HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Summer Roster Moves VI: Return of the Peg-i

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2012, 06:35 PM
  #101
ohheyimmark
Registered User
 
ohheyimmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 3,079
vCash: 500
So funny that after a day spent talking Stastny for Vanek, you know who decides to talk about it.

ohheyimmark is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 06:36 PM
  #102
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i dont think any 2 players get you stamkos... stop trying to rationalize your terrible comparison.

if dubi is a 15 goal scorer, then vanek is a 25 goal scorer

maybe you should recognize that these turd bag 1 dimensional players need to go (roy, vanek)

maybe you should recognize NHL trade value (see derek roy)
The comparison isn't terrible because you're rationalizing trade value based on adding multiple players' points together and comparing to a single player. If that has absolutely any validity then it should be a considerable factor in any trade package, when it obviously isn't as illustrated by the hypotheticals that have been brought up myself and others.

Dubinsky's averaged 16.2 goals a season (not counting his 6 game first season) and Vanek's averaged 32.8, so it's fair to say Dubinsky is more of a 15 goal scorer than Vanek is a 25 goal scorer. Interesting to note that the 2 times Dubinsky cracked 20 goals he got considerably more ice time than Vanek has ever had. Thomas Vanek is a massively superior goal scorer and playmaker.

Derek Roy's trade value has nothing in particular to do with Vanek's so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 06:39 PM
  #103
Rhett4
KALETA REBORN
 
Rhett4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Home of the 'Merks
Country: United States
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohheyimmark View Post
So funny that after a day spent talking Stastny for Vanek, you know who decides to talk about it.
And every other idiot with a Twitter handle and blog is now preaching it as gospel.

"My sources say..."

Your sources are a guy on Twitter who made it up.

Even good old Garth put a blog up "proposing" the same thing literally 10 minutes later.

I find this all so very entertaining.

Rhett4 is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 06:42 PM
  #104
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i'll get back to you when vanek is traded for dubinsky + (ny wont trade boyle)...call the + jt miller

vanek is paid substantially more because he got a retarded offersheet.

vanek is a nice piece to add to a contender (if they can afford it)... in buffalo his best value is in trade supporting the rebuilding of quality talent around the new core
You won't get back to me on that because it's not going to happen whereas Nash is going to get traded and he is going to fetch more than friggin' Dubinsky.

I don't know why you mention Vanek being paid more because of his offer sheet when I explicitly said players like Vanek get paid more but in Vanek's case it's inflated because of the offer sheet.

And if you're talking about trading Vanek to rebuild then getting a 25/26 year old player middle 6 player and a 27/28 year old bottom 6 center isn't the way to do it.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 06:46 PM
  #105
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
The comparison isn't terrible because you're rationalizing trade value based on adding multiple players' points together and comparing to a single player. If that has absolutely any validity then it should be a considerable factor in any trade package, when it obviously isn't as illustrated by the hypotheticals that have been brought up myself and others.
sorry for the confusion... i was only poking fun at your opinion that Vanek has more objective value then Dubinsky+Boyle... because to make that statement means that the only thing that has objective value to you is points

Quote:
Dubinsky's averaged 16.2 goals a season (not counting his 6 game first season) and Vanek's averaged 32.8, so it's fair to say Dubinsky is more of a 15 goal scorer than Vanek is a 25 goal scorer. Interesting to note that the 2 times Dubinsky cracked 20 goals he got considerably more ice time than Vanek has ever had. Thomas Vanek is a massively superior goal scorer and playmaker.
Dubinsky has two 20 goal seasons in the last 3 years
Vanek has...

wait a minute... i was 100% right about Derek Roy's trade value. In fact even proposing Roy for Ott...

I'll rest my analysis of players and their trade value on that.

well, just for fun... vanek had 86 goals over the last 3 years...Dubi has 54... that's 32 more for vanek... or a 10.666 more per season... i;ll trade 10 goals for all the other qualities Dubinsky brings (center ability, shutdown ability, PK, 2 way, well rounded/complete game)

just so everyone remembers... vanek is barely a 30 goal scorer in a "top line" role... he doesn't even average 30 goals a year over the last 3 seasons

Quote:
Derek Roy's trade value has nothing in particular to do with Vanek's so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
what trade would you use as a comparable?


