static70 Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Bucky mentioned in his chat session that the Sabres have been actively shopping Vanek. My question is the following: Why would they not take the four 1st round draft picks from Edmonton if this was the case? Anyone have an answer on this? Also, what would be acceptable for him?
inkman Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Why would they not take the four 1st round draft picks from Edmonton if this was the case? Anyone have an answer on this? Also, what would be acceptable for him? They didn't take the picks because the organ-eye-zation was reeling after losing the midget captains and needed to cling to whatever they had left. I'm also certain they figured he would be more than just a PP specialist at this point in his career. As far as what would be acceptable for him? The Sabres almost certainly will need to take on 5+ mill in salary. What does that leave you with? Underachieving scorer? Overpaid defenseman? The Flyers and Bruins are reported to be looking to make moves. Lets do this!
Patty16 Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 They didn't take the picks because the organ-eye-zation was reeling after losing the midget captains and needed to cling to whatever they had left. I'm also certain they figured he would be more than just a PP specialist at this point in his career. As far as what would be acceptable for him? The Sabres almost certainly will need to take on 5+ mill in salary. What does that leave you with? Underachieving scorer? Overpaid defenseman? The Flyers and Bruins are reported to be looking to make moves. Lets do this! Im 99% sure the NHL does not allow teams to take on a player's salary. Hence the why some of these contracts are killing teams. You can buy the player out for 2/3 salary but that still counts against cap. Any team trading for Vanek would need to take on his cap hit, which is higher than hes being paid this season---the NHL averages the total salary by year, regardless of how much hes paid--- That is why guys like briere and Dipietro cant be traded, no one wants to take on their full salary.
Kristian Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Im 99% sure the NHL does not allow teams to take on a player's salary. Hence the why some of these contracts are killing teams. You can buy the player out for 2/3 salary but that still counts against cap. Any team trading for Vanek would need to take on his cap hit, which is higher than hes being paid this season---the NHL averages the total salary by year, regardless of how much hes paid--- That is why guys like briere and Dipietro cant be traded, no one wants to take on their full salary. But I'm not sure these situations can be compared. DiPietro is an injury-ridden talent, who's never really proven himself to be a top goalie when healthy, and Briere's in his last contract most likely. Vanek however has plenty of hockey left in him, has proven he can score 40 a year and be a dominant force on the PP as well. Heck, before Ruff had his brain-fart last season, he was doing pretty well killing penalties too. If Darcy wants to, I have no doubt he can persuade some GM that Thomas can be a 40 goalscorer for years to come, with a proper centerman. Any GM going over our roster and seeing our centers would most likely agree. I just don't see Darcy trading any of out top-6 forwards. Unfortunately, cause if we're ever going to go anywhere, at least two of these guys need to be gone. I don't think I ever saw a team this high in the standings get so little contribution from their top 2 lines.
nfreeman Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Im 99% sure the NHL does not allow teams to take on a player's salary. Hence the why some of these contracts are killing teams. You can buy the player out for 2/3 salary but that still counts against cap. Any team trading for Vanek would need to take on his cap hit, which is higher than hes being paid this season---the NHL averages the total salary by year, regardless of how much hes paid--- That is why guys like briere and Dipietro cant be traded, no one wants to take on their full salary. Pretty sure he meant that the Sabres would be taking back an overpaid player in any trade they make.
Patty16 Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Pretty sure he meant that the Sabres would be taking back an overpaid player in any trade they make. Well i wasnt necessarily compared to the above situations, just first huge contracts i could think of where the teams that signed these douches wanted to trade them bc they sucked. the total salary follows the player was really all i was trying to say. sorry for the confusion... What could we get for Vanek with a roughly 6 mil cap hit? we'd have to replace his goals at least. this team is hurting for scoring right meow.
end the curse Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 I'm sure the Sabres organization is very aware that Vanek is not producing anywhere near what was hoped and expected when they signed him to that monster contract. Still, the fact that Ottawa was able to deal Heatley despite his brutal contract shows a player like Vanek could be moved, and I would not be shocked if they were exploring the possibilities.
Stoner Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 I'm sure the Sabres organization is very aware that Vanek is not producing anywhere near what was hoped and expected when they signed him to that monster contract. Still, the fact that Ottawa was able to deal Heatley despite his brutal contract shows a player like Vanek could be moved, and I would not be shocked if they were exploring the possibilities. He's not producing this season, but he did score 76 goals the two seasons after signing the deal.
end the curse Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 He's not producing this season, but he did score 76 goals the two seasons after signing the deal. Which is nice, but I think everyone had hoped he'd have produced more scoring at this point. He's in the peak years of his career right now, and has shown the ability to score 40 goals, so I think he is trade-able. If he had completely busted, say scoring only 25-30 goals per year, I don't think we could move him. Granted, I'd be shocked if a deal actually happened, but it's not out of the question.
shrader Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Why would they not take the four 1st round draft picks from Edmonton if this was the case? Anyone have an answer on this? Also, what would be acceptable for him? Don't you think you're a tad bit too late on this question? It's not like they can go back in a time machine and decide not to match the Edmonton offer. A lot has changes since then. There is absolutely no connection to that move and this rumor of entertaining offers for him.
