What if Vanek became an Oiler?

[smallmarketguy]

This is hilarious, witnessing the denial. The case is very simple — LQ had egg on his face because he'd played the wrong hand by trying to sign Drury over Briere. In a panic, he stepped in and defiantly told DR that no more players would leave that summer. Did it make things all better? No way. They regained their focus by the time the Brian Campbell situation popped up, but the damage had already been done. Vanek had a good year before the pay boost, but was benched for the playoffs. Why they'd give him that kind of scratch is unfathomable. Is Thomas Vanek a good player? Course he is. Is he worth FOUR first-round draft choices (most or all of which would have been in the top dozen picks)? Absolutely not. Final analysis — the Sabres' chances of winning a Cup would have been EXPONENTIALLY better if they'd have let Vanek go. Period.

[smallmarketguy]

Oh, and I love that it's a "tired" subject. Anyone who's talking hockey in July is talking about a tired subject!

[darksabre]

This is hilarious, witnessing the denial. The case is very simple — LQ had egg on his face because he'd played the wrong hand by trying to sign Drury over Briere. In a panic, he stepped in and defiantly told DR that no more players would leave that summer. Did it make things all better? No way. They regained their focus by the time the Brian Campbell situation popped up, but the damage had already been done. Vanek had a good year before the pay boost, but was benched for the playoffs. Why they'd give him that kind of scratch is unfathomable. Is Thomas Vanek a good player? Course he is. Is he worth FOUR first-round draft choices (most or all of which would have been in the top dozen picks)? Absolutely not. Final analysis — the Sabres' chances of winning a Cup would have been EXPONENTIALLY better if they'd have let Vanek go. Period.

 

I absolutely dare you to prove that. Tell us who the Sabres drafted, if they used those picks. Or who those picks were traded for. Please factor in salaries and contracts. You'll also need to draft and hold a press conference to address the fans as to why you let Drury, Briere and Vanek go. This should also include an escape plan for fleeing the press conference under the assault of hundreds of angry fans and the BPD. Then you need to go through the last few seasons and calculate Buffalo's exact record and standings for the league. Predict Stanley Cup winners with a minimum of 90% accuracy.

 

Or just accept reality and move on.

[jpgr909]

You'll also need to...address the fans as to why you let Drury, Briere and Vanek go.

I agree that the referenced article is total nonsense for a bunch of reasons, but this quote is the key. It doesn't matter how/why Drury & Briere were let go, the fact is by the time Vanek signed the offer sheet they were gone. There's simply NO POSSIBLE WAY the organization, regardless of who was making the call, could let Vanek leave too, especially when all you're getting in return is four pieces of pure speculation. Four #1s is very nice, but it's pure speculation compared to a proven and still very young talent. Still, all that, like the article, is completely irrelevant considering the atmosphere at the time. They simply couldn't let Vanek walk. End of story.

[Stoner]

This is hilarious, witnessing the denial. The case is very simple — LQ had egg on his face because he'd played the wrong hand by trying to sign Drury over Briere. In a panic, he stepped in and defiantly told DR that no more players would leave that summer. Did it make things all better? No way. They regained their focus by the time the Brian Campbell situation popped up, but the damage had already been done. Vanek had a good year before the pay boost, but was benched for the playoffs. Why they'd give him that kind of scratch is unfathomable. Is Thomas Vanek a good player? Course he is. Is he worth FOUR first-round draft choices (most or all of which would have been in the top dozen picks)? Absolutely not. Final analysis — the Sabres' chances of winning a Cup would have been EXPONENTIALLY better if they'd have let Vanek go. Period.

 

Benched in the '06 playoffs, right?

[shrader]

I agree that the referenced article is total nonsense for a bunch of reasons, but this quote is the key. It doesn't matter how/why Drury & Briere were let go, the fact is by the time Vanek signed the offer sheet they were gone. There's simply NO POSSIBLE WAY the organization, regardless of who was making the call, could let Vanek leave too, especially when all you're getting in return is four pieces of pure speculation. Four #1s is very nice, but it's pure speculation compared to a proven and still very young talent. Still, all that, like the article, is completely irrelevant considering the atmosphere at the time. They simply couldn't let Vanek walk. End of story.

 

I said it going into that offseason and still believe it to this day, Vanek was the top priority of that group. Unfortunately, they still hadn't read beyond the cover of "Contract Negotiations for Dummies" at that point yet.

[BuffaTB]

Let it go!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bullwinkle]

The reason they kept Vanek is what I've been saying all along - and I have been called a fool on this board for thinking this way - losing Vanek would have been too great of a PR hit for the organization to take.

