HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Buffalo Sabres (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Speculation: Trading Vanek (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1438519)

Cannonball0828 05-30-2013 12:48 PM

Trading Vanek
 
Many members here seem very willing to trade Vanek this offseason. However, I don't see that as the best route to go. Vanek, IMO, is a first line, franchise type winger. 30-40 goal scorers don't come around everyday. Even if we were to get a top 10 pick for him, he won't turn into the type of player Vanek has become for years to come, if at all.

I understand there's speculation that Vanek won't want to re-sign here after this season. I believe we should be willing to pay him almost whatever he wants to stay here, as letting Vanek leave would create a huge organizational hole that is not easy to replace.

Myllz 05-30-2013 12:52 PM

On the other hand, what's the point of keeping him? Great, so we'd have a franchise, top winger. This team isn't going to be competitive for at least another couple seasons, so us having him ultimately does nothing. In the meantime, you could've let him go for more pieces that will help the team be even more competitive in 2-3 seasons and beyond.

Cannonball0828 05-30-2013 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myllz (Post 66795703)
On the other hand, what's the point of keeping him? Great, so we'd have a franchise, top winger. This team isn't going to be competitive for at least another couple seasons, so us having him ultimately does nothing. In the meantime, you could've let him go for more pieces that will help the team be even more competitive in 2-3 seasons and beyond.

Well, he's only 29. So if we sign him to a long-term deal you've got to think he will be producing at a first line level for the next 5-6 years. If we trade him for picks and prospects, like I said, there's no guarantee that they will develop into a first line type of player. When our team finally is competitive again, wouldn't it be nice to have a veteran player in the prime of his career to mentor the younger players? You can't have a roster full of 20-22 year olds and expect to win the Stanley Cup.

jBuds 05-30-2013 01:06 PM

I've done a complete reversal on this. Funny you posted this.

I was all for trading him. But as I watch teams struggle to score goals, and accept that the offense-by-committee thing is indeed a thing of the past, I cringe at the thought of losing a natural goalscorer, who doesn't need linemates setting him up or centers creating time or space for him to be a successful scorer. He's a natural finisher - whether it's luck, skill, combo of both - who plays a large role in the offense.

I'd love to re-sign him.

Sabretip 05-30-2013 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannonball0828 (Post 66795507)
Many members here seem very willing to trade Vanek this offseason. However, I don't see that as the best route to go. Vanek, IMO, is a first line, franchise type winger. 30-40 goal scorers don't come around everyday. Even if we were to get a top 10 pick for him, he won't turn into the type of player Vanek has become for years to come, if at all.

I understand there's speculation that Vanek won't want to re-sign here after this season. I believe we should be willing to pay him almost whatever he wants to stay here, as letting Vanek leave would create a huge organizational hole that is not easy to replace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannonball0828 (Post 66795923)
Well, he's only 29. So if we sign him to a long-term deal you've got to think he will be producing at a first line level for the next 5-6 years. If we trade him for picks and prospects, like I said, there's no guarantee that they will develop into a first line type of player. When our team finally is competitive again, wouldn't it be nice to have a veteran player in the prime of his career to mentor the younger players? You can't have a roster full of 20-22 year olds and expect to win the Stanley Cup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 66796265)
I've done a complete reversal on this. Funny you posted this.

I was all for trading him. But as I watch teams struggle to score goals, and accept that the offense-by-committee thing is indeed a thing of the past, I cringe at the thought of losing a natural goalscorer, who doesn't need linemates setting him up or centers creating time or space for him to be a successful scorer. He's a natural finisher - whether it's luck, skill, combo of both - who plays a large role in the offense.

I'd love to re-sign him.

Amen to all of the above - I have been uncomfortable with the premise of trading Vanek from the start. Aside from his natural finishing ability and willingness to take a beating in high-traffic areas for most of his goals, along with an obvious maturation and desire to be a leader, I think the Sabres need to keep him.

That said, I understand that if he forces the Sabres' hand by refusing to re-sign or asks to be traded, it's a moot point - but then I hope Regier doesn't just dump Vanek off for draft picks or unproven prospects. He has to get a proven top 6 player in return IMO who can compensate for the offense that would be lost with Vanek's departure. Right now, with Myers' development / potential / commitment under scrutiny and Miller's age, Vanek is the Sabres' most marketable asset in my estimation. Regier has to extract a ransom in return or this team will be a minor league squad for several seasons IMO.

Chainshot 05-30-2013 01:30 PM

Let's see, his comments about not wanting to stick around for a long rebuild, the team's comments about there being some "suffering" and that he has only a single year left on his contract all point to exploring dealing him now. Retaining him until the deadline is potentially a way to increase trade value but also adds in other factors such as risk of injury and getting nothing for him. They are not poised to be a contender, their commentary points to them moving into a rebuilding phase so the question is -- why retain him when they are building something new when he could be used to acquire parts for that rebuild?

