Oh my gosh -- Vanek was injured

[Robviously]

You couldn't be reading those folks more wrongly. It has everything to do with opportunity lost due to those salary numbers and nearly nothing to do with envy. Every guy on that team that is making more than they are worth is a guy who is preventing another player from coming in to better the team. It is a salary cap thing.

 

I suppose it's just easier to dismiss it as envy though. :rolleyes:

I think it has more to do with envy than you think and I don't think most people have thought through the "opportunity cost" argument against Vanek's contract.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. If Vanek disappeared off the face of the earth and we had $7,000,000 to play with, would the Sabres be a better team? Not necessarily, and I would argue probably not.

 

Very few superstar players hit the free agent market and you have to overpay to sign any unrestricted free agent because you're competing with other teams for that player. Having $7M to spend doesn't necessarily land you someone better than Vanek. It cost Buffalo $6M/year (and a six year commitment) just to get Ville Leino and his track record was nothing compared to Vanek's. His production this year wasn't close. Brad Richards (last year's premier forward UFA) cost more than Vanek (I think) and finished the season with just 5 more points. (He's also an older player and the Rangers are committed to him long enough that he should be well past his prime when that contract expires.)

 

This year's free agent crop of forwards is Zach Parise and a bunch of guys who aren't as good as Vanek. And even if you have the money, there's no guarantee that Parise picks your team instead of the 29 other teams who might be interested.

 

If acquiring a $7M/year forward whose production was worth exactly $7M/year was as simple as going to the store and picking one up then, yes, having Vanek under contract for that much would be hurting the team. Obviously that isn't the case. The NHL isn't an efficient market where every player is priced according to what he's worth.

 

If you're going to overpay a guy (which every team is), at least it's a guy whose production is good even in a down year. Vanek's contract isn't hurting the Sabres. If the Sabres are overpaying MANY players, then they're in poor shape.

[dEnnis the Menace]

[/b]

 

That was one of my points Weave . . The market for both Miller and Vanek is what they are paid now. In this market they are not overpaid. More than a few teams would pay their current salaries if they were put on waivers. (Hypothesis)..

 

If Darcy wanted to spend 14 mil on "other player upgrades", he need only do two things. 1. Put Vanek and Miller on waivers (making many here happy and probably them too) 2. Find players willing to come to Buffalo. He will probably will have to trade for them because i do not see impact players coming here freely from the open market..

 

Need more room put Roy on waivers>..Only twenty teams would claim him.. The problem is that DArcy will want more than their cap hits because he knows he cannot replace them easily. The problem is and never has been cap room..

 

I am very confused with your logic and it is becoming frustrating to me. Why would you put these players one waivers? if I'm not mistaken, you're still responsible for part of their salary then! If you really want to get rid of players...try a trade?

 

Also, Weave is absolutely correct is saying that it's opportunity lost by signing some of these mediocre players to lucrative contracts.

[RazielSabre]

Again, I don't get the issue with Leopold. He has 10 goals this year, tied for around 14th in the league, Myers has 8, and the rest of the dmen have a combined 11. He's a + player, plays both the PP and PK and is not a defensive liability. Is only 31, makes only $3 mill per and seems to like the area. What gives? I'm thinking he is one of the last dmen on the team i'm getting rid of.

 

His average and we have young guys who deserve a spot. His a good dman with value, but we McNabb and suchlike fit the spot better.

[dEnnis the Menace]

His average and we have young guys who deserve a spot. His a good dman with value, but we McNabb and suchlike fit the spot better.

 

I disagree. Leopold was great in the role he was asked to play. Our D, when healthy wasn't much of an issue. I'd rather have McNabb in the lineup than Weber. and I loved the pairing of Ehrhoff and Sulzer, as the two countrymen really clicked together. Sekera had a lot of mental collapses in the last couple of weeks of the season. Leopold is at least consistent. You know what you;re getting day in and day out. Sekera? Weber? not so much.

[Weave]

I think it has more to do with envy than you think and I don't think most people have thought through the "opportunity cost" argument against Vanek's contract.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. If Vanek disappeared off the face of the earth and we had $7,000,000 to play with, would the Sabres be a better team? Not necessarily, and I would argue probably not.

