HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Speculation: Any interest in Thomas Vanek? Value? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1158355)

boots electric 04-08-2012 02:04 AM

Any interest in Thomas Vanek? Value?
 
Sabres fan here.

There's been a lot of talk of trading Thomas Vanek to shake thing up in Buffalo, and Minnesota is a team that tends to come up in these discussions for one reason or another--he grew up there, his offseason home is there, he played there in college, Minnesota's lack of scoring depth, and so on and so forth.

I was just wondering -- do Wild fans have any interest in Vanek? If so, what would you be willing to give up? Buffalo would be looking primarily for draft picks or prospects (Granlund excluded), and they would likely have to take on some salary in return (Setoguch?)

So...what would it take? What would you be willing to give up?

Victorious Secret 04-08-2012 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boots electric (Post 47543359)
Sabres fan here.

There's been a lot of talk of trading Thomas Vanek to shake thing up in Buffalo, and Minnesota is a team that tends to come up in these discussions for one reason or another--he grew up there, his offseason home is there, he played there in college, Minnesota's lack of scoring depth, and so on and so forth.

I was just wondering -- do Wild fans have any interest in Vanek? If so, what would you be willing to give up? Buffalo would be looking primarily for draft picks or prospects (Granlund excluded), and they would likely have to take on some salary in return (Setoguch?)

So...what would it take? What would you be willing to give up?

I would love to trade Seto's 3 million cap hit for Vanek's 7.1, but no thank you. As for the price? No thanks. It'd be far too high, and we'd be giving up prospects. Something which we can ill afford to part with.

Outlandish 04-08-2012 02:19 AM

Nothing against Vanek other than that cap hit, but I don't want them to trade any prospects away this year. I view that as something you do when you are one or two pieces from a serious playoff run and I believe we're still a couple years away from that.

llamapalooza 04-08-2012 02:22 AM

Salary wouldn't be a concern; in fact, the Wild will probably have to be careful to reach the floor this year.

But the asking price in prospects is probably way too high.

Billy Mays Here 04-08-2012 02:59 AM

No interest in Vanek. We're not in a position to be trading away picks and prospects right now. Plus, I guess I still hold it against Vanek a little that he was a headcase when he was with the Gophers.

Pajicz 04-08-2012 04:54 AM

Wouldn't really want Vanek either; good player, but would cost simply too much, especially for a team in some sort of rebuilding phase.

BigT2002 04-08-2012 09:55 AM

Russo quoted Fletcher and Leipold both as saying they are looking to really shake things up this year and make the league recognize that Minnesota is relevant. I just like to think that is because they are going to move around some of the depth to get the team ready to go.


While I would enjoy having Vanek on the team, I don't see it working out that well for either of them. We "tend" to make more trades with WC than EC it feels like too.

rynryn 04-08-2012 10:07 AM

I'd like Vanek on the team. Worried about giving up our top 10 pick though because we won't have another one for a good long while. ;)

Northland Wild Man 04-08-2012 10:21 AM

I don't think the Wild would want to give up the prospects at this point. In a few years maybe the Wild do something like this, but not now.

tyratoku 04-08-2012 10:26 AM

If Galchenyuk and Trouba were gone at our pick, and Fletcher somehow knew that Parise was definitely going to come here(pipe dream, I know) I'd trade the pick + Clutter + Bulmer for Vanek + 2nd or something. I could be completely wrong with value though. Clutter simply fell apart in the last half of this year, IMO, and he has one of the highest moveable trade values on the team. Bulmer would be great, but with Phillips, Zucker, Coyle, and Larsson, Bulmer is a bit expendable, I think.

Such a trade could be hard to sell to the fans, especially losing Clutter, but if Vanek became the 70 point guy he could and should be, then I don't think we'd mind much.

Heatley - Koivu - Parise
Vanek - Granlund - Setoguchi
Cullen - Brodziak - Larsson

Believe.

A Gopher, Sioux, and Badger all on one team. Imagine if one could transition to Center and they could make a line :laugh:

Then we could possibly package our 2nd from Buffalo and 2nd from Washington and pick up a late 1st to pick up a defender to add to the pipeline.

Dr Jan Itor 04-08-2012 11:06 AM

I imagine value is pretty far off. I think Coyle would be very high on their list, and just like the Burns trade doesn't get done without Coyle, I think a Vanek deal would be the same.

Minnesota 04-08-2012 11:15 AM

I'd love to have Vanek on the Wild, but there's no way we're trading the caliber of prospect that Buffalo would want in return.

Avder 04-08-2012 11:24 AM

Yeah I think all of our top prospects are off the table for the time being as far as trades go. Vanek is good, but I cant see us giving up a prospect of the caliber that Buffalo would want.

Minnesota 04-08-2012 11:30 AM

Imagine how awesome our shooutout lineup would be with Vanek...




GopherState 04-08-2012 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyratoku (Post 47552771)
If Galchenyuk and Trouba were gone at our pick, and Fletcher somehow knew that Parise was definitely going to come here(pipe dream, I know) I'd trade the pick + Clutter + Bulmer for Vanek + 2nd or something. I could be completely wrong with value though. Clutter simply fell apart in the last half of this year, IMO, and he has one of the highest moveable trade values on the team. Bulmer would be great, but with Phillips, Zucker, Coyle, and Larsson, Bulmer is a bit expendable, I think.