MayDayMayDay 05-30-2013 01:33 PM

I feel like w/ Vanek, you can really go either way. Deal him now in his prime and you maximize the return (provided the other team extends him). But the NHL is crazy in that a team can turn it around so quickly, and for all we know with realignment and an injection of that youth, there's an outside chance we could ice a competitive team (if not next year) sooner than expected, and Vanek could still play a big part in that.

We've got a ton of solid, promising youth, but they're all complementary pieces. In my eyes, Vanek is ideally that big, COMPLEMENTARY piece. He's too inconsistent to be Batman, but he makes one hell of a Robin. We need OUR Batman, a new face of the franchise. There are two guys out there right now who I think we could look to for that role: Bobby Ryan and Nathan Mackinnon.

Djp 05-30-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jBuds (Post 66796265)
I've done a complete reversal on this. Funny you posted this.

I was all for trading him. But as I watch teams struggle to score goals, and accept that the offense-by-committee thing is indeed a thing of the past, I cringe at the thought of losing a natural goalscorer, who doesn't need linemates setting him up or centers creating time or space for him to be a successful scorer. He's a natural finisher - whether it's luck, skill, combo of both - who plays a large role in the offense.

I'd love to re-sign him.

I'd like to resign hm but I don't want to overpay hm by giving him some long 8 yesr contract. I'd like to have the cap hit lowered.

I don't have a problem trading him if an agreement can't be reached.

This is why I don't see Vanek dealt at the draft but instead in the summer. The only exception is if buffalo is floored with an offer at the draft.

I can't risk having him walk for nothing.

Cannonball0828 05-30-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainshot (Post 66797277)
Let's see, his comments about not wanting to stick around for a long rebuild, the team's comments about there being some "suffering" and that he has only a single year left on his contract all point to exploring dealing him now. Retaining him until the deadline is potentially a way to increase trade value but also adds in other factors such as risk of injury and getting nothing for him. They are not poised to be a contender, their commentary points to them moving into a rebuilding phase so the question is -- why retain him when they are building something new when he could be used to acquire parts for that rebuild?

I suppose it's up to what is regarded as a long rebuild then. Sure, we probably won't be very good next year. But 2 years from now, who knows? Looking at the turnarounds the Canadiens and the Leafs were able to have this year can give us some hope. We have a lot of prospects that will be transitioning into more prominent NHL roles in the years to come, combine that with a couple free agent signings and we could be right in contention again.

WhoIsJimBob 05-30-2013 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannonball0828 (Post 66797821)
I suppose it's up to what is regarded as a long rebuild then. Sure, we probably won't be very good next year. But 2 years from now, who knows? Looking at the turnarounds the Canadiens and the Leafs were able to have this year can give us some hope. We have a lot of prospects that will be transitioning into more prominent NHL roles in the years to come, combine that with a couple free agent signings and we could be right in contention again.

The problem is that TODAY it looks like Vanek is walking next summer.

Do you really want to roll the dice and risk losing him for nothing a year from now?

To me, you have to either have him signing an extension in July or you are moving him ASAP.

It's not worth the risk to see IF they can turn it around quickly.

It's not like splashing Pegula bucks on UFAs has worked out well so far....

Chainshot 05-30-2013 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannonball0828 (Post 66797821)
I suppose it's up to what is regarded as a long rebuild then. Sure, we probably won't be very good next year. But 2 years from now, who knows? Looking at the turnarounds the Canadiens and the Leafs were able to have this year can give us some hope. We have a lot of prospects that will be transitioning into more prominent NHL roles in the years to come, combine that with a couple free agent signings and we could be right in contention again.

The Canadians "turnaround" had a lot more to do with having their best skater - Markov - available for a full season for the first time in years. They were healthy and that made a world of difference.

As for the Leafs... 8 years is not a quick rebuild.

Zip15 05-30-2013 02:03 PM

It's also worth noting that Vanek is going to be 30 when he starts his next contract. He isn't going to accept a three- or four-year deal taking him to 33 or 34. He's going to be looking to cash in on a 7- or 8-year deal, and definitely north of $40m over the term. If the Sabres miss the playoffs again this year, is he going to commit the rest of his career to an organization that hasn't won a playoff series since 2007? I doubt it. Heck, would Buffalo commit that amount of money to him during a period of "suffering?"

Cannonball0828 05-30-2013 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio (Post 66798361)
The problem is that TODAY it looks like Vanek is walking next summer.

Do you really want to roll the dice and risk losing him for nothing a year from now?

To me, you have to either have him signing an extension in July or you are moving him ASAP.

It's not worth the risk to see IF they can turn it around quickly.

It's not like splashing Pegula bucks on UFAs has worked out well so far....

I'm sure Regier and co will be on the phone with Vanek and his agents right away to try and see what type of interest he has in staying here. If they say he has little to no interest, then obviously it's a no brainer to trade him. If both sides think there's a deal to be done, then we should do everything we can to try and keep him here, even if it means waiting until after the draft to get a deal done.

I'm not suggesting we spend big bucks on UFA's in the upcoming years, as there really isn't anybody to spend it on. However I do think there are solid role players that can be had in free agency that can help improve the team.