 

Very few superstar players hit the free agent market and you have to overpay to sign any unrestricted free agent because you're competing with other teams for that player. Having $7M to spend doesn't necessarily land you someone better than Vanek. It cost Buffalo $6M/year (and a six year commitment) just to get Ville Leino and his track record was nothing compared to Vanek's. His production this year wasn't close. Brad Richards (last year's premier forward UFA) cost more than Vanek (I think) and finished the season with just 5 more points. (He's also an older player and the Rangers are committed to him long enough that he should be well past his prime when that contract expires.)

 

This year's free agent crop of forwards is Zach Parise and a bunch of guys who aren't as good as Vanek. And even if you have the money, there's no guarantee that Parise picks your team instead of the 29 other teams who might be interested.

 

If acquiring a $7M/year forward whose production was worth exactly $7M/year was as simple as going to the store and picking one up then, yes, having Vanek under contract for that much would be hurting the team. Obviously that isn't the case. The NHL isn't an efficient market where every player is priced according to what he's worth.

 

If you're going to overpay a guy (which every team is), at least it's a guy whose production is good even in a down year. Vanek's contract isn't hurting the Sabres. If the Sabres are overpaying MANY players, then they're in poor shape.

 

All good points. But you are supposed to belittle me somehow if you *really* wanted to make your points more valid. :angel:

[waldo]

I think it has more to do with envy than you think and I don't think most people have thought through the "opportunity cost" argument against Vanek's contract.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. If Vanek disappeared off the face of the earth and we had $7,000,000 to play with, would the Sabres be a better team? Not necessarily, and I would argue probably not.

 

Very few superstar players hit the free agent market and you have to overpay to sign any unrestricted free agent because you're competing with other teams for that player. Having $7M to spend doesn't necessarily land you someone better than Vanek. It cost Buffalo $6M/year (and a six year commitment) just to get Ville Leino and his track record was nothing compared to Vanek's. His production this year wasn't close. Brad Richards (last year's premier forward UFA) cost more than Vanek (I think) and finished the season with just 5 more points. (He's also an older player and the Rangers are committed to him long enough that he should be well past his prime when that contract expires.)

 

This year's free agent crop of forwards is Zach Parise and a bunch of guys who aren't as good as Vanek. And even if you have the money, there's no guarantee that Parise picks your team instead of the 29 other teams who might be interested.

 

If acquiring a $7M/year forward whose production was worth exactly $7M/year was as simple as going to the store and picking one up then, yes, having Vanek under contract for that much would be hurting the team. Obviously that isn't the case. The NHL isn't an efficient market where every player is priced according to what he's worth.

 

If you're going to overpay a guy (which every team is), at least it's a guy whose production is good even in a down year. Vanek's contract isn't hurting the Sabres. If the Sabres are overpaying MANY players, then they're in poor shape.

 

Welcome to the fray brother..well stated

 

I am very confused with your logic and it is becoming frustrating to me. Why would you put these players one waivers? if I'm not mistaken, you're still responsible for part of their salary then! If you really want to get rid of players...try a trade?

 

Also, Weave is absolutely correct is saying that it's opportunity lost by signing some of these mediocre players to lucrative contracts.

 

True . good point...i was trying to go simple... should not have used waiver... just say.. they are availble if you assume their contracts?

[apuszczalowski]

This seems to be a common thing for Vanek every year, you find out he has been battling injuries to explain why he seemed to disapear. I don't have a problem with him as a player, when healthy he is a good one. I don't think he is great, or a top tier/elite type NHLer, and I think he is overpaid, but I wouldn't be actively trying to move him from the team. I would say that for the right offer, he is available. Everyone says that Ruff should be changed cause he hasn't won the Cup here yet during his time here, why should it be different with Vanek? I think as a secondary piece to a team, he is someone you would want, but as the top guy in your offence, he is lacking. But theres plenty more Deadweight/garbage on this team that should be moved/upgraded before Vanek

[waldo]

All good points. But you are supposed to belittle me somehow if you *really* wanted to make your points more valid. :angel:

 

If you felt that way i apoligize.. harder shell weave... harder shell.. i read all your posts and like many

 

This seems to be a common thing for Vanek every year, you find out he has been battling injuries to explain why he seemed to disapear. I don't have a problem with him as a player, when healthy he is a good one. I don't think he is great, or a top tier/elite type NHLer, and I think he is overpaid, but I wouldn't be actively trying to move him from the team. I would say that for the right offer, he is available. Everyone says that Ruff should be changed cause he hasn't won the Cup here yet during his time here, why should it be different with Vanek? I think as a secondary piece to a team, he is someone you would want, but as the top guy in your offence, he is lacking. But theres plenty more Deadweight/garbage on this team that should be moved/upgraded before Vanek

 

How many teams put their top offensive player in front of the net to get the crap kicked out of him every game. What does that take out of you over a season.