Last edited by Jame: 07-06-2012 at 07:01 PM.
Jame is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:03 PM
  #106
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
sorry for the confusion... i was only poking fun at your opinion that Vanek has more objective value then Dubinsky+Boyle... because to make that statement means that the only thing that has objective value to you is points
I certainly did not mean that. I was referring to what I believe the 'objective' market value is, player value as related to an aggregate of transactions abstracted from the context of organizational desires, needs, and biases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
wait a minute... i was 100% right about Derek Roy's trade value. In fact even proposing Roy for Ott...

I'll rest my analysis of players and their trade value on that.
I also agreed that Roy vs Ott was a good trade before it was made, even though we actually take a bit of a hit on value to do what must be done. Just because that is true doesn't make anything else true when there is no direct logical link between A and B, and further just because you were right about that doesn't mean you're right about other valuations else as I'm sure you've been off on many estimations of player market values before (as any of us would be).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
what trade would you use as a comparable?
Like I said, get back to me when Nash is traded as that will be the most obvious player comparison to start from. Then I suppose we'll have to consider other, lesser comparisons to remove the bias of that particular trade's context. But consider the leaked offer Ottawa made and was turned down as a starting point if you don't want to wait until he's actually traded. Such a package -- something removed to avoid the argument of whether or not Vanek should be valued the same as Nash -- could be a starting point. Bear in mind that Columbus didn't deem it enough; while it remains to be seen if Columbus will actually get more, Ottawa deemed it worth giving and thus it is a minimum of what Nash is currently valued at.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:03 PM
  #107
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Would you guys do Stafford for Clutterbuck?

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:05 PM
  #108
Rhett4
KALETA REBORN
 
Rhett4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Home of the 'Merks
Country: United States
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Would you guys do Stafford for Clutterbuck?
No. Clutterbuck's cheaper, younger, and way more physical, but I don't think the Sabres can afford to give up Stafford's streaky goal-scoring prowess and better playmaking abilities. I'd rather package Stafford for a center.

Rhett4 is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:07 PM
  #109
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett4 View Post
No. He's cheaper, younger, and way more physical, but I don't think the Sabres can afford to give up Stafford's streaky goal-scoring prowess. I'd rather package Stafford for a center.
Stafford and Adam For Clutterbuck and Brodziak

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:10 PM
  #110
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Would you guys do Stafford for Clutterbuck?
That's a tough one. I love the idea of Clutterbuck but admittedly don't seem much of the Wild, and plenty of their fans seem to think he's not as good as outward perception seems to be. Obviously he hits a lot (though I believe the Wild scorers are one of the more inflated in the hits category, but I'll have to check on that), and has demonstrated pretty good production.

I think we'd have to look into whether or not he's any good defensively. In theory it makes sense to give up an inconsistent scoring winger for a more two-way winger with a physical game, but I'm not sure if that's what we'd really be getting.

Not sure if that's worth more than rolling the dice on Stafford+Ennis continuing to play well together as they almost always have relative to playing apart. Stafford is perhaps a bit more physical than we tend to give him credit for, though he's nowhere near the frequent big hitter Clutterbuck is.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:11 PM
  #111
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Stafford averages 20 goals since becoming a full timer in 2007, Clutterbuck 15.

Not that big of a difference IMO. I would do this trade straight up if the Wild would.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:12 PM
  #112
Rhett4
KALETA REBORN
 
Rhett4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Home of the 'Merks
Country: United States
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Stafford and Adam For Clutterbuck and Brodziak
That intrigues me. You'd have a killer third line with Ott-Brodziak-Clutterbuck (with Ott taking the faceoffs), but there'd be serious holes in the top six. Leino would have to convert to RW to fill that gap, which is scary. But man oh man, that third line would be annoying and productive.

