I mean, this is what I don't get. Vanek and Pommer don't carry teams on their backs through the playoffs.
yup...
Quote:
But they're high talent players who, on a contender, wouldn't have to.
they aren't on a contender... and what you implied is that they aren't capable of being the backbone of a contender... so why are we re-signing them to contracts that would have to pay close to market value for their point production?
Quote:
You surround them with more talent.
so you are a fan of repeating the last few years... cool.... im not in favor of that approach
Quote:
If the prospects have it in them, they can make a nice supporting cast that spreads the scoring out. But it's wildly, blindly optimistic to assume that the prospects are going to - in two years time! - be so much better than our current best forwards that the best thing they can do is get out of the way and let the opposition train their top pairing against the kids.
Only the Gs will be 2 years remove from being drafted
Armia and Catenacci will be 3 years
Pysyk, JGL, and Sundher will be 4 years
McNabb and Foligno will be 5 years
Myers, Hodgson, Ennis and Adam will be 6 years removed from their draft year
it's not like the entire roster wont have experience in 2 years... and projecting even 2 years further then that for being a dangerous roster
Quote:
I mean, I don't even know how to argue with that. It's nonsense. Why don't we let everybody walk and just assume the whole group down in Rochester, plus Shane Doan, would turn into cup winners. It makes as much sense.
you seem to be confusing the present with the future... i know thinking bigger picture is difficult
Quote:
I definitely grasp your opinion.
you clearly dont
Quote:
I think the easiest thing to do is to bank on promising kids that haven't let you down yet. But your argument is just to jettison talent for the sake of jettisoning talent. Then plug a few scrappy veterans around whatever's left. If I was so confident that our fresh draft picks would be cup contenders within two years, ****, I'd never worry about anything with this team.
see... you dont grasp my opinion at all.
im building a contender for 2016... that's FOUR years.
I think the easiest thing to do is to keep believing in players who put up nice stats and win nothing
Well, half of them haven't made the NHL, so I think they're the beginning of nothing right now.
If Darcy Regier is making his team plan, handing out contracts and such, on the assumption that a group of prospects, half of whom haven't played in the NHL and the other half of whom haven't proven much of anything yet, are going to turn into such gamechangers that he can plan his budget around letting go of his most established stars within two years, he's an idiot.
Ask yourself this: for 7.5 million dollars in two years, who do you think you'd be better off with, a 38 year old Shane Doan, or a 30 year old Thomas Vanek? Hell, you can have Vanek for less if you're proactive with him. How people are justifying signing Doan because we'll just go all Briere-Drury with our best players ina couple years is stupefying. You never let your best players walk for nothing, unless you're trying to tank. At least sign them and then trade them if they're replaceable for cheaper. That way at least you don't get nothing for assets that you spent a decade trying to build. And my bet is, no, Armia is not going to be better than Thomas Vanek in two years. Vanek will still be the #1 LW on this team, Pommers will still be our best RW. If you keep them and let kids develop around them and fill out 4 scoring lines, then maybe you're a contender (or at least close, close enough that you could spend that Doan money on somebody to push you over the top). If you let him walk and throw a bunch of 20 year olds into our top 6, with Shane ****ing Doan riding the third line, you're rebuilding.
How is it you manage to pull every conversation into a debate about keeping Vanek? Who cares about Vanek? He has nothing to do with what Regier is putting together for the future, which is what I was commenting on in the first place. You think they'll need to rebuild in 4 years after Doan would be gone, but the rebuild has already started. Doan would be nothing but a stop-gap.
How is it you manage to pull every conversation into a debate about keeping Vanek? Who cares about Vanek? He has nothing to do with what Regier is putting together for the future, which is what I was commenting on in the first place. You think they'll need to rebuild in 4 years after Doan would be gone, but the rebuild has already started. Doan would be nothing but a stop-gap.
Jame posted about jettisoning 2 out of Vanek, Pommers and Miller. That's how I turned it into being about keeping Vanek. Trace the quotes back, it's on the last page.
they aren't on a contender... and what you implied is that they aren't capable of being the backbone of a contender... so why are we re-signing them to contracts that would have to pay close to market value for their point production?
