have just been badgering him about it for last 5 pages. He's said both...I think it would be best for a 4mil x 3yr deal, but the market for players like him-CoHo and Henrique-have gotten 6 years. The first is his opinion. The 2nd is his analysis of what Ennis should get per the NHL market.

 

[enthusiast]

You should stick to your beliefs instead abandoning them.

no no no no no this is the worst

 

[cybresabre]

The game's over if you aren't willing to change your mind when introduced to better information.

 

[Heraldic]

I think that it's clear that he is not getting his best out of himself being a winger. Also, I think that the fact Murray wants Girgensons playing centre is an indication that there will be movement at the centrum - Ennis is the most likely one to be traded.

So, it might be that there won't be re-signing at all.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Buffalo shouldn't trade Ennis until other centers have established themselves as the better options. We saw what happened in 2012 when Roy was traded without first obtaining another C. That position was a mess and as much as Roy wasn't going to make Buffalo better, not having a capable C to replace him helped make the team worse in spite of gaining Ott.

 

[brian_griffin]

I think that it's clear that he is not getting his best out of himself being a winger. Also, I think that the fact Murray wants Girgensons playing centre is an indication that there will be movement at the centrum - Ennis is the most likely one to be traded.

So, it might be that there won't be re-signing at all.

Not re-signing him would be poor asset management. He'll be qualified, and re-signed. I don't think he'll be offer-sheeted by another club. the question is length of term. I, Jame, and others advocate 3 years max.

Buffalo shouldn't trade Ennis until other centers have established themselves as the better options. We saw what happened in 2012 when Roy was traded without first obtaining another C. That position was a mess and as much as Roy wasn't going to make Buffalo better, not having a capable C to replace him helped make the team worse in spite of gaining Ott.

Exactly. A similar argument for a 3-year term.

 

[wunderpanda]

Your right, I had no idea that 2 pages later you would attempt to worm out of your embarrassment by throwing your beliefs in the toilet.

But I am glad that you've "ceded x".


Please note that ceded positions cannot be returned to at a later convenience.

It's obvious that you and others are blatantly disregarding most of what I have been saying in this thread, then going on to misrepresent my intents. You and others then falsely interpret those misrepresentations and make assumptions based on the misrepresentations you and others created. Has it just been an attempt to antagonize me into defending a position you and others have invented and wrongfully attribute to me? If not, then why did you add the condescending remarks and petty insults? To further antagonize?

Not sure why you and others decided to ruin a perfectly good Ennis thread with this nonsense.

 

[enthusiast]

I'd be very surprised if Ennis wasn't around for at least next season.

 

[stokes84]

I'd be very surprised if Ennis wasn't around for at least next season.

I wouldn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if anyone was traded off this roster, other than Girgensons. It's hard to think of a move that would make sense involving him, though.

 

[dotcommunism]

I still fail to see why, if the Sabres wanted to sign him to a short term deal, they'd prefer a 3 year deal. I'd think they'd prefer a 2 year deal in that case, since he'd still be an RFA when that expires as opposed to a 3 year deal, where he'd be a UFA. 3 years just seems like kind of a no man's land between a short term deal that the team would prefer and a longer-ish term deal

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I thought a 3 yr deal would leave him a RFA, but if not then yes, make it a 2 year deal.

Edit - There is also the option, if he earns his keep, to extend him prior to hitting UFA status. So a 3 year deal could also still work.

 

[Djp]

I still fail to see why, if the Sabres wanted to sign him to a short term deal, they'd prefer a 3 year deal. I'd think they'd prefer a 2 year deal in that case, since he'd still be an RFA when that expires as opposed to a 3 year deal, where he'd be a UFA. 3 years just seems like kind of a no man's land between a short term deal that the team would prefer and a longer-ish term deal

remember there is a 7 yr or 27 yr old --which ever comes first. He finishes year 5 after this season.

2 yr deal---he is a UFA after.

He did a 3 yr ELC
then a 2 yr bridge contract
This contract will likely be 2-3 yrs with him being a UFA at the end of it.

If there is a stalemete then it will become 2 yrs of 1 yr arbitration contracts then he is a free agent.

 

[Heraldic]

Not re-signing him would be poor asset management. He'll be qualified, and re-signed. I don't think he'll be offer-sheeted by another club. the question is length of term. I, Jame, and others advocate 3 years max.

I meant that he is the most likely one to get traded in a package for a young guy or a high pick. I don't think it's realistic that they first re-sign him and trade him almost immediately after that.

 

[dotcommunism]

remember there is a 7 yr or 27 yr old --which ever comes first. He finishes year 5 after this season.

Uh, no he doesn't. This year will be Ennis's 4th Accrued Season, which is what counts for free agency purposes. The 2009-2010 season where Ennis played 10 games doesn't count.

"Accrued Season" means any League Year during which a Player was on a Club's Active Roster for 40 (30 if the Player is a goalie) or more Regular Season Games, provided that, for the purposes of calculating an Accrued Season under this Agreement, games missed due to a hockey-related injury incurred while on a Club's Active Roster shall count as games played for purposes of calculating an Accrued Season but only during the League Year in which the injury was incurred and a maximum of one additional season.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Looking at some comparables (also restricting to deals signed in the new CBA):

Artem Anisimov: ELC + 2 year bridge, 3rd contract: 3 yrs, 3.283M per
Viktor Stalberg: ELC + 2 year bridge, 3rd contract: 4 years, 3M per
Kyle Turris: ELC + 2 year bridge, 3rd contract: 5 yrs, 3.5 per

Obviously not a whole lot to go on with using the current CBA as a restriction and looking for guys in similar situations. The Turris deal is probably the best comparable given Ennis's production (though Turris can be argued is outperforming that deal right now, but at the time he got it his production was pretty similar).