Rhett4 is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:14 PM
  #113
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
That's a tough one. I love the idea of Clutterbuck but admittedly don't seem much of the Wild, and plenty of their fans seem to think he's not as good as outward perception seems to be. Obviously he hits a lot (though I believe the Wild scorers are one of the more inflated in the hits category, but I'll have to check on that), and has demonstrated pretty good production.

I think we'd have to look into whether or not he's any good defensively. In theory it makes sense to give up an inconsistent scoring winger for a more two-way winger with a physical game, but I'm not sure if that's what we'd really be getting.

Not sure if that's worth more than rolling the dice on Stafford+Ennis continuing to play well together as they almost always have relative to playing apart. Stafford is perhaps a bit more physical than we tend to give him credit for, though he's nowhere near the frequent big hitter Clutterbuck is.
Stafford is inconsistent everything. Physically, scoring, playmaking, leadership, Defense......

He is the ultimate enigma IMO. I think he has a lot more game inside, but for some reason it doesnt want to come out.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:16 PM
  #114
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
I certainly did not mean that. I was referring to what I believe the 'objective' market value is, player value as related to an aggregate of transactions abstracted from the context of organizational desires, needs, and biases.



I also agreed that Roy vs Ott was a good trade before it was made, even though we actually take a bit of a hit on value to do what must be done. Just because that is true doesn't make anything else true when there is no direct logical link between A and B, and further just because you were right about that doesn't mean you're right about other valuations else as I'm sure you've been off on many estimations of player market values before (as any of us would be).



Like I said, get back to me when Nash is traded as that will be the most obvious player comparison to start from. Then I suppose we'll have to consider other, lesser comparisons to remove the bias of that particular trade's context. But consider the leaked offer Ottawa made and was turned down as a starting point if you don't want to wait until he's actually traded. Such a package -- something removed to avoid the argument of whether or not Vanek should be valued the same as Nash -- could be a starting point. Bear in mind that Columbus didn't deem it enough; while it remains to be seen if Columbus will actually get more, Ottawa deemed it worth giving and thus it is a minimum of what Nash is currently valued at.
i dont think nash will be traded... and darcy should get in there and offer the secondary market version (vanek)

no one is going to pay the asking price for nash... ny is not going to put elite players into the offer... if nash gets traded it will be a deal around dubinsky, with youth splashed into the deal (anisimov, jt miller).

the rumors deal NY was offering at the draft Dubinsky, Erixon, JT Miller, and a 1st.

considering that Nash is signed for like 7 more years, and Vanek is only signed for 2... I think Dubinsky and JT Miller is good value.

howson turned it down... he's a numskull....using scott howson as a barometer for trade value is idiotic

Jame is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:20 PM
  #115
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett4 View Post
That intrigues me. You'd have a killer third line with Ott-Brodziak-Clutterbuck (with Ott taking the faceoffs), but there'd be serious holes in the top six. Leino would have to convert to RW to fill that gap, which is scary. But man oh man, that third line would be annoying and productive.
Leino - Hodgson - Pominville
Foligno - Ennis - Vanek
Ott - Brodziak - Clutterbuck
Gerbe - McCormick - Kaleta

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:25 PM
  #116
Luceni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Stafford is inconsistent everything. Physically, scoring, playmaking, leadership, Defense......

He is the ultimate enigma IMO. I think he has a lot more game inside, but for some reason it doesnt want to come out.
I know the reason why stafford struggled last year:

Last season was no contract year for him

Luceni is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:27 PM
  #117
Rhett4
KALETA REBORN
 
Rhett4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Home of the 'Merks
Country: United States
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Leino - Hodgson - Pominville
Foligno - Ennis - Vanek
Ott - Brodziak - Clutterbuck
Gerbe - McCormick - Kaleta
That bottom six is fantastic. The top six could work but leaves me feeling a little flat. Still, they could make another move to improve it, and I wouldn't let that hold me back from the deal.

Ott-Brodziak-Clutterbuck is worth salivating over as a third line...

Rhett4 is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:30 PM
  #118
SabresAreScaryGood
McDavid 2015!!!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett4 View Post
That bottom six is fantastic. The top six could work but leaves me feeling a little flat. Still, they could make another move to improve it, and I wouldn't let that hold me back from the deal.