A contender doesn't need a backbone in the sense that there's one top line that delivers all the offense every game. A contender can be a team with 4 scoring lines, in which no two players are the fulcrum. Last year we had one scoring line for most of the year, and then two down the stretch, but who knows how long the "Ennis magically tries center and everything turns to gold" run will last.
You're basically saying that if these guys can't carry the team by themselves, then they have no place on a cup winner. I'm saying they surely do, but you surround them with better players. Maybe even players that outflank them. I'm not advocating "repeating the last few years" because in the last few years we never actually did surround them with better players. So I see the kids not growing up into juggernauts by themselves, but perhaps good enough to balance an offense that retains what we already have.
A contender doesn't need a backbone in the sense that there's one top line that delivers all the offense every game. A contender can be a team with 4 scoring lines, in which no two players are the fulcrum. Last year we had one scoring line for most of the year, and then two down the stretch, but who knows how long the "Ennis magically tries center and everything turns to gold" run will last.
You're basically saying that if these guys can't carry the team by themselves, then they have no place on a cup winner. I'm saying they surely do, but you surround them with better players. Maybe even players that outflank them. I'm not advocating "repeating the last few years" because in the last few years we never actually did surround them with better players. So I see the kids not growing up into juggernauts by themselves, but perhaps good enough to balance an offense that retains what we already have.
anymore time spent trying to build around the left over rochester core, is time wasted.
you can keep carrying their torch... most of us, including the franchise itself, has begun to move on... get on board
not all of that talent will work out...
do you believe that they wont balance the core out with veteran talent?
Seeing this completely alike.
The problem with not having good role models is the risk of talent failing to develop properly. Some will not develop, those are just the odds. But I'd rather hedge bets with a guy like Doan as a mentor / role model.
Any wonder that guys like Roy, Vanek, Pominville, etc. developed with Drury, Briere, Grier, etc around? Sure, guys like Novotny didn't develop, but a lot of players did develop into solid contributors for the franchise, if not more.
Worst case scenario: Grigorenko gets to Buffalo and floats, never coming close to his ceiling. Ennis starts down the Roy path, still producing but maybe not being good for the team. Foligno and McNabb get tired of carrying the physical load, and stop. Stafford stops getting the puck because Ennis isn't passing as much, and stops caring. Myers isn't being pushed, and never reaches dominant levels.
Talent on the top three lines but many players floating, not playing hard or with character.... no clear-cut #1 defenseman... lack of grit... mental issues that lead to playoff breakdowns. Which is exactly where this team has been since 2008.
If I were Pegula, I'd pay $7.5M to hedge my bets with Doan. It's not a guarantee. But I like Buffalo's chances of developing a lot more with him than without him.
I think you are underestimating the effect that Doan moving to a new team, city, and conference would have on his production.
There would be a ton of acclimation that Doan would have to do that would likely have a negative effect on his production.
That's one reason why so many guys who change teams have down years in the first season with their new club.
It's overly optimistic to believe that Doan at 36yo coming to Buffalo would be immune from all of that. Especially when you add in the drop in ice time.
It's seems clear that hockey and money aren't the most important things in this guy's life. Otherwise he would have jumped at the Sabres offer, or signed with a contender. After a season he could simply decide he wants to be back in Phoenix or do something with his ministry and walk away from the game. He's over 35, so retirement doesn't take him off the cap.
Doan would be a great addition for this team. But not at that price, thats too big a cap hit and as an over 35 it would be a guaranteed cap hit. If we go down with injuries we can't do anything because of cap space. It would also make re-signing Ennis more difficult, and since he still hasn't been re-signed that should be the priority.
It'll be sad to miss out on Doan, but that contact is ludicrous. Hopefully he steers clear and signs back with Phoenix in the end, it's what he wants anyway.
Doan, or any other player, shouldn't have very much to do with a young player's development. That's for the coach and staff. Doan shouldn't have very much to do with a long-term attitude replacement for this team either. Grigs, Girgs, Armia, etc. will either have what it takes or not. A crusty vet is there to yell at them on the bench or in the locker room. That's good, but not worth an extra 2-3 mil spent on Doan.
