GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[Robviously]

If there were more Vanek's we would have a Stanley Cup? :blink:

 

Ohhh kay!

No, stupid, what I wrote was:

If he was our worst-ever bust, the rafters at HSBC Arena would be full of Stanley Cup Champion banners.

Meaning if Vanek was the worst mistake this team ever made, and every decision was better than drafting Thomas Vanek, then we'd be on of the most successful teams of all time.

 

Your comparison to that 2000 draft pick is problematical at best.

Not really. I'm saying a first round pick who never played an NHL game is a bigger bust than a first round pick with 176 career goals in 400 games and two 40-goal seasons. You seem confused by this.

 

Vanek isn't just some draft pick that didn't pan out. Those are a dime a dozen. He has a tremendous amount invested in him from this organization. We didn't waste a $10 million signing bonus and $7 mill a year {that's about right, isn't it?] plus gave up four first round draft picks--Edmontons picks no less!!-- for anyone else.

Actually we didn't "give up" ANY draft picks to keep him. We didn't trade draft picks to keep him; we were offered draft picks from someone else to let him go and didn't bite.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. We're still $5M under the cap. And we still tried to sign Koivu and Cullen last summer but neither player wanted to be here. Has that contract prevented us from signing or re-signing anyone yet?

 

So basically we're supposed to call Vanek our worst ever bust because we didn't effectively trade him for a bunch of draft picks who may or may not turn out to be as good as he is. That's your rationale?

[waldo]

No, stupid, what I wrote was:

 

Meaning if Vanek was the worst mistake this team ever made, and every decision was better than drafting Thomas Vanek, then we'd be on of the most successful teams of all time.

 

 

Not really. I'm saying a first round pick who never played an NHL game is a bigger bust than a first round pick with 176 career goals in 400 games and two 40-goal seasons. You seem confused by this.

 

 

Actually we didn't "give up" ANY draft picks to keep him. We didn't trade draft picks to keep him; we were offered draft picks from someone else to let him go and didn't bite.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. We're still $5M under the cap. And we still tried to sign Koivu and Cullen last summer but neither player wanted to be here. Has that contract prevented us from signing or re-signing anyone yet?

 

So basically we're supposed to call Vanek our worst ever bust because we didn't effectively trade him for a bunch of draft picks who may or may not turn out to be as good as he is. That's your rationale?

 

 

THAT IS HIS RATIONALE! CORRECT. amazing is'nt it

[bob_sauve28]

No, stupid, what I wrote was:

 

Meaning if Vanek was the worst mistake this team ever made, and every decision was better than drafting Thomas Vanek, then we'd be on of the most successful teams of all time.

 

 

Not really. I'm saying a first round pick who never played an NHL game is a bigger bust than a first round pick with 176 career goals in 400 games and two 40-goal seasons. You seem confused by this.

 

 

Actually we didn't "give up" ANY draft picks to keep him. We didn't trade draft picks to keep him; we were offered draft picks from someone else to let him go and didn't bite.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. We're still $5M under the cap. And we still tried to sign Koivu and Cullen last summer but neither player wanted to be here. Has that contract prevented us from signing or re-signing anyone yet?

 

So basically we're supposed to call Vanek our worst ever bust because we didn't effectively trade him for a bunch of draft picks who may or may not turn out to be as good as he is. That's your rationale?

Stupid? Ha ha, ok kid. I see your Vanek love is pretty emotional. If you are actually saying we didn't pass up a lot to keep this guy you are just lying to yourself on purpose. Self-brainwashing. I think you are just splitting hairs and dancing the rail because you know I'm right. And BTW, I said he was heading towards worst bust ever, not there yet, but getting there quickly, and accecerating. Glad you admit he is way overpaid. Why was he paid so much? Because they thought he was worth it, he isn't. If that doesn't matter to you, well then I guess we measure players differently, I can live with that.

 

As to those four first round picks, you can whine and cry they wouldn't have turned out, but you can never say that for sure. It's just an unknown, but that is how it works.

 

 

Really, this is the season he was suppose to be the man. He's killing this team by not doing anything. That total flub in OT was just emblematic of his season of failure. The powerplay is the worst I have ever seen on this team. He doesn't seem to be helping out much in fixing that. Maybe he will have one of those hot months he has had in the past and lift the team into contention for awhile. And hopefully he won't fade again.