 

This decision had nothing to do with Vanek's talent, or whether the compensation was adequate. Vanek was kept solely as a PR move. Golisano's thinking has always been 1. Put people in the stands 2. Put people in the stands 3. Put people in the stands. Nothing else matters. After the Briere/Drury fiasco they couldn't afford to let Vanek go too because season ticket sales would have plummeted.

 

It was purely an economic move and had nothing to do with hockey talent. Economics drive this organization which is why I doubt we'll ever see a Cup under the Golisano/Quinn regime.

[RazielSabre]

Pointless analysis, another 'peca for connelly and pyatt' arguement. There is no way of knowing what would have happened. And in any case, we couldnt afford to lose all 3 players, heads would roll and the fans would go berserk. I'd still rather be in the position we're in now that the one their in now.

[jimiVbaby]

The reason they kept Vanek is what I've been saying all along - and I have been called a fool on this board for thinking this way - losing Vanek would have been too great of a PR hit for the organization to take.

 

This decision had nothing to do with Vanek's talent, or whether the compensation was adequate. Vanek was kept solely as a PR move. Golisano's thinking has always been 1. Put people in the stands 2. Put people in the stands 3. Put people in the stands. Nothing else matters. After the Briere/Drury fiasco they couldn't afford to let Vanek go too because season ticket sales would have plummeted.

 

It was purely an economic move and had nothing to do with hockey talent. Economics drive this organization which is why I doubt we'll ever see a Cup under the Golisano/Quinn regime.

I'm more than positive the signing had everything to do with signing a young talented homegrown sniper rather than two players on the decline of their careers to ridiculously inflated contracts.

[SwampD]

We really are in sports limbo.

[thesportsbuff]

I'm more than positive the signing had everything to do with signing a young talented homegrown sniper rather than two players on the decline of their careers to ridiculously inflated contracts.

 

I disagree. If we had kept Briere and Drury, losing Vanek for four first rounders would make a lot of sense. People would still be upset, but not as much as they were when both Danny and Chris signed with other teams within hours of free agency. That was devastating to the team and the fan base -- if they let Vanek leave that situation gets even worse.

 

One thing I've always kind of wondered about the whole situation is who the ###### does Vanek think he is to even sign that offer sheet? It was a heck of a lot of money but gee, if there's one way to say "it's all about me, and it's all about money," that's it. Two years in the league and he was happy screwing Buffalo over for some extra bucks. I would have at least told Regier, "Hey, I'll sign with you for $5 mil per. Anything less and I'm accepting this ridiculous offer sheet, and you'll be screwed." He just skipped to the "okay you're screwed" part.

[Tyrannustyrannus]

One thing I've always kind of wondered about the whole situation is who the ###### does Vanek think he is to even sign that offer sheet? It was a heck of a lot of money but gee, if there's one way to say "it's all about me, and it's all about money," that's it. Two years in the league and he was happy screwing Buffalo over for some extra bucks. I would have at least told Regier, "Hey, I'll sign with you for $5 mil per. Anything less and I'm accepting this ridiculous offer sheet, and you'll be screwed." He just skipped to the "okay you're screwed" part.

 

You would have took the offer sheet, because $10 million is more than $5 million, and you are not an idiot.

 

When will people realize that all players care about is their careers? Vanek's agent would have dropped him if he turned down that offer sheet, and I'm sure the NHLPA would have been all over him. Somebody is always willing to overpay a player, and for once it was the Sabres. That's free agency.

[Taro T]

I disagree. If we had kept Briere and Drury, losing Vanek for four first rounders would make a lot of sense. People would still be upset, but not as much as they were when both Danny and Chris signed with other teams within hours of free agency. That was devastating to the team and the fan base -- if they let Vanek leave that situation gets even worse.

 

One thing I've always kind of wondered about the whole situation is who the ###### does Vanek think he is to even sign that offer sheet? It was a heck of a lot of money but gee, if there's one way to say "it's all about me, and it's all about money," that's it. Two years in the league and he was happy screwing Buffalo over for some extra bucks. I would have at least told Regier, "Hey, I'll sign with you for $5 mil per. Anything less and I'm accepting this ridiculous offer sheet, and you'll be screwed." He just skipped to the "okay you're screwed" part.

Are you serious? :unsure:

 

If so, would you really tell a prospective (or current) employer to give you only 70% of what you were offered by either them or someone else? Assuming the job description is remotely comparable (and in the Vanek case it is by definition), I see no way that a rational person does so. (Note: we aren't talking about a situation where you are a key player in a startup that you just KNOW in your heart that it will succeed and that by paying your dues now, you'll come out ahead in the long run. There is no true "long run" for a pro athlete.)