Ott-Brodziak-Clutterbuck is worth salivating over as a third line...
You would still have defense to deal. If we dont feel good about Hodgson, a Sekera/Leopold + Hodgson package would bring you a pretty nice return.

I think Hodgson is weird, we dont want to trade him but we dont want him to be a top 6 center. I say give the guy a chance. Same with Ennis really. Lets see what they have.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:38 PM
  #119
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
stamkos / vanek is a terrible comparison in any context



yea... i know...
Dubi and Boyle is a lot higher trade value then Ott and salary dump
I didn't compare Vanek to Stamkos. I compared two players point totals to one, which is, yup, exactly what you did. Pominville's 73 + Leino's 25 gets you to Stamkos' 97. Just like Dubinsky + Boyle = Vanek.

Your logic is flawed; that is not how trades happen. 1st liners who can generate 40 goals hold substantially more value than 3rd line players, even good ones, because they're much much harder to find. You can't offset the loss of a quarter with a nickle and a dime.

tsujimoto74 is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:43 PM
  #120
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i dont think nash will be traded... and darcy should get in there and offer the secondary market version (vanek)

no one is going to pay the asking price for nash... ny is not going to put elite players into the offer... if nash gets traded it will be a deal around dubinsky, with youth splashed into the deal (anisimov, jt miller).

the rumors deal NY was offering at the draft Dubinsky, Erixon, JT Miller, and a 1st.

considering that Nash is signed for like 7 more years, and Vanek is only signed for 2... I think Dubinsky and JT Miller is good value.

howson turned it down... he's a numskull....using scott howson as a barometer for trade value is idiotic
#1 Nash being signed "7 more years" is a negative for his value compared to Vanek's 2 years.

#2 The Ottawa offer was probably better than the NY one you're mentioning though I'd have to look it up

#3 I agree no one is likely to pay the asking price, but the reported offers other teams have made are substantial in of themselves and for the most part better than Dubinsky+Boyle

#4 Nash is absolutely going to be traded. There's no way it doesn't happen at this point, the question is how long does Howson try and play the market. If I were him I'd certainly give it a bit longer as the Parise-losers feel the pinch. Bringing Nash back next season is asking for a truly miserable season for that franchise rather than a crappy season standings-wise but one that represents a new beginning.

As our back and forth has really twisted and turned away from what I feel are the really central aspects I'd like to reiterate a few things:

#1 I really like Dubinsky and Boyle. I would gladly add either to this team but considering the context on NY's end, it would be hard for them to give up both and thus it is unlikely to be able to attain both at an acceptable cost. I would personally perfer to go after Boyle as he would be a short-medium term guy who would solidify our center position and help with our general team make-up weaknesses.

#2 I do not trade Vanek unless it is something that makes us considerably much better in the future. While the team needs size and defense in the forwards, it is in no position to give away dynamic scoring of the sort that draws focus away from other players.

We are doing something of an on-the-fly rebuild centered around, well, centers, and one thing young centers really need are good wingers. We are organizationally weak at winger at the AHL and prospect level with only Armia representing anyone projecting in the same world as Vanek, and with only Ennis at the NHL level should he move back to wing.

I understand we can lose Vanek for nothing in 2 seasons but the solution is to reconsider this next offseason or at the following deadline, accounting for the likelihood of being able to resign him, whether or not we brought another high-end winger or winger prospect into the organization, etc.

#3 I understand you have a burning desire to completely overturn the old core but that is frankly something more of an obsession than a legitimate necessity. In time it will be overturned, of course, but there's no point in doing it for the sake of doing it.

Do it to increase longterm value for a true rebuild, but the proposal wouldn't do that and we aren't doing a true longterm rebuild.

Do it if Vanek is part of the problem, but I don't see how he is. You mention that he's one-dimensional but the fact is every team has at least one one-dimensional offensive players, or at least one that is as one-dimensional as Vanek. When Vanek's on his game (read: not a skating cripple), he's not atrocious in other areas. Vanek's abilities contribute beyond the scoresheet just as those with two-way or physical games do, by drawing and absorbing the mental and physical attention of players away from his linemates and to his line from other lines.