 

How many teams have their main scoring threat playing with a two or three center?

 

What would his pp goals look like with a top 10 pp?

 

He is not and never has been an elite player but he is still a potential 40+ goal scorer/playmaker with the right linemates,a pp and a second scoring line. I believe with a center and a pp he can be a legit 80-90 pt guy and that is elite. What is that worth in this market

 

There are very few teams where he would be a secondary piece... Maybe Pitt???? He is one of those guys that makes everbody he plays with better. The puck finds some guys if you give them enough ice time. He is one of those guys.

[apuszczalowski]

If you felt that way i apoligize.. harder shell weave... harder shell.. i read all your posts and like many

 

 

 

How many teams put their top offensive player in front of the net to get the crap kicked out of him every game. What does that take out of you over a season.

 

How many teams have their main scoring threat playing with a two or three center?

 

What would his pp goals look like with a top 10 pp?

 

He is not and never has been an elite player but he is still a potential 40+ goal scorer/playmaker with the right linemates and pp . I believe with a center and a pp he can be a legit 80-90 pt guy and that is elite. What is that worth in this market

 

There are very few teams where he would be a secondary piece... Maybe Pitt????

I can think of plenty of places where he wouldn't be the focal point of the offence. We have seen what he can do when he is the focal point of the offence, and when he was a "secondary piece" (i.e. when they had Briere and Drury to take attention away from Vanek). He isn't the kind of player who is going to make the other players around him that much better, and you are basically saying that for him to be better, he needs someone else to make him better

 

I'm not hating him, I'm just saying that he isn't at the same level as a Crosby, or Malkin, or Sedin, or Stamkos, or Lecavalier, or St. Louis, or Staal, or Iginla, etc.

[waldo]

I can think of plenty of places where he wouldn't be the focal point of the offence. We have seen what he can do when he is the focal point of the offence, and when he was a "secondary piece" (i.e. when they had Briere and Drury to take attention away from Vanek). He isn't the kind of player who is going to make the other players around him that much better, and you are basically saying that for him to be better, he needs someone else to make him better

 

I'm not hating him, I'm just saying that he isn't at the same level as a Crosby, or Malkin, or Sedin, or Stamkos, or Lecavalier, or St. Louis, or Staal, or Iginla, etc.

 

agreed he is not .. Lecavalier 10 million, Crosby 9 million, Malkin 9 million,Stamkos.7.5,(nhl salary 8 mil) Sedin 6.2 million,Staal 8.5 million

 

 

St louis and Iginla are a reach for obvious reasons

[TrueBlueGED]

I think it has more to do with envy than you think and I don't think most people have thought through the "opportunity cost" argument against Vanek's contract.

 

Is Vanek overpaid? Yes. If Vanek disappeared off the face of the earth and we had $7,000,000 to play with, would the Sabres be a better team? Not necessarily, and I would argue probably not.

 

Very few superstar players hit the free agent market and you have to overpay to sign any unrestricted free agent because you're competing with other teams for that player. Having $7M to spend doesn't necessarily land you someone better than Vanek. It cost Buffalo $6M/year (and a six year commitment) just to get Ville Leino and his track record was nothing compared to Vanek's. His production this year wasn't close. Brad Richards (last year's premier forward UFA) cost more than Vanek (I think) and finished the season with just 5 more points. (He's also an older player and the Rangers are committed to him long enough that he should be well past his prime when that contract expires.)

 

This year's free agent crop of forwards is Zach Parise and a bunch of guys who aren't as good as Vanek. And even if you have the money, there's no guarantee that Parise picks your team instead of the 29 other teams who might be interested.

 

If acquiring a $7M/year forward whose production was worth exactly $7M/year was as simple as going to the store and picking one up then, yes, having Vanek under contract for that much would be hurting the team. Obviously that isn't the case. The NHL isn't an efficient market where every player is priced according to what he's worth.

 

If you're going to overpay a guy (which every team is), at least it's a guy whose production is good even in a down year. Vanek's contract isn't hurting the Sabres. If the Sabres are overpaying MANY players, then they're in poor shape.