Vanek, Pominville, and Miller are not and never were the problems with this team. All of them have played well in the playoffs but never had enough talent at C and D. This team will get better by drafting well with talent that has size that can also play a physical game. An extra 2-3 mil spent on Doan takes away from having another player like that in the line-up. And if the idea is to build a Cup winner in four years, why pay someone 7.5 mil for three seasons, then pay for a fourth when he's about shot as a productive forward and possibly getting in the way of a young gun? To say the cap hit doesn't matter prior to a new CBA is just putting blinders on. The intended rise in team success goes in the opposite direction of Doan's probable value, so really this massive contract only makes sense if Doan's wildly exagerrated leadership and mentoring skills somehow turns a group of rookies into SC winners. Talk about a pipe dream. These rookie will become winners if THEY have what it takes, not Doan. If Buffalo can develop the young talent they have they won't need Doan. There's already a "culture change" going on with Ott, Foligno, Regehr, and players like McNabb and Girgs coming along. If this team is still soft it's because of who's behind the bench, not on the ice.
Doan, or any other player, shouldn't have very much to do with a young player's development. That's for the coach and staff. Doan shouldn't have very much to do with a long-term attitude replacement for this team either. Grigs, Girgs, Armia, etc. will either have what it takes or not. A crusty vet is there to yell at them on the bench or in the locker room. That's good, but not worth an extra 2-3 mil spent on Doan.
Vanek, Pominville, and Miller are not and never were the problems with this team. All of them have played well in the playoffs but never had enough talent at C and D. This team will get better by drafting well with talent that has size that can also play a physical game. An extra 2-3 mil spent on Doan takes away from having another player like that in the line-up. And if the idea is to build a Cup winner in four years, why pay someone 7.5 mil for three seasons, then pay for a fourth when he's about shot as a productive forward and possibly getting in the way of a young gun? To say the cap hit doesn't matter prior to a new CBA is just putting blinders on. The intended rise in team success goes in the opposite direction of Doan's probable value, so really this massive contract only makes sense if Doan's wildly exagerrated leadership and mentoring skills somehow turns a group of rookies into SC winners. Talk about a pipe dream. These rookie will become winners if THEY have what it takes, not Doan. If Buffalo can develop the young talent they have they won't need Doan. There's already a "culture change" going on with Ott, Foligno, Regehr, and players like McNabb and Girgs coming along. If this team is still soft it's because of who's behind the bench, not on the ice.
So, you don't believe in mentorship? Leadership by example? Inspiration by example?
Nobody's saying that adding Doan is the key to turning a young team into a Cup team. It helps though.
A contender doesn't need a backbone in the sense that there's one top line that delivers all the offense every game. A contender can be a team with 4 scoring lines, in which no two players are the fulcrum. Last year we had one scoring line for most of the year, and then two down the stretch, but who knows how long the "Ennis magically tries center and everything turns to gold" run will last.
You're basically saying that if these guys can't carry the team by themselves, then they have no place on a cup winner. I'm saying they surely do, but you surround them with better players. Maybe even players that outflank them. I'm not advocating "repeating the last few years" because in the last few years we never actually did surround them with better players. So I see the kids not growing up into juggernauts by themselves, but perhaps good enough to balance an offense that retains what we already have.
Well said.
I'm confident Regier isn't dumb enough to hand this team to a bunch of unproven kids in 2-3 years.
I'm also amazed posters think it makes sense to just throw away players like Vanek/Pommer based on the ridiculous premise that they didn't "carry" the team anywhere. Or the insanity of expecting all of these unproven youngsters and prospects to carry the team in a few years.
Well built and deep teams win Cups. It would make far more sense to re-sign them and if these kids start hitting their potential. We could have a very deep and well built team. You know, the kind that wins Cups.
I've seen a few times Drury/Briere brought up and the success of their postlockout teams used to beat up on the "Rochester core".
Some seem to forget the enormous chasm in talent/depth between those teams in the first two post lockout seasons (particularly 05-06) and the teams after the co-caps left.
Drury/Briere were very good players and leaders. But they also had a very deep and talented team to lead. They also had help from a deep leadership core of experienced vets.
To compare Drury/Briere did as leaders to guys like Vanek/Pommer is incredibly unfair.
