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

Trading Vanek

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2013, 04:15 AM
  #126
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
So if you take away any games where he was scaled back due to injury, a healthy Vanek under Ruff vs. Rolston would be ... Closer?
No idea. But this year was the first that ruff noticeably leaned on Vanek and gave him top forward ice.

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 12:07 PM
  #127
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodhouse View Post
Using Vanek's game log, Ruff vs Rolston:
  • Ruff: 16 GP, 12 G, 13 A, +3, 12 PIM, 5 PPG, 1 SHG, 58 SOG, 20.7 S%, 19:25 ATOI
  • Rolston: 22 GP, 8 G, 8 A, -4, 8 PIM, 4 PPG, 0 SHG, 61 SOG, 13.1 S%, 17:40 ATOI
Thanks, Woody - I didn't think that was the case but I guess, with Vanek's hot start and how often Ruff used the Hodgson line as a result, it makes sense in retrospect.

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 03:05 PM
  #128
CriminallyVu1gar
LGBTerrific
 
CriminallyVu1gar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Free Thomas Vanek.

CriminallyVu1gar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 04:04 PM
  #129
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,816
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
So if you take away any games where he was scaled back due to injury, a healthy Vanek under Ruff vs. Rolston would be ... Closer?
Including two games he didn't finish due to injury (3/26 vs. Tampa and 3/19 vs. Montreal), he was clearly laboring in ToI from the Sens game on 3/16. Removing those games under Rolston from when he first left with an injury:
  • 20 games, 18:24 ToI (his average for the entire season), 8 goals, 8 assists, 16 points

He was pretty clearly laboring with injury at times throughout mid-March from the 16th on until he shut it down to heal.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 05:16 PM
  #130
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,830
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
I believe he was actually getting less ice time. Vanek was getting 20+ mins under Ruff at the beginning of the season ( and was scoring at the best pace of his career, go figure). When Rolston took over he was getting less and less. He was still getting more then he usually does so atleast Rolston had the sense not to give him 17 mins again.

There has been no reason for Vanek not to have been getting 18-20 mins a game and killing penalties from 07 on, ever since the co caps left. Ruff should have made him the primary forward and instead makes him a supporting piece. The first time Ruff put Vanek on the PK he had a shg in his first 2 games on the PK. He also successfully killed every PK he was on and the Sabres didn't allow a ppg in those 2 games. Of course Ruff takes Van off the pk for years Vaneks PK is extremely underrated as is his 2 way play. Vanek is a guy you can give 20 mins a game to and put him on the PK. Highly skilled players need to be on the ice period. Ruff ruined Vanek.

There was a season where Paul ****ing Gaustad had more ToI then Vanek Vanek was the most underused and wrongly utilized players in the whole league. He should have been getting 3 or more minutes a game then he was getting and no, saying Pominville needed to play with Hecht is not an excuse.
Thomas Vanek should not be on the PK. It was a dumb idea five years ago, and it's a dumb idea today. We have plenty of guys who can take shots off the shins and dump the puck down ice.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 05:51 PM
  #131
Imlach a cup
Registered User
 
Imlach a cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,122
vCash: 500
I look at the Stephen Weiss scenario and am looking to minimize that risk. Get me somewhere between 20th and 40th overall and a prospect who brings speed, size, physicality or talent and close the deal. Let Darcy worry about balancing things from there.

Imlach a cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 02:19 PM
  #132
Woodhouse
Registered User
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
So if you take away any games where he was scaled back due to injury, a healthy Vanek under Ruff vs. Rolston would be ... Closer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
Thanks, Woody - I didn't think that was the case but I guess, with Vanek's hot start and how often Ruff used the Hodgson line as a result, it makes sense in retrospect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Including two games he didn't finish due to injury (3/26 vs. Tampa and 3/19 vs. Montreal), he was clearly laboring in ToI from the Sens game on 3/16. Removing those games under Rolston from when he first left with an injury:
  • 20 games, 18:24 ToI (his average for the entire season), 8 goals, 8 assists, 16 points

He was pretty clearly laboring with injury at times throughout mid-March from the 16th on until he shut it down to heal.
Like Chain said, injuries were likely a factor in driving down Vanek's ATOI in Rolston's reign, but nonetheless he still dressed and had seven sub-16:00-TOI games as opposed to just one under Ruff. Also, Vanek had four games of 20:00+ under each coach FWIW.

Woodhouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 03:35 PM
  #133
OkimLom
Registered User
 
OkimLom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Thomas Vanek should not be on the PK. It was a dumb idea five years ago, and it's a dumb idea today. We have plenty of guys who can take shots off the shins and dump the puck down ice.
So is using him IN FRONT of the goalie:

1) We had a TERRIBLE PP with a limited amount of skill.
2) Our best/most Dangerous GOAL SCORER/PASSER is tied up in front of the net with a GUY on him at ALL TIMES
3) Our Defensemen are terrible at accepting passes, bobbles the puck too much, doesn't have time to get a shot through
4) The Buffalo fanbase still wants Vanek in front of the net because "He's got great hand-eye coordination"
5) We stick with this plan for 7 years, even with Rolston taking over
6) We all talk about how Vanek is always injured...

I wonder why.

For the sake of his health, I HOPE he can get moved and go to a team that can find a correct way to implement him better. I have no hope for the coaching staff here to change this.

OkimLom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 04:15 PM
  #134
drinking bleach irl
don't be so serious
 
drinking bleach irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 11,672
vCash: 436
The only time I want Vanek on the PK is down a goal late.

The only time I want him in front of the goalie is when Ehrhoff's on the point. He'll be perfectly safe.

drinking bleach irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 05:56 PM
  #135
koarl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Graz / Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Gleason View Post
The only time I want Vanek on the PK is down a goal late.

The only time I want him in front of the goalie is when Ehrhoff's on the point. He'll be perfectly safe.
He got hit by Ehrhoff's point shot and missed several games .
However, Vanek can and should be used wherever nobody can do better. If you got a strong body with enough skill, place him in front of the goalie instead of Vanek on the PP and/or split time there with him.

I agree with OkimLom there.

koarl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 07:02 PM
  #136
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OkimLom View Post
So is using him IN FRONT of the goalie:

1) We had a TERRIBLE PP with a limited amount of skill.
2) Our best/most Dangerous GOAL SCORER/PASSER is tied up in front of the net with a GUY on him at ALL TIMES
3) Our Defensemen are terrible at accepting passes, bobbles the puck too much, doesn't have time to get a shot through
4) The Buffalo fanbase still wants Vanek in front of the net because "He's got great hand-eye coordination"
5) We stick with this plan for 7 years, even with Rolston taking over
6) We all talk about how Vanek is always injured...
Quote:
Originally Posted by koarl View Post
However, Vanek can and should be used wherever nobody can do better. If you got a strong body with enough skill, place him in front of the goalie instead of Vanek on the PP and/or split time there with him.
The Sabres have tried in the past to put "big bodies" (Tsyplakov, Gratton, Zubrus, Gaustad, Mancari) other than Vanek in front of the net and it never worked because none of them had the hand-eye coordination of Vanek. He's been used there more for that reason than for sheer bulk IMO - and I would argue that the Sabres haven't had someone succeed at converting rebounds and deflections into goals from in front of the net as well as Vanek since Andreychuk was traded 20 years ago.

The sad fact is that before Vanek, the Sabres haven't had many wingers who could be considered natural goal scorers on the wing since Mogilny - Satan and Dumont might be the only exceptions. So while Vanek's talent could have been utilized just as well from the open ice as from the front of the net, the Sabres haven't had many wingers capable of scoring consistently from either area in a long time IMO.

That's why I'm disappointed in the possibility of him being traded or leaving in free agency.

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 09:08 PM
  #137
SabresBills2012
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 129
vCash: 500
Does anyone remeber the most famous garbage truck in front of the net. Mr. Dave Andreychuk.

SabresBills2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 10:16 PM
  #138
Prospector74
Registered User
 
Prospector74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hollywood, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresBills2012 View Post
Does anyone remeber the most famous garbage truck in front of the net. Mr. Dave Andreychuk.
fondly.

Prospector74 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 12:00 AM
  #139
BCS
Registered User
 
BCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
That's why I'm disappointed in the possibility of him being traded or leaving in free agency.
The idea of Vanek in another uni is depressing. I really hope he signs an extension and sticks around for a while longer, but from his standpoint, why would he want to?