#4 You said that the Rangers wouldn't do this deal and that could well be true, but I don't believe that's an issue of value so much as the context of the New York Rangers. However, considering what you pasted their offer was for Nash, then I would say they probably do it, depending on their confidence to fill Boyle's role, which is probably high. As I said, those roles are easier to replace than a guy like Vanek's role. You may or may not replace Boyle with a player equal to Boyle in every area, but that downgrade is easier to absorb through team defense, team physicality, etc. It's much harder to replace a single high-end goal scorer with team scoring, as evidenced by the recent history of the New York Rangers.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:48 PM
  #121
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
I didn't compare Vanek to Stamkos. I compared two players point totals to one, which is, yup, exactly what you did. Pominville's 73 + Leino's 25 gets you to Stamkos' 97. Just like Dubinsky + Boyle = Vanek.

Your logic is flawed; that is not how trades happen. 1st liners who can generate 40 goals hold substantially more value than 3rd line players, even good ones, because they're much much harder to find. You can't offset the loss of a quarter with a nickle and a dime.
vanek averages less then 30 goals per year over the last 3 years.

my "point addition" was a joke to the OP who made a comment about "objective value"


Jame is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:50 PM
  #122
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
#2 The Ottawa offer was probably better than the NY one you're mentioning though I'd have to look it up
The rejected offer was supposedly Mika Zibanejad, Robin Lehner, and a first.

There have also been other variants reported that included Bishop instead of Lehner and Foligno in there, along with Mika Zibanejad.

jfb392 is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:51 PM
  #123
dkollidas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,052
vCash: 500
How about Adam and Leopold for Cullen +?
Idk what the + would be, nothing very significant, a mid-round pick/prospect maybe. Minnesota gets another veteran defenseman who can play top-4 minutes and a young, big bodied guy who can get in front of the net and hopefully develop into a solid top-9 contributor. Buffalo gets a perfect #3 center to pave the way for Grigorenko and/or Girgensons.

dkollidas is offline  
Old
07-06-2012, 07:53 PM
  #124
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 17,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
You would still have defense to deal. If we dont feel good about Hodgson, a Sekera/Leopold + Hodgson package would bring you a pretty nice return.

I think Hodgson is weird, we dont want to trade him but we dont want him to be a top 6 center. I say give the guy a chance. Same with Ennis really. Lets see what they have.
I certainly want him to be a top 6 center as he reads to me like a classic, two-way #2 center. As far as line combinations go, with most set-ups the top 3 lines are more or less the same in ice time and role. It is of benefit to both Hodgson and Ennis to divest from a "top 6" to a "top 9" of equals unless the components and desire for creating a prototypical checking 3rd line are there. This is precisely what was done when Foligno-Ennis-Stafford were rolling and is what the Sabres have typically done post-lockout.

Roy as a center in the Drury-Briere era, for example, was clearly a "#2 center" player but at one point played on a "3rd line" with the likes of offensive players such as Thomas Vanek and Maxim Afinogenov.

Personally I want Hodgson paired with Vanek which would be our de facto first line or "1A" line. I don't think there are many scenarios that would sway me from this thinking as I believe both players were of great benefit to each other once they gained familiarity. If Pommers is on that line then you not only have the capacity for fantastic line chemistry but also very clearly your top line, but I also like pairing Pommers with Leino as they showed good chemistry and would form a good two-way line with the theoretical "big center" we may bring in.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-06-2012, 08:02 PM
  #125
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
#1 Nash being signed "7 more years" is a negative for his value compared to Vanek's 2 years.
you think its a negative to the rangers? then why are they trying to trade for him.

that "negative" value stuff is just nonsense... the rangers got Ryan McDonagh for Scott Gomez. if a player is traded, he's going to get value...