Cannonball0828 05-30-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainshot (Post 66798569)
The Canadians "turnaround" had a lot more to do with having their best skater - Markov - available for a full season for the first time in years. They were healthy and that made a world of difference.

As for the Leafs... 8 years is not a quick rebuild.

Markov and Galchenyuk certainly played a large role in that. But what if the Sabres best skating defenseman - Myers - was able to return to his Calder form? It's not like his talent suddenly disappeared. I really believe when it comes to the Sabres that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. We have some good players who don't mesh well together. Our puck possession was putrid this year, if we're able to implement some good puck possession players to compliment our skill players, a turnaround might not take as long as you think.

Lloydchristmas138 05-30-2013 02:27 PM

I definately agree that we should try to re-sign Vanek as best we can, it really is just more up to him. The problem is that convincing him that the re-build is not gonna be long and painful despite the fact that Miller is almost certainly is a goner.

Personally I don't see the team in as bad of shape as everyone else does for next season and the near future. There's gonna be a new wave of players coming in very soon to surround him with and get him excited about, and perhaps he has enough confidence in Enroth as starter going forward. Call me crazy but I think there's enough talent to have us at least contend for a 6th-8th playoff seed as soon as next year. Is that enough to convince Vanek to stay? I hope so.

Selanne00008 05-30-2013 02:43 PM

I think just like the Avs witht he #1 pick we need to explore every option. Obviously what Vanek sees happening and what he wants will ultimately sway our decision making. If he does NOT want to re-sign by next trade deadline I don't want to risk losing him for nothing, and we can not force him to re-sign.

Either re-sign long term cap friendly by next February OR trade him by the deadline for a CoHo type of player + _____ . I want young semi proven talent that is NHL ready AND first round picks for him. Get what you can be 3pm next year. Remember if he doesn't resign that does not mean we didn't try our hardest. If he doesn't want to play in Buffalo, New York he has earned the right to look elsewhere.

If I were him, I would move on.

joshjull 05-30-2013 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myllz (Post 66795703)
On the other hand, what's the point of keeping him? Great, so we'd have a franchise, top winger. This team isn't going to be competitive for at least another couple seasons, so us having him ultimately does nothing. In the meantime, you could've let him go for more pieces that will help the team be even more competitive in 2-3 seasons and beyond.

Based on what?

Chainshot 05-30-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannonball0828 (Post 66799231)
Markov and Galchenyuk certainly played a large role in that. But what if the Sabres best skating defenseman - Myers - was able to return to his Calder form? It's not like his talent suddenly disappeared. I really believe when it comes to the Sabres that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. We have some good players who don't mesh well together. Our puck possession was putrid this year, if we're able to implement some good puck possession players to compliment our skill players, a turnaround might not take as long as you think.

A simple "turnaround" isn't building a Cup contender which is what Black and Regier said is the objective during their end of year press conference, between boughts of setting Terry's personal schedule with TBN. I'd love for them to be very good very quickly even if I don't think that it is very likely at all.

MayDayMayDay 05-30-2013 03:15 PM

Any chance we'd be offering him up as part of a package to Colorado for number one?? I feel like Van in Denver plus some defensive help would suddenly make them VERY good. And dat gummit, I really want Mackinnon. :/

joshjull 05-30-2013 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainshot (Post 66801851)
A simple "turnaround" isn't building a Cup contender which is what Black and Regier said is the objective during their end of year press conference, between boughts of setting Terry's personal schedule with TBN. I'd love for them to be very good very quickly even if I don't think that it is very likely at all.

I think they can be much more competitive fairly quickly and still be on track with a rebuild. I don't think they are mutually exclusive ideas.

Myllz 05-30-2013 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJames217 (Post 66801987)
Any chance we'd be offering him up as part of a package to Colorado for number one?? I feel like Van in Denver plus some defensive help would suddenly make them VERY good. And dat gummit, I really want Mackinnon. :/

They could offer it, but Colorado isn't taking it.

Gabrielor 05-30-2013 03:30 PM

Not entirely true. Vanek could be of interest to Colorado, but a) he'd be a complimentary piece in the deal, and b) his value would be higher as a primary piece elsewhere.

Van/Mils can/should be traded this off season. I like them both, especally Van. But you don't say 'rebuild', and have closing player interviews like that without movement being very likely.

In the case of Van, either use him as a stepping stone piece to inquire a top pick, or trade him for a Nash-eske package. I'll miss him, and will need to buy a new jersey, but it is what it is.

Chainshot 05-30-2013 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjull (Post 66802045)
I think they can be much more competitive fairly quickly and still be on track with a rebuild. I don't think they are mutually exclusive ideas.

Perhaps. I'm not holding my breath.

Jame 05-30-2013 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjull (Post 66802045)
I think they can be much more competitive fairly quickly and still be on track with a rebuild. I don't think they are mutually exclusive ideas.

define please

joshjull 05-30-2013 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chainshot (Post 66802729)
Perhaps. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't blame you. Much will depend on how Regier plays his cards this summer. I know you don't like the very idea that he is the one with those cards. :laugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.