 

[Zip15]

Uh, no he doesn't. This year will be Ennis's 4th Accrued Season, which is what counts for free agency purposes. The 2009-2010 season where Ennis played 10 games doesn't count.

"Accrued Season" means any League Year during which a Player was on a Club's Active Roster for 40 (30 if the Player is a goalie) or more Regular Season Games, provided that, for the purposes of calculating an Accrued Season under this Agreement, games missed due to a hockey-related injury incurred while on a Club's Active Roster shall count as games played for purposes of calculating an Accrued Season but only during the League Year in which the injury was incurred and a maximum of one additional season.

Wasn't he RFA when he signed his current deal? If he was, wouldn't that have meant that his ELC had ended after Year 3 as a professional?

 

[dotcommunism]

Wasn't he RFA when he signed his current deal? If he was, wouldn't that have meant that his ELC had ended after Year 3 as a professional?

Talking about two different things. RFA status is based upon seasons as a professional. UFA (or Group 3 free agents, more specifically) is not based upon seasons as a professional, it's 7 accrued seasons or being 27 years old.

 

[Jame]

It's obvious that you and others are blatantly disregarding most of what I have been saying in this thread, then going on to misrepresent my intents. You and others then falsely interpret those misrepresentations and make assumptions based on the misrepresentations you and others created. Has it just been an attempt to antagonize me into defending a position you and others have invented and wrongfully attribute to me? If not, then why did you add the condescending remarks and petty insults? To further antagonize?

i just got off your word merry go round. i think we're done here.

Not sure why you and others decided to ruin a perfectly good Ennis thread with this nonsense.

on this board, there has never been such a thing

 

[Sabre the Win]

I like the idea of the 3 years, essentially monitor his progress for 2 years and if he still isn't improving or he doesn't fit the current build into the next 2 years you can trade him to a team with a year still left on his contract at a manageable rate. Therefore he wouldn't be a rental and you might be able to get a better return from him.

 

[slip]

I see little point in trading Ennis. He's a decent scorer, possesses good speed, and the contract won't kill you as long as it's 3-4 years. I think some are hell bent on trading every useful NHL player on our roster; they're deep into the tank, almost maniacal, like hockey trading heroine addicts who will hawk anything for another future, another pick. They're always chasing the pick dragon. To them, Ennis is like some nice copper plumbing in a dilapidated Detroit residence.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I see little point in trading Ennis. He's a decent scorer, possesses good speed, and the contract won't kill you as long as it's 3-4 years. I think some are hell bent on trading every useful NHL player on our roster; they're deep into the tank, almost maniacal, like hockey trading heroine addicts who will hawk anything for another future, another pick. They're always chasing the pick dragon. To them, Ennis is like some nice copper plumbing in a dilapidated Detroit residence.

Good description. Ennis is like the copper wire, minimal value but not useless, the poor and downtrodden hold value in him because he's worth more then the crappy assets they already own. The Sabres are like the dilapidated Detroit residence. No one wants any part of it, it's not fit to be competitive in the housing market. The only sound option is to strip it of its brass fittings, sell the old furniture, and yank out the copper wiring trade them for cash and put a down payment on a new nicer house. Draft picks hoooooooo.

 

[Heraldic]

So what is the longest length of a contract that we can give him, while keeping him RFA after the end of that contract? Is it 1 or 2 year? I think that's the optimal length in this situation. If we give him a relatively short term contract, we lose trade value, I think.

 

[brian_griffin]

I meant that he is the most likely one to get traded in a package for a young guy or a high pick. I don't think it's realistic that they first re-sign him and trade him almost immediately after that.

Ah, OK, I agree.

I see little point in trading Ennis. He's a decent scorer, possesses good speed, and the contract won't kill you as long as it's 3-4 years. I think some are hell bent on trading every useful NHL player on our roster; they're deep into the tank, almost maniacal, like hockey trading heroine addicts who will hawk anything for another future, another pick. They're always chasing the pick dragon. To them, Ennis is like some nice copper plumbing in a dilapidated Detroit residence.

Ennis is more like the roof on that house. It's adequate for a few years, but will need to be replaced once the rest of the house is rebuilt. You can do it now, or you can do it later, your choice, but you know you need to do it.

Good description. Ennis is like the copper wire, minimal value but not useless, the poor and downtrodden hold value in him because he's worth more then the crappy assets they already own. The Sabres are like the dilapidated Detroit residence. No one wants any part of it, it's not fit to be competitive in the housing market. The only sound option is to strip it of its brass fittings, sell the old furniture, and yank out the copper wiring trade them for cash and put a down payment on a new nicer house. Draft picks hoooooooo.

In this analogy, Ville Leino is the huge turd left behind in the unworking toilet. The seat is missing. The tank is cracked and broken and no longer holds water. But unfortunately, you still need to smell and look at it because you can't flush it down and be done with it.

 

[slip]

Ennis is more like the roof on that house. It's adequate for a few years, but will need to be replaced once the rest of the house is rebuilt. You can do it now, or you can do it later, your choice, but you know you need to do it.

I guess what I'm saying is that we still need to ice a hockey team with 12 forwards and 6 defensemen, and in that context -- especially given the number of futures to be acquired when Miller, Ott, and Moulson are traded -- I don't see the urgency in moving Ennis here and now, unless it's for an AHL player on the cusp of making the NHL, or something along those lines. Ennis for the 20th 1st round pick in the 2014 draft is not something I'm willing to do this season. You can't strip a house bare in so short a time, even if it is in Detroit, or Baltimore.

Okay, maybe you can.

edit: deleted image.