LabattBlue Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 There is so little I like about the Fab 5, that I am torn as to who I would like to see handed a one way ticket out of town. Is anyone ever excited about watching any of them play prior to a game starting? NO! Obviously, the two guys who would bring cap relief if traded would be Pominville and Vanek. Connolly is stealing money, but he is only under contract for 1 more year. All the reports of Roy's maturity were a BIG FARCE, but he is signed to a good contract. Stafford has yet to cash in and continues to be inconsistent. The mid point of the season is just around the corner and he has 14 points.
inkman Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Interesting discussion on HF Boards about this very topic. Linky
Trey Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 We will not trade Vanek, close the thread.
end the curse Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Obviously, the two guys who would bring cap relief if traded would be Pominville and Vanek. Connolly is stealing money, but he is only under contract for 1 more year. All the reports of Roy's maturity were a BIG FARCE, but he is signed to a good contract. Stafford has yet to cash in and continues to be inconsistent. The mid point of the season is just around the corner and he has 14 points. I would add Hecht to the list of trade options for cap relief. He's under contract for 3 more years at over $3.5 mil per year and is utterly worthless for the money. I completely agree with you about Stafford, too. He's simply not showing any signs that he deserves to be a "Top 6" player in this league, so I think he's be a great trade option because of the potential someone else may see in him for very little money.
nfreeman Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 We will not trade Vanek, close the thread. I think you are right. I would add Hecht to the list of trade options for cap relief. He's under contract for 3 more years at over $3.5 mil per year and is utterly worthless for the money. I completely agree with you about Stafford, too. He's simply not showing any signs that he deserves to be a "Top 6" player in this league, so I think he's be a great trade option because of the potential someone else may see in him for very little money. Well, I think anyone here would be thrilled to unload Hecht, but no one is going to take him without the Sabres taking back an equally awful contract in the trade and/or sweetening the pot considerably with picks and/or prospects.
Mbossy Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed but I'm tigers wife mad at this thread and would like to print it out and beat you with it. :angry:
Trey Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed but I'm tigers wife mad at this thread and would like to print it out and beat you with it. :angry: OK, I'm glad we didn't close the thread...I want to see this :thumbsup:
nfreeman Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Bucky mentioned in his chat session that the Sabres have been actively shopping Vanek. Not true. He didn't say that they are shopping him. A number of commenters suggested that they Sabres should trade him, and Bucky said NFW. For example: I've spent most of my adult life listening to people complain about the Sabres lacking a pure goal scorer. Vanek is a scorer. He's simply not scoring. There's a difference. Keep him Please check your facts before you post.
end the curse Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Interesting discussion on HF Boards about this very topic. Linky Very interesting discussion. I would pull the trigger on a Vanek for Getzlaf deal if Anaheim would bite.
spndnchz Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed but I'm tigers wife mad at this thread and would like to print it out and beat you with it. :angry: ROFLMAO. :w00t:
Sabretip Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Bucky mentioned in his chat session that the Sabres have been actively shopping Vanek. My question is the following: Why would they not take the four 1st round draft picks from Edmonton if this was the case? Anyone have an answer on this? Also, what would be acceptable for him? Like any of his prior "agendas", where he repeatedly speculates about some move he personally wishes/recommends would get made, one has to take what Bucky Gleason "reports" with a grain of salt. I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Regier would ever consider dealing Vanek in the forseeable future. Let's remember that, when Gleason and nearly every other Sabre fan were calling for Connolly to be traded last season, the Sabres instead extended his contract for 2 more years. From all that has been said and heard from Quinn and Regier, going back to the press conferences in the summer of '07, I doubt that any of the Rochester "core" group (Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Miller, Gaustad) are in danger of being moved. Gleason seems to have a habit of writing about players he thinks have no value as a Sabre - look at his targets in the past (Lydman, Tallinder, Afinogenov, Kotalik, Hecht, Connolly). Aside from the trade of Kotalik and release of Afinogenov, the others are all still firmly in place. Just because Bucky wishes something to be true doesn't mean it's what management believes in or is pursuing.
Stoner Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Not true. He didn't say that they are shopping him. A number of commenters suggested that they Sabres should trade him, and Bucky said NFW. For example: Please check your facts before you post. Maybe you should take your own advice. Bucky said they are shopping him, or hinting at shopping him.
SwampD Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 How about maybe putting him in a system that utilizes his talents? How about riding the back of the best goalie in the world right now and taking some chances offensively? Why does Ruff want every forward to play defense and want every defensemen to score?
wonderbread Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Like any of his prior "agendas", where he repeatedly speculates about some move he personally wishes/recommends would get made, one has to take what Bucky Gleason "reports" with a grain of salt. I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Regier would ever consider dealing Vanek in the forseeable future. Let's remember that, when Gleason and nearly every other Sabre fan were calling for Connolly to be traded last season, the Sabres instead extended his contract for 2 more years. From all that has been said and heard from Quinn and Regier, going back to the press conferences in the summer of '07, I doubt that any of the Rochester "core" group (Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Miller, Gaustad) are in danger of being moved. Gleason seems to have a habit of writing about players he thinks have no value as a Sabre - look at his targets in the past (Lydman, Tallinder, Afinogenov, Kotalik, Hecht, Connolly). Aside from the trade of Kotalik and release of Afinogenov, the others are all still firmly in place. Just because Bucky wishes something to be true doesn't mean it's what management believes in or is pursuing. Vogl is that you?
BetweenThePipes00 Posted December 18, 2009 Report Posted December 18, 2009 Maybe you should take your own advice. Bucky said they are shopping him, or hinting at shopping him. Just to end the debate, this is true ... check the chat at 11:46 ... "They are shopping him, or they're dropping hints that they're shopping him and a few others, but it's not that easy to trade players anymore. ..."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.