What? He's a solid third-pairing defenseman with a decent first pass. You were even complimenting the signing in the off-season. He is nothing like Scott.
Hence me saying he could go to Chicago next season...
You can't be much of a d-man when you're not in the lineup. You can take shots at Scott all you want but Vandy isn't much better and Scott is in Chicago for a reason.
You can't be much of a d-man when you're not in the lineup. You can take shots at Scott all you want but Vandy isn't much better and Scott is in Chicago for a reason.
So because Vandermeer was injured and the coaching staff wanted to get White into playing shape, he's not really a defenseman? On any other team, he'd be solid on the bottom-pairing. Scott provides grit and stands up for his teammates. Vandermeer does the same.
Scott is a borderline #6/#7. Vandermeer is a solid #6.
So because Vandermeer was injured and the coaching staff wanted to get White into playing shape, he's not really a defenseman? On any other team, he'd be solid on the bottom-pairing. Scott provides grit and stands up for his teammates. Vandermeer does the same.
Scott is a borderline #6/#7. Vandermeer is a solid #6.
So then why does Scott not really count yet Vandy does? That's all I was really responding to.
So then why does Scott not really count yet Vandy does? That's all I was really responding to.
Because of their actual defensive ability. Vandermeer provides physicality along with a decent first pass and solid defensive play for a third pairing defenseman. Scott is subpar defensively and is really just a big body on the blue-line.
Because of their actual defensive ability. Vandermeer provides physicality along with a decent first pass and solid defensive play for a third pairing defenseman. Scott is subpar defensively and is really just a big body on the blue-line.
Their actual defensive ability is not that much different. I think you're singing a different tune now that Vandy is on the home team. He's not all that solid defensively and hasn't been for most of his career. He's been okay for his role but it's not a surprise that he's moved from team to team frequently. It's his sixth team in five seasons, man.
Their actual defensive ability is not that much different. I think you're singing a different tune now that Vandy is on the home team. He's not all that solid defensively and hasn't been for most of his career. He's been okay for his role but it's not a surprise that he's moved from team to team frequently. It's his sixth team in five seasons, man.
The difference is pretty apparent. Vandermeer isn't great defensively, but Scott is just that much worse. Vandermeer also played 62 games in the last two seasons, and would have played more if he didn't get injured. The most Scott ever played was 51. The frequent team changing isn't a good indicator of his role as a defenseman either. Ian White was on 4 teams in 2 seasons.
The difference is pretty apparent. Vandermeer isn't great defensively, but Scott is just that much worse. Vandermeer also played 62 games in the last two seasons, and would have played more if he didn't get injured. The most Scott ever played was 51. The frequent team changing isn't a good indicator of his role as a defenseman either. Ian White was on 4 teams in 2 seasons.
Ian White's case is a little bit different. He was involved in the Phaneuf deal and then had a contract issue with Calgary. Vandy was traded many times over his career because of his play.
Ian White's case is a little bit different. He was involved in the Phaneuf deal and then had a contract issue with Calgary.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention it.
His play was one of the reasons he was traded from Carolina however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd
Vandy was traded many times over his career because of his play.
A mix of his play and his injury proneness. Regardless, we're straying from the original point. If he doesn't sign with the Sharks (really has no reason to stay), I could see Chicago going for him again. 3 of their 8 defensemen are UFA after this season, and Vandermeer is at least equal, if not better, than all of them. He also has the Seabrook connection.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention it.
His play was one of the reasons he was traded from Carolina however.
A mix of his play and his injury proneness. Regardless, we're straying from the original point. If he doesn't sign with the Sharks (really has no reason to stay), I could see Chicago going for him again. 3 of their 8 defensemen are UFA after this season, and Vandermeer is at least equal, if not better, than all of them. He also has the Seabrook connection.
Yes but they could've signed him this past off-season and didn't. They've had him before and he's a known quantity. He could and I wouldn't be surprised if he did but I doubt it'll happen.
Yes but they could've signed him this past off-season and didn't.
Maybe they tried to, but San Jose seemed like a more suitable place at the time. In the beginning of the off-season, it looked like Vandermeer would have a pretty stable role as the #6. Chicago already had 6 defensemen on July 1st (taking into consideration Montador's rights, 7 if you include O'Donnell signing on that day as well). That might not be the case this off-season.
Maybe they tried to, but San Jose seemed like a more suitable place at the time. In the beginning of the off-season, it looked like Vandermeer would have a pretty stable role as the #6. Chicago already had 6 defensemen on July 1st (taking into consideration Montador's rights, 7 if you include O'Donnell signing on that day as well). That might not be the case this off-season.
Woops, forgot Burns was traded before July 1st. Regardless, the competition for ice-time appeared to be less in San Jose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd
He could and I wouldn't be surprised if he did but I doubt it'll happen.
Well, that was pretty much my whole point. I didn't say it will happen, it just could happen. He has no reason to stay in San Jose. It also seems like a cop-out to say you doubt it but at the same time wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