Such a trade could be hard to sell to the fans, especially losing Clutter, but if Vanek became the 70 point guy he could and should be, then I don't think we'd mind much.

Heatley - Koivu - Parise
Vanek - Granlund - Setoguchi
Cullen - Brodziak - Larsson

Believe.

A Gopher, Sioux, and Badger all on one team. Imagine if one could transition to Center and they could make a line :laugh:

Then we could possibly package our 2nd from Buffalo and 2nd from Washington and pick up a late 1st to pick up a defender to add to the pipeline.

If they're bringing back a former Golden Gopher who has proven he can score in the NHL and won a national title in Dinkytown, the fans can get over Clutterbuck.

Of course, having Vanek, Heatley, Koivu and Parise would mean that 4 forwards are making $27 million and be a pipedream but that's the fun of imagining things.

sioux210 04-08-2012 11:39 AM

ya dont know about this one, hes a good player and any team would want him but i think the wild are gonna wait till we see if we can get parise before they start thinking about moving our prospects, GMCF made it clear he wants to land a big fish wether thtas via free agency or trade, but hes gonna be setting his sights on parise and suter to begin with and then go from there

ShutDownDefense 04-08-2012 12:27 PM

I swear all the fans outside of Minnesota automatically assume if someone is from there, they automatically want to play for Minnesota. Like Leaf fans, everyone wants to play for Toronto. :facepalm:

I'd like Vanek, but I wouldn't trade any of our depth for him especially on how much depth we accumulated over the last two years. I'd probably trade roster players.

barnabyrules 04-08-2012 12:28 PM

Only on HF are prospects better than a 40 goal scorer. That being said, Vanek's cap hit is a bit high and he's only signed for 2 more years. If his cap hit was closer to 6 and he was signed for 4 years, I would be fine giving up anything but Granlund... but alas, that is not the case.

rynryn 04-08-2012 01:47 PM

exactly...huge larfs for the people calling Lats a huge part of our offense and necessary difference maker who label Vanek "good". jesus****ingchrist.

llamapalooza 04-08-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rynryn (Post 47563661)
exactly...huge larfs for the people calling Lats a huge part of our offense and necessary difference maker who label Vanek "good". jesus****ingchrist.

Three factors to this:

- Latendresse is quite talented, but more importantly he plays a style that this team is otherwise completely lacking and desperately needs.

- You always give preference to guys who are in your organization already where you don't need to give up assets to get them, and particularly to guys where you don't have to negotiate against other teams.

- We don't see a lot of Vanek because we play Buffalo once a year and they're not a playoff team or even really in the highlights very much. So I just don't know enough about the guy to say anything more than "good".

SauceHockey 04-08-2012 02:30 PM

If we were at a different place at a different time then it would be worth a look. Now never.

Ovechkid08 04-08-2012 03:13 PM

If we can't get Parise or a big UFA this season I would not be opposed at all to go after Vanek, guy would absolutely thrive here with Koivu and Granlund I think. Seto/2nd/Haula reasonable? Thats about as much as I would spend right now and I love Vanek, we are still a ways away though with our prospects needing more time.

Then again, first shot at resigning Vanek sounds very tempting, on a team on the up and up, "hometown" discount and playing with some good young players would lower that hit right about in time for us to give our prospects real contracts. We have the cap space now and Vanek is a very good player that can create his own offense, just depends on what the price is.

rynryn 04-08-2012 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamapalooza (Post 47564803)
Three factors to this:

- Latendresse is quite talented, but more importantly he plays a style that this team is otherwise completely lacking and desperately needs.

- You always give preference to guys who are in your organization already where you don't need to give up assets to get them, and particularly to guys where you don't have to negotiate against other teams.

- We don't see a lot of Vanek because we play Buffalo once a year and they're not a playoff team or even really in the highlights very much. So I just don't know enough about the guy to say anything more than "good".

Sabres haven't exactly been a powerhouse team but Vaneks numbers (historically and recently) are significantly better than Latendresse's best year (i'm being generous with his numbers and only counting his "hot" streak with the Wild his first year here) He is on a tier above Lats, easily.

I don't think Fletcher would pull the trigger but i've found out some things I can't talk about that make me question where the focus is shifting as far as developing the team, so i won't count it out. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the team would be orgasming if Coyle turns out to be the point producer vanek has been in the NHL. Coyle AND our early first would be a no go, though, unless it was a bigger deal that saw a good D piece (prospect or younger player) coming back too.

llamapalooza 04-08-2012 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rynryn (Post 47574695)
Sabres haven't exactly been a powerhouse team but Vaneks numbers (historically and recently) are significantly better than Latendresse's best year (i'm being generous with his numbers and only counting his "hot" streak with the Wild his first year here) He is on a tier above Lats, easily.

I didn't say anything to the contrary...just suggesting reasons why it might seem like people are giving so much attention to Lats.

BLBarmada 04-08-2012 05:53 PM

Vanek is a goalscorer, I think he tops out at 40, and he's only hit 40 once. And he's making 7.1 M, it's steep, so I would like him, but I wouldnt pay much for him.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.