Buffalo Sabres LW Options: Scott Hartnell Waives NTC

Feb 2, 2016; Edmonton, Alberta, CAN; Columbus Blue Jackets forward Scott Hartnell (43) battles with Edmonton Oilers defensemen Andrej Sekera (2) in front of goaltender Cam Talbot (33) during the second period at Rexall Place. Mandatory Credit: Perry Nelson-USA TODAY Sports
Feb 2, 2016; Edmonton, Alberta, CAN; Columbus Blue Jackets forward Scott Hartnell (43) battles with Edmonton Oilers defensemen Andrej Sekera (2) in front of goaltender Cam Talbot (33) during the second period at Rexall Place. Mandatory Credit: Perry Nelson-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit

Does the power forward have enough points left in him to earn a look from the Buffalo Sabres?

The news out of Columbus is that LW Scott Hartnell has waived his no-trade clause and is open to being traded to a “decent” number of teams, according to Elliotte Friedman:

So of course the question we are going to start our week with is, should the Buffalo Sabres try and acquire the veteran power forward?

Let’s get this out of the way: personally, I see no reason why the Sabres front office should spend time and resources going after a 34 year-old player like Hartnett.  Well, unless the Sabres really, really want to practice their penalty killing, that is.

More from Sabre Noise

Here’s the skinny on Hartnell: even at the age of 34, he knows how to cause problems for opposing teams.   He’s is not the sort of guy anyone likes to play against, he knows that the best place to be is in front of the net and he does whatever it takes to stay there, and he can still generate points.   His stat line of 23-26-49 in 79 games played last year is not the sort of thing you can ignore when you’re a team that was pretty much 20 goals away from playing your competition even a season ago.

Bringing Hartnell into the 716 gives the Sabres a 40+ point guy to pair alongside either Ryan O’Reilly or Jack Eichel on the left wing, a ****-ton of toughness, and a veteran presence whom the young players can rely on should the Buffalo Sabres qualify for the postseason in a year or two.  So, it’s not like there are no good reasons why GM Tim Murray should make a phone call or two inquiring about Hartnett’s availability.

Of course, there are many negative reasons why the Sabres should stay the hell away from Hartnell, as well.  For starters, he’s 34 and has played 1,109 regular season games in his NHL career, with another 91 playoff games tacked on, giving him a grand total of 1,200 games played.  Given his style of play, it’s safe to say that Hartnell’s body ain’t what is used to be.  With three years left on a contract that will carry a cap hit of $4.75 million for two years and $3 million the final, Buffalo would be paying good money for a player whose body could break down halfway through next season.

Next: Three Players The Buffalo Sabres Need To Re-Sign

There’s another really good reason to avoid signing Hartnell, and it is one I have already alluded to: namely, the dude has never met a penalty he didn’t like.  The last time Hartnell played 70+ games and accumulated less than 100 minutes in penalties was back in 2001-01, his rookie campaign.  Since then, he has been a lock for 100 PIM in any season in which he skates 70 or more games, and his 112 PIM last season indicate he has no plans on changing his style of play any time soon.  If Buffalo acquires Hartnell, they better spend at least 75% of every practice working on the PK, because they are going to spend a lot of ice time down a man with Hartnell on the roster.

Scott Hartnell will probably score right around 50 points for some team in the NHL, and spend a lot of time both in the sin bin and aggravating the hell out of opposing goaltenders.  I cannot imagine GMTM will be interested in Hartnell unless the Columbus Blue Jackets are willing to retain a part of Hartnell’s salary, and even then he doesn’t exactly fit the youth movement that has been going on in the 716 during this rebuild.   If any rumors connecting the Sabres with Hartnell pop up I’ll revisit the topic, but for now we’ll file this under “Highly unlikely.”