BCS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 12:11 AM
  #140
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Better Call Saul View Post
The idea of Vanek in another uni is depressing. I really hope he signs an extension and sticks around for a while longer, but from his standpoint, why would he want to?
I felt the same way about Zhitnik who was probably my favorite skater over his time on the squad, outside of maybe Peca when he was here. Though the fact we let Zhitnik walk for nothing when he clearly still had solid value around the league (he eventually netted Coburn for the Flyers at the deadline) made it much worse.

I don't think I've ever been as open to one of my teams (Sabres, Bills, Knicks, Yankees) rebuilding as I am right now, but it'd still hurt to see Vanek go.

Rob Paxon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 08:25 AM
  #141
5 Minute Major
Registered User
 
5 Minute Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Binghamton, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Better Call Saul View Post
The idea of Vanek in another uni is depressing. I really hope he signs an extension and sticks around for a while longer, but from his standpoint, why would he want to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
I felt the same way about Zhitnik who was probably my favorite skater over his time on the squad, outside of maybe Peca when he was here. Though the fact we let Zhitnik walk for nothing when he clearly still had solid value around the league (he eventually netted Coburn for the Flyers at the deadline) made it much worse.

I don't think I've ever been as open to one of my teams (Sabres, Bills, Knicks, Yankees) rebuilding as I am right now, but it'd still hurt to see Vanek go.
Agreed. Vanek is my favorite player but I'm more of a fan of the logo on the front of the sweater than the name on the back. If he is traded I just want a good return.

5 Minute Major is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 02:18 PM
  #142
slovakia18
English? I can't.
 
slovakia18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: austria/swiss
Posts: 422
vCash: 500
PP Discussion:
Vanek is one of the best player in PP in the World. 2009 best in the NHL(20 goals- with 6 game less than Ovechkin). This season 3.rd.place(9 Goals) with 10 Games less than Ovechkin(13 Goals).
In Front of the net not many Player can deflected better you must have good technique wen you do that,and he is very "cool" for the Goal.That attributes make him to one of the best PP Player.
Ithink sabres don't trade him- all know what he can do for the Team.

slovakia18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 04:19 PM
  #143
sonnEbunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Deal with it. You just sold Pominville for draft picks. If Miller and Vanek were going to be a part of the core of the cup team, you'd have kept Pominville to play with them. Trading your captain and best all around two-way player for guys who won't be impact players for at least 5 years broadcasts loud and clear that you're not looking to contend for a while. Unless the goal is to tread water, it makes no sense to hang on to your other valuable players just to tread a little higher. It hurts you in the draft, deprives you of future returns, and they'll be forgettable players by the time you're back in the conversation. As soon as the Pominville deal happened, we were either all in on the rebuild or we just made a huge mistake. And now you can't take back the Pominville trade, so you'd better get all in on the rebuild.
If we are five years away from competing for a cup Vanek will be 34 and will still be a very good player in this league. I'm sure you are aware that every contending team needs veteran players to make a run at the cup, I would really hope that Vanek will be that guy for us. However, I would let him go if the right deal was presented then, look to add a vet later down the road in free agency. As far as Miller is concerned I do hope they can find a trade partner for him, he is a little older than Vanek and I think Enroth and Hackett could step in nicely next year. The potential drop off in performance will be welcomed as we want the highest draft position possible. Extend Vanek and acquire what we can for Miller while he is under contract.

I think moving up to #3 is the best case scenario for Buffalo, we make fewer sacrifices in the short-term while preserve much of our prospect pool and get a potential franchise defining talent(Drouin for me). 8+Sekera for #5 then, work some sort of package around 5 and Foligno for #3. Carolina gets their immediate help on D and drops back a couple spots where Monahan could still be available. Tampa drops back while still being able to choose between Barkov and Nichushkin, they are also gaining a young power forward in Foligno. Yes we lose a couple of nice pieces but we will likely be able to hold onto 16 and we get one of the best talents in the draft. Possibly trade up from 16 for defensive help...?

