Player Discussion Chris Tierney (C)
- Thread starter NyQuil
- Start date
Sensmileletsgo
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2018
- 5,101
- 4,308
Icelevel
During these difficult times...
- Sep 9, 2009
- 24,803
- 5,007
I think it’s too late for that. We won’t end up with top 5 picks now. Playoffs are the new goal.
Sens are 6 points out of last place with 59 games to go and have been riding hot goaltending to 25th place in the league based on point percentage.
NHL.com - Stats
Dropping the next 4 (3 on road and at home vs Bruins) could see the Sens back in dead last by the end of November.
SensFactor
Registered User
The way I would do things:
Pageau signed 5 years x 4.25 million (if he doesn't sign trade him at deadline for 1st rounder)
Sign Duclair
Sign C. Brown
Sign Ennis 1 year x 2 million (if he doesn't sign trade him at deadline for 5th rounder)
Trade DeMelo for a 3rd rounder (suitable replacements are coming with Lajoie and Jaros)
Tierney for a 3rd rounder at deadline
Namestikov for 3rd rounder at deadline
Boedker no offer, try and trade for 7th rounder
Pageau signed 5 years x 4.25 million (if he doesn't sign trade him at deadline for 1st rounder)
Sign Duclair
Sign C. Brown
Sign Ennis 1 year x 2 million (if he doesn't sign trade him at deadline for 5th rounder)
Trade DeMelo for a 3rd rounder (suitable replacements are coming with Lajoie and Jaros)
Tierney for a 3rd rounder at deadline
Namestikov for 3rd rounder at deadline
Boedker no offer, try and trade for 7th rounder
Sensmileletsgo
Registered User
- Oct 22, 2018
- 5,101
- 4,308
I would try and keep these 3 guys around on short contracts. I would lock Brown up for 5 years, similar to the Pageau contract if possible.
No way I resign Ennis.
I hope he has several more hot steaks, particularly closer to trade deadline, and we can trade him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick to a team looking for depth scoring.
I hope he has several more hot steaks, particularly closer to trade deadline, and we can trade him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick to a team looking for depth scoring.
Trade everyone for third rounders? Why not just give them away.
Trade Tierney to Edmonton or Pitsburgh for 2nd.
Or
Trade him to Vegas for Eakin or Carolina for Haula, they will like having the security of being able to keep Tierney for at least a couple other years at lower salary compared to Eakin who'll be making 4M-5M. Carolina could use a C in the absence of Haula . Eakin and Haula are better than Tierney and fit our up tempo physical style of play more than Tierney. Then you have the option of playing Eakin or Haula with Tkachuk/Duclair and then flipping one of them for a late 1rst at the deadline.
Or
Trade him to Vegas for Eakin or Carolina for Haula, they will like having the security of being able to keep Tierney for at least a couple other years at lower salary compared to Eakin who'll be making 4M-5M. Carolina could use a C in the absence of Haula . Eakin and Haula are better than Tierney and fit our up tempo physical style of play more than Tierney. Then you have the option of playing Eakin or Haula with Tkachuk/Duclair and then flipping one of them for a late 1rst at the deadline.
really ? he had 50 points last year, and is on pace for almost that again... what were you guys expecting
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,167
- 9,909
I'm not very result-oriented when it comes to evaluating players.
I put more stock into how they play. Tierney is painful to watch most of the time.
Tierney is part of the Karlsson return and there is a segment of the board that downplays everything about that return.
At the moment, Tierney posted 40 and 48 points his past two seasons and this year he is pacing in the mid 40s. Its pretty fair to say at this point he is a mid 40s C. He can play 3C, 2C in a pinch, kill penalties, play a bit of 2nd pp, and he's won 53% of his face offs in a Sens uni. He isn't a budding all star but he is far above a replacement player. He's also very durable only having missed 3 games to i jury in the last 3.5 years.
Ive got no issue moving on from him but ive got no issue extending him either.
