HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Any interest in Thomas Vanek? Value?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-08-2012, 02:04 AM
  #1
boots electric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,239
vCash: 500
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?

boots electric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:07 AM
  #2
Victorious Secret
Dr. Chuck Evil
 
Victorious Secret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 11,285
vCash: 16145
Quote:
Originally Posted by boots electric View Post
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.

Victorious Secret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:19 AM
  #3
Outlandish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mankato MN
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
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.

Outlandish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:22 AM
  #4
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 500
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.

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:59 AM
  #5
Billy Mays Here
Optimistic Pessimist
 
Billy Mays Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 50
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.

Billy Mays Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 04:54 AM
  #6
Pajicz
Registered User
 
Pajicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country:
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Pajicz
Wouldn't really want Vanek either; good player, but would cost simply too much, especially for a team in some sort of rebuilding phase.

Pajicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 09:55 AM
  #7
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,539
vCash: 50
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.

BigT2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 10:07 AM
  #8
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 50
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.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 10:21 AM
  #9
Northland Wild Man
Finnesotans?
 
Northland Wild Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 7,494
vCash: 500
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.

Northland Wild Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 10:26 AM
  #10
FUBAR McDangles
Registered User
 
FUBAR McDangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 6,868
vCash: 710
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

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.

FUBAR McDangles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:06 AM
  #11
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 10,021
vCash: 500
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.

Dr Jan Itor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:15 AM
  #12
Minnesota
Global Moderator
L'Étoile du Nord
 
Minnesota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 15,643
vCash: 404
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.

Minnesota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:24 AM
  #13
Avder
Global Moderator
Is it October yet?
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The ANGRY DOME
Country: United States
Posts: 31,684
vCash: 50
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.

Avder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:30 AM
  #14
Minnesota
Global Moderator
L'Étoile du Nord
 
Minnesota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 15,643
vCash: 404
Imagine how awesome our shooutout lineup would be with Vanek...




Minnesota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:37 AM
  #15
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyratoku View Post
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

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.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:39 AM
  #16
sioux210
Registered User
 
sioux210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Country: United States
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
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

sioux210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 12:27 PM
  #17
ShutDownDefense
Wild Time!
 
ShutDownDefense's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
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.

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.

ShutDownDefense is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 12:28 PM
  #18
barnabyrules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
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.

barnabyrules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 01:47 PM
  #19
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 50
exactly...huge larfs for the people calling Lats a huge part of our offense and necessary difference maker who label Vanek "good". jesus****ingchrist.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:08 PM
  #20
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
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".

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 02:30 PM
  #21
SauceHockey
Retired
 
SauceHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: p
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 500
If we were at a different place at a different time then it would be worth a look. Now never.

SauceHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 03:13 PM
  #22
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,027
vCash: 500
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.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 05:24 PM
  #23
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
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.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 05:31 PM
  #24
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
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.

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 05:53 PM
  #25
BLBarmada
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,385
vCash: 500
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.

BLBarmada is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.