Quote:
#2 The Ottawa offer was probably better than the NY one you're mentioning though I'd have to look it up
the ottawa one was Zibinajed and Foligno... the NY one was way better, and only an idiot like howson would turn it down

Quote:
#3 I agree no one is likely to pay the asking price, but the reported offers other teams have made are substantial in of themselves and for the most part better than Dubinsky+Boyle
my objective value is different then yours. you seem to only notice offensive production (which is all vanek is).. and vanek is even limited offensively, he's not even that good at even strength... (avg 38 ES pts per year over the last 3 years)

Quote:
#4 Nash is absolutely going to be traded. There's no way it doesn't happen at this point, the question is how long does Howson try and play the market. If I were him I'd certainly give it a bit longer as the Parise-losers feel the pinch. Bringing Nash back next season is asking for a truly miserable season for that franchise rather than a crappy season standings-wise but one that represents a new beginning.
true. he will probably be traded. and vanek isn't worth as much (even though they are relatively equal production wise over the last 3 years)

Quote:
As our back and forth has really twisted and turned away from what I feel are the really central aspects I'd like to reiterate a few things:

#1 I really like Dubinsky and Boyle. I would gladly add either to this team but considering the context on NY's end, it would be hard for them to give up both and thus it is unlikely to be able to attain both at an acceptable cost. I would personally perfer to go after Boyle as he would be a short-medium term guy who would solidify our center position and help with our general team make-up weaknesses.
NY would loathe to give up a very valuable, unheralded, and important piece of their team in Boyle.

Quote:
#2 I do not trade Vanek unless it is something that makes us considerably much better in the future. While the team needs size and defense in the forwards, it is in no position to give away dynamic scoring of the sort that draws focus away from other players.
dynamic scorer? who are you talking about?

Quote:
We are doing something of an on-the-fly rebuild centered around, well, centers, and one thing young centers really need are good wingers. We are organizationally weak at winger at the AHL and prospect level with only Armia representing anyone projecting in the same world as Vanek, and with only Ennis at the NHL level should he move back to wing.
i think it's important that our on the fly rebound is accompanied by quality leadership and effort on/off the ice. removing Roy is a big start. Vanek and his lazy shifts need to go too. Getting guys like dubi and boyle has a long term affect on this new core being developed.

my plan sees past points and "dynamic" players... its about sowing the seeds of the future.

Quote:
I understand we can lose Vanek for nothing in 2 seasons but the solution is to reconsider this next offseason or at the following deadline, accounting for the likelihood of being able to resign him, whether or not we brought another high-end winger or winger prospect into the organization, etc.
just so we can win a few more games... be more dynamic

get the failures of the last 5 years... and wash as much away as possible

Quote:
#3 I understand you have a burning desire to completely overturn the old core but that is frankly something more of an obsession than a legitimate necessity. In time it will be overturned, of course, but there's no point in doing it for the sake of doing it.
its a necessity
Quote:
Do it to increase longterm value for a true rebuild, but the proposal wouldn't do that and we aren't doing a true longterm rebuild.
that;s why im doing it.

Quote:
Do it if Vanek is part of the problem, but I don't see how he is. You mention that he's one-dimensional but the fact is every team has at least one one-dimensional offensive players, or at least one that is as one-dimensional as Vanek.
which 1 dimensional forward was part of LAs core? Boston's core?
Quote:
When Vanek's on his game (read: not a skating cripple), he's not atrocious in other areas. Vanek's abilities contribute beyond the scoresheet just as those with two-way or physical games do, by drawing and absorbing the mental and physical attention of players away from his linemates and to his line from other lines.
vanek has been a skating cripple his entire career.

vanek's game outside the offensive zone is as useless as john scott with his gloves on.

Quote:
#4 You said that the Rangers wouldn't do this deal and that could well be true, but I don't believe that's an issue of value so much as the context of the New York Rangers. However, considering what you pasted their offer was for Nash, then I would say they probably do it, depending on their confidence to fill Boyle's role, which is probably high. As I said, those roles are easier to replace than a guy like Vanek's role. You may or may not replace Boyle with a player equal to Boyle in every area, but that downgrade is easier to absorb through team defense, team physicality, etc. It's much harder to replace a single high-end goal scorer with team scoring, as evidenced by the recent history of the New York Rangers.
I think Vanek for Dubi and JT Miller is realistic

Jame is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:36 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.