 

So, are you holding Vanek to a higher standard than you hold yourself, are you irrational, or are you simply exaggerating for the sake of it getting mighty dull around here?

[Stoner]

Are you serious? :unsure:

 

If so, would you really tell a prospective (or current) employer to give you only 70% of what you were offered by either them or someone else? Assuming the job description is remotely comparable (and in the Vanek case it is by definition), I see no way that a rational person does so. (Note: we aren't talking about a situation where you are a key player in a startup that you just KNOW in your heart that it will succeed and that by paying your dues now, you'll come out ahead in the long run. There is no true "long run" for a pro athlete.)

 

So, are you holding Vanek to a higher standard than you hold yourself, are you irrational, or are you simply exaggerating for the sake of it getting mighty dull around here?

 

OK, young Jack, now don't panic. Yes, Taro can be a little intimidating. Don't run. He'll just chase you down and eat you. Been there, done that. You could avoid eye contact and back up slowly. That'll work, if his cubs aren't around. I like to go with the "make yourself bigger than you" technique. So throw your arms and legs out, open your mouth really wide and puff out your chest -- the trick is still managing to type while doing all that. May God be with you.

[Stoner]

Are you serious? :unsure:

 

If so, would you really tell a prospective (or current) employer to give you only 70% of what you were offered by either them or someone else? Assuming the job description is remotely comparable (and in the Vanek case it is by definition), I see no way that a rational person does so. (Note: we aren't talking about a situation where you are a key player in a startup that you just KNOW in your heart that it will succeed and that by paying your dues now, you'll come out ahead in the long run. There is no true "long run" for a pro athlete.)

 

So, are you holding Vanek to a higher standard than you hold yourself, are you irrational, or are you simply exaggerating for the sake of it getting mighty dull around here?

 

What about the "hometown discount"?

 

PA curls up into a fetal position and covers his head and neck with some brush.

[Eleven]

What about the "hometown discount"?

 

PA curls up into a fetal position and covers his head and neck with some brush.

 

That is not the make yourself seem bigger than you are technique.

[shrader]

OK, young Jack, now don't panic. Yes, Taro can be a little intimidating. Don't run. He'll just chase you down and eat you. Been there, done that. You could avoid eye contact and back up slowly. That'll work, if his cubs aren't around. I like to go with the "make yourself bigger than you" technique. So throw your arms and legs out, open your mouth really wide and puff out your chest -- the trick is still managing to type while doing all that. May God be with you.

 

Guns help too.

[Tyrannustyrannus]

Hometown discount? I think LeBron James proved that doesn't exist.

 

As for when Briere tried that crap, I was almost glad to see him go. He exemplified everything I hated about big contracts and free agency. Remember when he went to arbitration in 2006 and priced his BFF JP Dumont out of town? You want to talk about hindsight? I wish we let Briere walk in 2006 and signed Dumont to a long term deal. He is the only free agent Darcy has let go that has lived up to his contract elsewhere.

[PotentPowerPlay22]

Even with hindsight, I'll take Vanek.

 

Never trade proven talent for prospective talent.

 

Let's examine the record since the Sabres matched the Edmonton offer for Vanek.

 

2007/2008 - missed the playoffs

 

2008/2009 - missed the playoffs

 

2009/2010 - eliminated in 1st round of playoffs

 

Wow! Holding on to Vanek for over $50 million has really paid off! What have the Sabres achieved by keeping Vanek? BUPKIS!!!!

 

The Sabres could have had FOUR 1st rounders in addition to their own 1st rounders and extra money to sign several quality free agents (proven talent) instead of paying Vanek. However, the people who love the idea of keeping Vanek have failed to look at the record.

 

The deal was a disaster!

[thesportsbuff]

Are you serious? :unsure:

 

If so, would you really tell a prospective (or current) employer to give you only 70% of what you were offered by either them or someone else? Assuming the job description is remotely comparable (and in the Vanek case it is by definition), I see no way that a rational person does so. (Note: we aren't talking about a situation where you are a key player in a startup that you just KNOW in your heart that it will succeed and that by paying your dues now, you'll come out ahead in the long run. There is no true "long run" for a pro athlete.)

 

So, are you holding Vanek to a higher standard than you hold yourself, are you irrational, or are you simply exaggerating for the sake of it getting mighty dull around here?