[bob_sauve28]

I am talking about the overall price to acquire the player. Connolly is as tied to the Peca situation as Vanek is being a top 5 draft pick.

No, that's not true. Peca wanted out, Connolly just happened to be out there and available. Peca would have left regardless of Connolly.

[X. Benedict]

If there were more Vanek's we would have a Stanley Cup? :blink:

 

Ohhh kay!

 

Your comparison to that 2000 draft pick is problematical at best. Vanek isn't just some draft pick that didn't pan out. Those are a dime a dozen. He has a tremendous amount invested in him from this organization. We didn't waste a $10 million signing bonus and $7 mill a year {that's about right, isn't it?] plus gave up four first round draft picks--Edmontons picks no less!!-- for anyone else. Not to Cyr or Connolly. No, If Vanek doesn't somehow show he can score regularily again, he is, IMO, the biggest bust all time.

 

Recent troubles aside - Vanek has averaged 34 goals a year.

 

You could make a case that that he has under-performed per dollars - but I would not say he is close to bust territory myself. (And no signing bonus, the $10 mil was his contract salary - he'll make 6.4 million this year for a 7.1 cap hit average).

 

I guess I've never liked having a wing as the highest paid skater - but most 30 goals scorers are going to make at least $5 million once they have the leverage under the CBA.

[bob_sauve28]

Recent troubles aside - Vanek has averaged 34 goals a year. You could make a case that that he has under-performed per dollars - but I would not say he is close to bust territory myself. (And no signing bonus, the $10 mil was his contract salary - he'll make 6.4 million this year for a 7.1 cap hit average).

 

I guess I've never liked having a wing as the highest paid skater - but most 30 goals scorers are going to make at least $5 million once they have the leverage under the CBA.

X, don't you think that is a little misleading? He had his best season before we invested the money and gave up the chance for the draft picks. He wasn't facing the top defense pairs or the best forwards. I agree with your point that in and of himself, he is not a bust. He is a decent NHL player, but for what we have invested in him, what the team was hoping for, I think that has not worked out at all. In that sense he is leaning towards being a big time mistake.

[X. Benedict]

X, don't you think that is a little misleading? He had his best season before we invested the money and gave up the chance for the draft picks. He wasn't facing the top defense pairs or the best forwards. I agree with your point that in and of himself, he is not a bust. He is a decent NHL player, but for what we have invested in him, what the team was hoping for, I think that has not worked out at all. In that sense he is leaning towards being a big time mistake.

I have a nuanced answer - I guess it is a matter of categorization.

 

The team's hand was forced with the Edmonton contract, and he did have a 40 goal season the first year of that contract. Since then the

Sabres have gone to a more traditional lineup- A top 6 - Checking - and Energy line.(rather than three and four smallish and fast lines that come in waves) What hasn't adjusted to this setup with a traditional top 6 style is you need a bigger game in front of the net.

 

I could imagine Vanek playing elsewhere and scoring 45-50 goals with a classic down the middle, play-making center, say a Ryan Getzlaf, or even smaller guys like Toews or Richards.

 

What I don't think happens in Buffalo, is that I don't think there is enough design with Vanek in mind. Organizationally, they really don't have that center (so that is Regier), and in terms of gameplay, I don't see nearly enough intention to get the puck on Vaneks stick to get him 5 or 6 shots a game. (that's Ruff).

 

The last part of this is that I don't think Vanek has a sniper mentality. The team, and even other teams, should know if it touches his stick it is going to net. This would do two things. It would give his linemates more space...and they know when it goes to him it is their job to crash net. Too many times they freeze. All of 'em. They just freeze. (as much as Ruff asks for the shot.....it ain't happening)

 

So there is my long winded answer. Certainly not a bust, but too often ineffectual for the above reasons. Take Vanek away, they are not a better team (as per first round playoff meltdown).

 

:lol:

[Eleven]

No, that's not true. Peca wanted out, Connolly just happened to be out there and available. Peca would have left regardless of Connolly.

 

yep.

[Robviously]

Stupid? Ha ha, ok kid. I see your Vanek love is pretty emotional. If you are actually saying we didn't pass up a lot to keep this guy you are just lying to yourself on purpose. Self-brainwashing.