One of the greatest myths being perpetuated without justification on this board.....
Don't use logic now, just wait til how fanatical he will get if his least favorite players don't get traded, I'm sure every false statement and hyperbole will be spewed for the next couple years, even longer when Vanek is re-signed
How about this Jame, since you say Vanek and Pommers Need to go because they haven't led us anywhere, I feel the same about Sekera. Let all 3 go. Sekera is a big loser anyway
Sekera has won only one playoff series his whole life in 05-06 juniors, so obviously he is a loser who has led our team nowhere, according to James sound logic which never has personal bias' get in the way of his opinion ( ) he needs to be let go in order for our team to get better.
Or does it only apply to guys like Ennis Vanek and Pominville that they are losers? Cannot wait for the spin on this one.
So, you don't believe in mentorship? Leadership by example? Inspiration by example?
Nobody's saying that adding Doan is the key to turning a young team into a Cup team. It helps though.
I believe in all that stuff. I don't believe ONE vet can bestow all those benefits to a GROUP of young players, over and above what the coaching staff will provide, to the point of turning them into Cup winners if they don't already have the right attitudes. Therefore Doan isn't worth an extra 2-3 mil of GUARANTEED cap hit during the time frame that most people don't expect the rookies to actually win anything. Doan hasn't done anything like that his entire career so I don't know why anyone would expect that to happen in Buffalo while his abilities deteriorate.
It's like Doan has walked on water, and turned water into wine. He's really just an apostle, so he should be playing for Buffalo out of the goodness of his heart instead of 7.5 mil per.
Well said.
I'm confident Regier isn't dumb enough to hand this team to a bunch of unproven kids in 2-3 years.
you think Myers, Sekera, Hodgson, Ennis, Stafford, Ehrhoff will be unproven kids in 2015-16 season?
there seems to be an intentionally dishonest position being taken... it groups the last draft potential (grigs and girgs) and guys who will be seasoned veterans in a few years into the same boat.
it's dumb
Quote:
I'm also amazed posters think it makes sense to just throw away players like Vanek/Pommer based on the ridiculous premise that they didn't "carry" the team anywhere. Or the insanity of expecting all of these unproven youngsters and prospects to carry the team in a few years.
I'm amazed that posters believe in doing the same thing over and over again... and expecting different results. who's insane?
im all for trading vanek at anytime before his contract expires... 2014 deadline, ideal...
im fine with extending pommer in 2 years... but i don't think it will be necessary as i expect a new leadership core to have emerged by then (myers, hodgson, foligno)
Quote:
Well built and deep teams win Cups. It would make far more sense to re-sign them and if these kids start hitting their potential. We could have a very deep and well built team. You know, the kind that wins Cups.
they should make signings around the new core to support their success... if that means re-signing one of their own so be it... if it doesn't, that's fine too... whatever assists it putting the right pieces in place.
can you not fathom a scenario where re-signing vanek at market value is not necessary?
Don't use logic now, just wait til how fanatical he will get if his least favorite players don't get traded, I'm sure every false statement and hyperbole will be spewed for the next couple years, even longer when Vanek is re-signed
im not worried about it... there is very little chance vanek is re-signed
Quote:
How about this Jame, since you say Vanek and Pommers Need to go because they haven't led us anywhere, I feel the same about Sekera. Let all 3 go. Sekera is a big loser anyway
pommers doesn't need to go.
good comparison w/ sekera
Quote:
Sekera has won only one playoff series his whole life in 05-06 juniors, so obviously he is a loser who has led our team nowhere, according to James sound logic which never has personal bias' get in the way of his opinion ( ) he needs to be let go in order for our team to get better.
yes, because sekera has had the same responsibility, contract, role as the other two... i know you are desperate to make some sort of point about how stupid i am, so changing the subject makes sense...
Quote:
Or does it only apply to guys like Ennis Vanek and Pominville that they are losers? Cannot wait for the spin on this one.
when did i say ennnis was a loser?
i guess you could say it only applies to those who have been part of a core expected to win for the last 5 years... and were paid like it over that period.. and all they have to show is 2 first round playoff exits
i know you have excuses for them (injuries, depth around them, etc)