I sometimes get the sense there are guys here that think he is barely an NHLer which is pretty far from the truth.
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
Chris Tierney is essentially filler.
On a bad team, he can put up 40-50 points. But it's a hollow 40-50 points.
On a good team, he should not be near the top 6. And he doesn't play with much pace, he's not physical, he's not great defensively... so he doesn't really fit in on the bottom 6.
We're going to move on from him this offseason, and I suspect people will be very disappointed by the return. I don't think we'll get anything better than a 3rd-4th round pick.
He's basically plain yogurt. Nobody wants plain yogurt, but sometimes, it's the only flavor that's on sale, so you put it in your cart.
Sensinitis
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2012
- 15,934
- 5,526
I respect your opinion, but there’s a lot of questionable material here.
First of all, “hollow” 40-50 points? What does that even mean?
Secondly, he’s good defensively. He gets lot of PK time, is one of our best PKers has a good stick and breaks up a lot of plays. I’m not sure where this myth that he’s bad defensively comes from.
Also there’s no way Tierney gets only a 3rd/4th. Go look at comparable players who got traded. He has the production of a 2nd liner and has playoff experience too.
Tierney put up 40 points as a 23 year old, finishing 5th in team scoring, on a 100 point San Jose team.
Was that 100 point SJ team a bad team Dave?
Was his 5th in team scoring on that team hollow Dave?
There's likely a lot more validity to my suggestion that as part of the EK trade Tierney's usefulness is downplayed by a segment here than there is to your view that a cost controlled mid 40 point C is only worth a 3rd to a 4th from a contender
stempniaksen
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2008
- 11,036
- 4,316
A little bit, honestly. If you use PPG he actually drops to 9th overall (8th forward), which kind of gives validity to the fact he's more of a 3rd liner who has the skill to fill in higher in the lineup if/when required. He was a guy who stayed healthy (bonus points to him) who got moved up in the lineup and ended up playing with some real good players who may have (if ever so slightly) boosted his numbers.
That's not to suggest I side with Dave's arguments either, since I certainly think he's worth more than a mid round pick. I think if the organization treats him as a core piece moving forward it will be at the expense of a better player (wether that's Pageau or one of the kids in the system) and assuming they eventually move on, a bit of a weird addition as part of the EK deal since (to this team anyways) he will have been nothing but filler during down years.
BonkTastic
ಠ_ಠ
Tierney is not a guy I want to give "50 point" money to, I'll tell you that much.
coladin
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2009
- 11,814
- 4,500
Exactly. Can't keep them all and Pageau and Tierney on the same team will be a stretch, even when they move Anisimov. Too many players in the pipeline
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,167
- 9,909
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
This is a good way to put it.
Inflated offense on a bad team and his soft game is not suited for a 3C role. Classic case of a guy that can put up points on a bad team but isn't good enough for that role on a contender.
Exactly the kind of guy that's just fine on a budget team until he has to get paid with term, then it's time to be proactive and move on.
For sure he is a 3rd liner, but you know it's a 4 line game and he's proven to be a pretty versatile 3rd line guy with the added bonus of being veru durable. And when he got extra ice with better players here last year, he posted 48 points. I wouldn't want him playing higher up permanently but he has demonstrated an ability to produce at the level when required
Ideally you'd want to give 50 point money to a 50 point guy. Tierney hasn't put up 50 point production
stempniaksen
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2008
- 11,036
- 4,316
Oh without a doubt, I just think there's some validity to the argument that this guy has had his numbers boosted the last few seasons (obviously different circumstances here than in San Jose though). I guess my take is that, just because he's score 45 points doesn't make him a 45 point guy (as silly as that may sound).
We're probably pretty close to being in agreement with him though, he kind of is what he is, which is a handy little depth player who can move around your lineup as needed, but someone no one wants to see in the top-six (or in a role where he's counted on to be more than a complimentary piece).