Actually, it's not emotional. I'm the one bringing up his career stats. You're the one whining about the draft picks we didn't trade him for.

 

I think you are just splitting hairs and dancing the rail because you know I'm right.

You go on thinking that, Bob.

 

How is bringing up his career stats "splitting hairs"?

 

And BTW, I said he was heading towards worst bust ever, not there yet, but getting there quickly, and accecerating.

THIS would be an example of someone splitting hairs.

 

As to those four first round picks, you can whine and cry they wouldn't have turned out, but you can never say that for sure. It's just an unknown, but that is how it works.

Moron, I'm the one who said that we don't know if any of Edmonton's picks will turn out to be as good as Vanek. That was me. I said that above. You must have serious reading comprehension issues (or a wild imagination) if you think I have already written off every player Edmonton has drafted in the first round over the last four years.

 

Really, this is the season he was suppose to be the man. He's killing this team by not doing anything. That total flub in OT was just emblematic of his season of failure. The powerplay is the worst I have ever seen on this team. He doesn't seem to be helping out much in fixing that. Maybe he will have one of those hot months he has had in the past and lift the team into contention for awhile. And hopefully he won't fade again.

So EVERYTHING wrong with the Sabres is Vanek's fault because he's their highest paid player?

 

And would you admit that you might *maybe* be exaggerating things a bit when you say he's not doing "anything"? Our last two wins were shootout wins and he scored in both shootouts.

 

Now I know from this thread that you have trouble reading and understanding what other people write, so I'm guessing you might also have trouble remembering everything that happens in a hockey game that you just watched. That said, at least try to pay attention to the games before calling one of our only decent players the worst bust in team history.

[Stoner]

X, don't you think that is a little misleading? He had his best season before we invested the money and gave up the chance for the draft picks. He wasn't facing the top defense pairs or the best forwards. I agree with your point that in and of himself, he is not a bust. He is a decent NHL player, but for what we have invested in him, what the team was hoping for, I think that has not worked out at all. In that sense he is leaning towards being a big time mistake.

It's not like he fell off the face of the earth after July 1, 2007. He did score 76 goals the next two seasons. In fact, his most productive season was 2008-2009 (goals per game). One of those years, maybe both, he scored more goals per minute of ice time than the Great Ovechkin.

 

I strongly suspect there's a rift between Vanek and Ruff that's playing out these last two seasons. Vanek's had it, and only a fresh start somewhere else, or a new coach in Buffalo, is going to get his career going again. X. points out the offensive scheme that fails to highlight Vanek. I'll add the bizarre suppression of Vanek's ice time. And the dangling of penalty killing time only to have it yanked away after he scored two shorthanded goals. Something which clearly bothered Vanek, since he put a question about it on his own web site.

 

But as Swamp has said, Ruff doesn't want any superstars on his team. Can you imagine where Crosby's career would have gone had the Sabres won that lottery? As an aside, it's pretty apparent in recent years, Lindy doesn't want a strong captain on his team either. We all know Lindy's the captain of this Great Lakes iron ore freighter.

[Robviously]

What I don't think happens in Buffalo, is that I don't think there is enough design with Vanek in mind. Organizationally, they really don't have that center (so that is Regier), and in terms of gameplay, I don't see nearly enough intention to get the puck on Vaneks stick to get him 5 or 6 shots a game. (that's Ruff).

Is there any design with anyone in mind? I don't know if the Sabres roster was ever "designed."

 

They accidentally caught lightning in the bottle the year after the lockout and had the best team in the league. The next year we won the Presidents' Trophy but weren't as good because Regier accidentally subtracted a ton of toughness from the team. After that, the Sabres were caught with their pants down and lost their two captains because they had no idea how free agency would go. After that PR nightmare, they decided to just re-sign EVERYONE they could (Hecht, Connolly, Pominville, Miller, Vanek) to prove to the fans that they could keep their own players. And since then the only roster moves involve trading second round picks for terrible rental players.

 

I think there's a better than 50-50 chance that Regier has never had a master plan for creating a team capable of winning the Stanley Cup.

[Robviously]

It's not like he fell off the face of the earth after July 1, 2007. He did score 76 goals the next two seasons. In fact, his most productive season was 2008-2009 (goals per game). One of those years, maybe both, he scored more goals per minute of ice time than the Great Ovechkin.