Future Outlook:
Drouin-Hodgson-Vanek
Ennis-Grigorenko-Armia
Ott-Girgensons-Larsson
Tropp-Kea-xxx

Ehrhoff-Risto
Myers-Pysyk
McCabe-McNabb

Hackett/Enroth

Add in prospects/FAs over the next couple years and I'm really liking our team.

sonnEbunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 04:43 PM
  #144
Myllz
ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 13,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnEbunny View Post
If we are five years away from competing for a cup Vanek will be 34 and will still be a very good player in this league. I'm sure you are aware that every contending team needs veteran players to make a run at the cup, I would really hope that Vanek will be that guy for us.
Except it's not up to Buffalo to decide if Vanek stays or goes, it's up to Vanek. If Buffalo is 5 years away from competing, Vanek isn't staying no matter how much people want him to be a veteran leader on that future team.

Myllz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 04:52 PM
  #145
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
I see your point, but Hackett and Larsson are not five years away from being impact players (although Hackett may only end up being a back-up). The 16th pick may only be one year away from making an impact.
Everything I'm saying is in the context of assembling our cup roster. Larsson may make the team in only a couple of years. The 16th pick (unlikely) could even make the team next year. Correct. That doesn't mean they'll be impact players on a cup winning roster anytime soon. Larsson gets drafted in 2010 and still hasn't seen the NHL. These guys are long term projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresFanNorthPortFL View Post
I still don't see why the Sabres need a full-on rebuild, there is too much in the pipeline that's on the cusp of contributing that Vanek and Miller can still be contributors.

....

I just see a couple moves here and there, some progression amongst players, a solid coaching staff, and the team is not 5 years away.
Look at every cup winning team in recent memory, and they're all built around players who are at an elite level the likes of which is nowhere on our roster, and is probably not in our pipeline, either. Quick is the best goalie in the world right now, Chara is the best defenseman, Crosby and Malkin the best forwards, Kane and Toews not far behind, Datsyuk and Zetterberg the most complete two way players, Anaheim had multiple hall of famers on defense, Carolina was a ****ing fluke that missed the playoffs the next year, Tampa had a league MVP up front along with arguably two other franchise forwards, Jersey had the most stacked defense of all time plus a hall of famer in goal, Detroit had hall of famers driving the Zamboni after the games. Most of these guys are going to the hall of fame. Where are our future hall of famers?

Sure, if we made all the right moves for all the right mid-level guys, we could lateral our way back into the playoffs and maybe even win a round or two at some point. But we'd still only get as far as mid-level guys could take us. We'd only be as good as our best player, and the best players on the team and in the system are highly unlikely to be good enough. A rebuild is the chance to change the culture of mediocrity around here and I open my arms gladly to the pain that comes with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnEbunny View Post
If we are five years away from competing for a cup Vanek will be 34 and will still be a very good player in this league. I'm sure you are aware that every contending team needs veteran players to make a run at the cup, I would really hope that Vanek will be that guy for us. However, I would let him go if the right deal was presented then, look to add a vet later down the road in free agency.
I absolutely think it's better to get value back for Vanek now (while it's high) and then, like you said, seek to find those character players at age 34 when we get there (and they're cheaper than what we'll get for Vanek now). After all, if we don't deal present value out to get futures back, we may never end up in that enviable position to begin with, wherein we just want to find a 35 year old vet to push us over the top.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 08:25 PM
  #146
SoFFacet
Registered User
 
SoFFacet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I absolutely think it's better to get value back for Vanek now (while it's high) and then, like you said, seek to find those character players at age 34 when we get there (and they're cheaper than what we'll get for Vanek now). After all, if we don't deal present value out to get futures back, we may never end up in that enviable position to begin with, wherein we just want to find a 35 year old vet to push us over the top.
I think that Vanek will be an effective player for a lot longer than most people think. He takes a beating but very little of his game is based on grinding along the wall or torching the D with speed or moves. He has those things and flashes them sometimes but thats not the core of what he does. He's primarily a hands guy that specializes in deflections, rebounds, and close-range corner-picking. I think unless he has a major wrist injury he will still be a good player until his late 30s.

As exhibited by the Bruins and Kings, the dominant strategy in playoff hockey is (once again) to take away all methods of scoring besides the rebound and the deflection. Seeing as how those are Vanek's specialties, and given my belief that he will still be a good player by the time the rest of the team is ready, I would really prefer to keep him.

I'm not so sure about how high his trade value is right now anyways. People keep tossing him into trade proposals that only move us up a few slots in the draft.