 

All of the above. I hold Vanek to a much higher standard than I hold myself. He's a professional athlete. He could make $5 mil for three years and retire happily if he wanted to. I don't want to get into the whole argument here about whether or not athletes deserve as much money as they make, but my point is that he really put the organization in a tough spot by signing that offer sheet. The organization who drafted him, developed him, and allowed him ice time to make a name for himself -- i know that deep down this all really means nothing, because it's true for any prospect entering the NHL, but where's the loyalty? Now he's rich, has a huge ego, and has delivered nothing. "Blah blah he needs a real center." $10 million players better figure out how to score goals and win by themselves.

 

He'll say all the right things to the media about how he loves buffalo, he loves his team mates, yada yada yada -- if he legit cared about bringing a cup to Buffalo, he wouldn't have robbed the team of 1/5th their payroll.

 

Having never been in a position to make a decision like that, I can't tell you for certain what I would have done. Talking about careers that your average joe such as you and I would possess doesn't really relate; normal people need that money to live comfortably and try to make the best out of life. When you're making millions of dollars a year playing hockey to win a Stanley Cup, I think I would have given a pay cut some consideration, not only just to play for a contender (at the time), but to allow them some money to recuperate from losing two 30 goal scoring captains.

 

Maybe saying no to $10 in favor of $5 is unrealistic, but he could have worked with Darcy to get a similar contract with a lower cap hit and allowed Buffalo some breathing room.

 

Not that any of that really matters since Darcy wouldn't have signed anybody notable, but just my thoughts on the matter. carry on

[SwampD]

Let's examine the record since the Sabres matched the Edmonton offer for Vanek.

 

2007/2008 - missed the playoffs

 

2008/2009 - missed the playoffs

 

2009/2010 - eliminated in 1st round of playoffs

 

Wow! Holding on to Vanek for over $50 million has really paid off! What have the Sabres achieved by keeping Vanek? BUPKIS!!!!

 

The Sabres could have had FOUR 1st rounders in addition to their own 1st rounders and extra money to sign several quality free agents (proven talent) instead of paying Vanek. However, the people who love the idea of keeping Vanek have failed to look at the record.

 

The deal was a disaster!

I hope this is a joke.

 

Edmonton

 

2007/2008 - missed the playoffs

 

2008/2009 - missed the playoffs

 

2009/2010 - Last in the league

 

How are those picks working out?

[thesportsbuff]

I hope this is a joke.

 

Edmonton

 

2007/2008 - missed the playoffs

 

2008/2009 - missed the playoffs

 

2009/2010 - Last in the league

 

How are those picks working out?

 

I'll let you know sometime next May

[jimiVbaby]

I disagree. If we had kept Briere and Drury, losing Vanek for four first rounders would make a lot of sense. People would still be upset, but not as much as they were when both Danny and Chris signed with other teams within hours of free agency. That was devastating to the team and the fan base -- if they let Vanek leave that situation gets even worse.

 

One thing I've always kind of wondered about the whole situation is who the ###### does Vanek think he is to even sign that offer sheet? It was a heck of a lot of money but gee, if there's one way to say "it's all about me, and it's all about money," that's it. Two years in the league and he was happy screwing Buffalo over for some extra bucks. I would have at least told Regier, "Hey, I'll sign with you for $5 mil per. Anything less and I'm accepting this ridiculous offer sheet, and you'll be screwed." He just skipped to the "okay you're screwed" part.

You've taken enough abuse on the second paragraph.. so I'll stick to the first.

 

The plan going into the post season was to sign Drury, let Briere walk, and sign Vanek to a reasonable (3-4 million?) deal. You must remember Darcy, LQ, et al thought Drury was locked up and didn't really expect such an outrageous offer sheet to come in for Vanek. I would say that Drury and Vanek were priorities 1 and 1a and if at all possible these players were going to be on the team next year. Darcy did say that they matched the offer to Drury but he decided to leave (which proves my point) and Vanek's deal was matched as well.

 

To say that keeping Vanek was simply to save some face is just not correct. Darcy's hand was forced by Vanek's agent for the amount, but Darcy has always put a much bigger value on young players and is much more willing to let a player walked after the age of 30.

[shrader]

Hometown discount? I think LeBron James proved that doesn't exist.

 

As for when Briere tried that crap, I was almost glad to see him go. He exemplified everything I hated about big contracts and free agency. Remember when he went to arbitration in 2006 and priced his BFF JP Dumont out of town? You want to talk about hindsight? I wish we let Briere walk in 2006 and signed Dumont to a long term deal. He is the only free agent Darcy has let go that has lived up to his contract elsewhere.

 

So Briere was evil for heading to arbitration yet Dumont is perfectly ok even though he did the same exact thing that season?