We were also dominating the Bruins in last year's playoff series before they took out Vanek in game 2. Not a coincidence. He's a very good player. And I hate to say it, but there are probably about 20 NHL teams where he'd probably put up better numbers. The Sabres are a mess and have been for a while.

[bob_sauve28]

Actually, it's not emotional. I'm the one bringing up his career stats. You're the one whining about the draft picks we didn't trade him for.

 

 

You go on thinking that, Bob.

 

How is bringing up his career stats "splitting hairs"?

 

 

THIS would be an example of someone splitting hairs.

 

 

Moron, I'm the one who said that we don't know if any of Edmonton's picks will turn out to be as good as Vanek. That was me. I said that above. You must have serious reading comprehension issues (or a wild imagination) if you think I have already written off every player Edmonton has drafted in the first round over the last four years.

 

 

So EVERYTHING wrong with the Sabres is Vanek's fault because he's their highest paid player?

 

And would you admit that you might *maybe* be exaggerating things a bit when you say he's not doing "anything"? Our last two wins were shootout wins and he scored in both shootouts.

 

Now I know from this thread that you have trouble reading and understanding what other people write, so I'm guessing you might also have trouble remembering everything that happens in a hockey game that you just watched. That said, at least try to pay attention to the games before calling one of our only decent players the worst bust in team history.

You are worthless to argue with. Don't bother me anymore sport

[bob_sauve28]

It's not like he fell off the face of the earth after July 1, 2007. He did score 76 goals the next two seasons. In fact, his most productive season was 2008-2009 (goals per game). One of those years, maybe both, he scored more goals per minute of ice time than the Great Ovechkin.

 

I strongly suspect there's a rift between Vanek and Ruff that's playing out these last two seasons. Vanek's had it, and only a fresh start somewhere else, or a new coach in Buffalo, is going to get his career going again. X. points out the offensive scheme that fails to highlight Vanek. I'll add the bizarre suppression of Vanek's ice time. And the dangling of penalty killing time only to have it yanked away after he scored two shorthanded goals. Something which clearly bothered Vanek, since he put a question about it on his own web site.

 

But as Swamp has said, Ruff doesn't want any superstars on his team. Can you imagine where Crosby's career would have gone had the Sabres won that lottery? As an aside, it's pretty apparent in recent years, Lindy doesn't want a strong captain on his team either. We all know Lindy's the captain of this Great Lakes iron ore freighter.

 

I can't get into your Ruff charaterizations, but it would not surprise me if you were right. Still, if all that is true, why did they keep him, waste all that money and pass up on four first round picks if he couldn't play well here under Ruff? Another strike against this organization. They should have let him go and signed another player(s) and then drafted eight first round picks in the next four years. They had the Hershel Walker deal in reverse here and passed it up. They didn't have the stones to take a pretty good deal and run with it. The thing that kills me, is that these guys [Ruff, Regier and the stuffed shirt] seem to have absolute job security, so the idea that Vanek leaving would have destroyed the organization losses credibility. And from what I'm reading, one of these picks might be number one overall next year? Wow!

 

And I think alot of people were pointing out the fact Vanek had not gone against the top defensive players on the opposition.

[bob_sauve28]

Yup, Edmonton is withering away in last place :death:

[Robviously]

You are worthless to argue with. Don't bother me anymore sport

I'm sorry that pointing our your terrible logic and reading comprehension bothers you, sport.

[deluca67]

No, that's not true. Peca wanted out, Connolly just happened to be out there and available. Peca would have left regardless of Connolly.

What Peca wanted at the time has nothing to do with the initial point. The discussion was about all-time Sabres busts. I take bust to mean the cost of acquiring a player through trade or draft compared to that players production. If Connolly was a fourth round draft pick the feelings regarding his play would be far different. Unfortunately for Connolly, he was part of one of the most unpopular trades, if not "the" most unpopular trade in franchise history. That has stuck to him and will continue to stick to him. Connolly is a constant reminder of a situation that may have cost the Sabres a chance at a Cup in 2001. I did not intend to insinuate that Connolly himself cost the Sabres a Stanley Cup. He is the residue of a horribly handled situation that has to be weighed when considering all-time busts.