SoFFacet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 08:51 PM
  #147
sonnEbunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFFacet View Post
I think that Vanek will be an effective player for a lot longer than most people think. He takes a beating but very little of his game is based on grinding along the wall or torching the D with speed or moves. He has those things and flashes them sometimes but thats not the core of what he does. He's primarily a hands guy that specializes in deflections, rebounds, and close-range corner-picking. I think unless he has a major wrist injury he will still be a good player until his late 30s.

As exhibited by the Bruins and Kings, the dominant strategy in playoff hockey is (once again) to take away all methods of scoring besides the rebound and the deflection. Seeing as how those are Vanek's specialties, and given my belief that he will still be a good player by the time the rest of the team is ready, I would really prefer to keep him.

I'm not so sure about how high his trade value is right now anyways. People keep tossing him into trade proposals that only move us up a few slots in the draft.
I agree with most of what you said, personally I would do my best to keep him but I can definitely see scenarios where a trade would be warranted. Thomas has showed that he is a solid post season performer, I think this will become more evident now that the league is trending back to a more physical style. And even though it was a shortened season I absolutely loved his play throughout the year, him and Cody played well together most of the time. I really think he will still be very productive by the time this team is ready to compete for a championship and I would love for him to have a chance to win one with us but, there are circumstances where I would be okay with trading him. If the organization explains to him what the teams rebuilding plan is and he does not want to be apart of it or if a trade offer comes up that you simply can't say no to then you take it and run. A rebuild is just that, there should be no untouchable players right now. If the opportunity comes up to better the team long term you must take advantage of those situations no matter who the player is. There will be chances to add high quality players via free agency or through trades, a few years down the road it may be likely that we will be buyers at the deadline so added prospects or draft picks will come in handy when that time comes.

sonnEbunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 09:26 PM
  #148
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
I mean, okay, Vanek fans. I agree he probably would still have some jam left at 35, maybe could be a special situations kind of player on a cup winner, guy who plays a lot on the PP and puts up 25 goals, although probably not the #1LW anymore, unless the team is stacked everywhere else.

But three things: 1. I think the odds are at least 75% that even if we want him and try to re-sign him, he walks. 2. He has more value now than he will in a year when teams know we have to get rid of him. 3. One year of Vanek's services, in which we aren't going to win anything either with or without him, can be the difference between acquiring Tavares and acquiring Joe Blow who fizzles out and hits his ceiling as a third liner.

In five years, I'm not going to miss that one year of Vanek's services. But I will sure as hell miss not having drafted Tavares.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 09:41 PM
  #149
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
And Vanek is only worth more at the trade deadline if he comes out and scores at a ~35 goal pace. I wouldn't bet on it with less talent surrounding him. He has value now, he just finished a shortened season where he scored at a 40 goal pace, strike while the iron is hot. Because two of the previous three years before this one, he didn't crack 30, and I bet he's a 25 goal scorer again on this squad next year.

Sitting around and hoping for something better while your assets depreciate is a fool's game. If Vanek sucks again next year, we're all going to be sitting here crying about why we got nothing for him while he still had value and before he walked away for nothing.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2013, 09:51 PM
  #150
sonnEbunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I mean, okay, Vanek fans. I agree he probably would still have some jam left at 35, maybe could be a special situations kind of player on a cup winner, guy who plays a lot on the PP and puts up 25 goals, although probably not the #1LW anymore, unless the team is stacked everywhere else.

But three things: 1. I think the odds are at least 75% that even if we want him and try to re-sign him, he walks. 2. He has more value now than he will in a year when teams know we have to get rid of him. 3. One year of Vanek's services, in which we aren't going to win anything either with or without him, can be the difference between acquiring Tavares and acquiring Joe Blow who fizzles out and hits his ceiling as a third liner.

In five years, I'm not going to miss that one year of Vanek's services. But I will sure as hell miss not having drafted Tavares.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that we should not under any circumstances trade him. I agree that there is a good chance that he won't re-sign especially if one of these trades that are being proposed for the #1 pick actually happen. If he says he doesn't want to be a part of the rebuild then get anything you can for him, I would be all about trading him. I have also said if the right package comes along then jump on it. But, if he is willing to resign and we don't get an above average return I do not want to get rid of him. I think he will be a 55-65 point player 4-6 years down the line, I don't see him as a "special situation" guy. No, if they trade him I won't miss him next year or the year after that but, a few years down the line I do think the team will miss his presence when they are a playoff team.

sonnEbunny 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 10:03 PM.

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.