[bob_sauve28]

What Peca wanted at the time has nothing to do with the initial point. The discussion was about all-time Sabres busts. I take bust to mean the cost of acquiring a player through trade or draft compared to that players production. If Connolly was a fourth round draft pick the feelings regarding his play would be far different. Unfortunately for Connolly, he was part of one of the most unpopular trades, if not "the" most unpopular trade in franchise history. That has stuck to him and will continue to stick to him. Connolly is a constant reminder of a situation that may have cost the Sabres a chance at a Cup in 2001. I did not intend to insinuate that Connolly himself cost the Sabres a Stanley Cup. He is the residue of a horribly handled situation that has to be weighed when considering all-time busts.

Ummmm...no. Just Mike Peca vs. four first round picks, $10 million signing bonus and $6.3 million a year paid into almost perpetuity? Ya, I'd say we paid just a tab more for Vanek.

[deluca67]

Ummmm...no. Just Mike Peca vs. four first round picks, $10 million signing bonus and $6.3 million a year paid into almost perpetuity? Ya, I'd say we paid just a tab more for Vanek.

There are many here that feel that not having Michael Peca cost this team a chance at the Cup. I am one who feels that Peca wold have been a difference against the Pens. A chance at the Cup vs. draft picks and Tom Golisano's money? You decide.

[bob_sauve28]

There are many here that feel that not having Michael Peca cost this team a chance at the Cup. I am one who feels that Peca wold have been a difference against the Pens. A chance at the Cup vs. draft picks and Tom Golisano's money? You decide.

I have decided

[Eleven]

There are many here that feel that not having Michael Peca cost this team a chance at the Cup. I am one who feels that Peca wold have been a difference against the Pens. A chance at the Cup vs. draft picks and Tom Golisano's money? You decide.

 

I agree with you that Peca may have been the difference, but the notion that the Sabres traded away a chance at the Cup for Connolly isn't exactly correct. Peca left. Perhaps the Rigases should have paid him the money, perhaps not, but it's definitely not like the team saw Connolly as some sort of missing piece to the puzzle for which they were willing to trade the captain.

[waldo]

I have a nuanced answer - I guess it is a matter of categorization.

 

The team's hand was forced with the Edmonton contract, and he did have a 40 goal season the first year of that contract. Since then the

Sabres have gone to a more traditional lineup- A top 6 - Checking - and Energy line.(rather than three and four smallish and fast lines that come in waves) What hasn't adjusted to this setup with a traditional top 6 style is you need a bigger game in front of the net.

 

I could imagine Vanek playing elsewhere and scoring 45-50 goals with a classic down the middle, play-making center, say a Ryan Getzlaf, or even smaller guys like Toews or Richards.

 

What I don't think happens in Buffalo, is that I don't think there is enough design with Vanek in mind. Organizationally, they really don't have that center (so that is Regier), and in terms of gameplay, I don't see nearly enough intention to get the puck on Vaneks stick to get him 5 or 6 shots a game. (that's Ruff).

 

The last part of this is that I don't think Vanek has a sniper mentality. The team, and even other teams, should know if it touches his stick it is going to net. This would do two things. It would give his linemates more space...and they know when it goes to him it is their job to crash net. Too many times they freeze. All of 'em. They just freeze. (as much as Ruff asks for the shot.....it ain't happening)

 

So there is my long winded answer. Certainly not a bust, but too often ineffectual for the above reasons. Take Vanek away, they are not a better team (as per first round playoff meltdown).

 

:lol:

 

 

Thanks for putting this post up Prospect. My guess is you either coached, play, or played, rare here that the comments are informed observations actually relating to the game.

 

Some semblence of a power play would help too.It has been two years. I think it is time to maybe experiment and move Vanek out of the slot on the pp, the opposition has adjusted. Maybe they should let him operate from the outside a bit where his hockey sense can be used. Spacek would be perfect as a replacement. Plus it will keep Myers from trying to kill him. When will someone teach the kid when and how to shoot on a power play

 

I agree, the Sabres need a playmaker to pair with Vanek. Especially one who can function on the PP. That is the single most important move they could make. It could change the season and with two lines to worry about it would be hard for the opposition to continue keying on Vanek. Good forbid the opposing coach has to think about matching up against two lines.