 

I agree with most of what you said, but Leino is only costing $4.5 million per year ;)

[beerme1]

Again, I don't get the issue with Leopold. He has 10 goals this year, tied for around 14th in the league, Myers has 8, and the rest of the dmen have a combined 11. He's a + player, plays both the PP and PK and is not a defensive liability. Is only 31, makes only $3 mill per and seems to like the area. What gives? I'm thinking he is one of the last dmen on the team i'm getting rid of.

 

In the who should be Captian thread before the season started I picked Leo for Captain on this team of underachievers. I have no problem with him. But I am somewhat surprised they didn't move him at the deadline.

 

I think he plays better against us then he does against any other team, for obvious reasons.........I wonder how bad he would have been roasted on these boards this season for his 16 goals he scored this year.

 

Of course he would've been roasted here for this season. Also his first one in Philly would have had him treated badly here too.

Funny thing how much is forgiven though when you are a reliable and consistent playoff performer though isn't it?

Hell last year some people forgot the regular season for the contruibution Neidermeyer made in the playoff for us lol.

[fan2456]

I marvel at those posters that have to repeat it over and over again.Millers 31 million, Vaneks 6.5 million. They suffer from an Obama class warfare kinda personality disorder . I guess the argument plays well with certain types of people who for one reason or another are driven by envy and need to displace their problems in life by blaming someone else .When you find that mindset in sports the probability is high you will also find it in their personal lives. It plays right into they are not contributing their fair share given how much they make? Some people just need envy and hate in their lives to feel good about themselves.hey will tell you it is about value within the cap, but thats just cover.

 

 

It must be their fault. They make the most money?? It is probably cathartic for them to say it over and over again and again and again and again. It is a mantra.. Repeat it enough times and it becomes truth. It is all Millers fault or Vaneks fault or or or or.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nhl/ I'm not envious of any of these players. They were in a spot at the right time and a team was willing to pay them Some GM's made good moves, and some did not. I am envious of TEAMS who have better top paid players.But, that too, is on the GM.

[Robviously]

All good points. But you are supposed to belittle me somehow if you *really* wanted to make your points more valid. :angel:

Past instances in which I professed to like you.....WERE FRAUDULENT!

 

http://sydlexia.com/games-and-fun-stuff.htm

[Robviously]

I can think of plenty of places where he wouldn't be the focal point of the offence. We have seen what he can do when he is the focal point of the offence, and when he was a "secondary piece" (i.e. when they had Briere and Drury to take attention away from Vanek). He isn't the kind of player who is going to make the other players around him that much better, and you are basically saying that for him to be better, he needs someone else to make him better

Believe it or not, Vanek scored 36 and 40 goals, respectively, in the first two seasons after Briere and Drury were gone. So it's not like he became a completely different player once those two guys left. True, his single best season was 2006-2007, but the NHL was calling the game differently then and that team was stacked with talent from top to bottom. (Briere and Drury also had their best seasons that year and it's not a coincidence.)

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000332007.html

 

I would also argue that Vanek DOES make the other guys around him better. He carried the team for a while last season after Roy went down and is pretty much the only guy we can count on to stand in front of the net on the power play. He's had more assists than goals each of the last two seasons.

 

I'm not hating him, I'm just saying that he isn't at the same level as a Crosby, or Malkin, or Sedin, or Stamkos, or Lecavalier, or St. Louis, or Staal, or Iginla, etc.

I don't think this needs to be said. No one has ever said he's as good as any of those guys and he was never touted as having that potential even in the hype leading up to the Sabres drafting him.

 

His salary is comparable but that's mainly because Edmonton gave him a contract as an RFA that they didn't think Buffalo would be inclined to match. That money was just for performance. Their plan probably would have worked except the Sabres were so incompetent that they let BOTH captains get away and couldn't let all three of their biggest stars leave in the same summer.

[qwksndmonster]

Bad move by Ruff to keep Vanek in there, but i expect it was a decision they both made. Vanek is very competitive and hates missing games, but if he's going to play the way he did at the end of the season then he needs to learn how to take a couple weeks of the regular season off. It should be interesting to see how Vanek does next season with Hodgson as his center.

[X. Benedict]

Bad move by Ruff to keep Vanek in there, but i expect it was a decision they both made. Vanek is very competitive and hates missing games, but if he's going to play the way he did at the end of the season then he needs to learn how to take a couple weeks of the regular season off. It should be interesting to see how Vanek does next season with Hodgson as his center.

Not really a bad move IMO. As a coach you have to make the other team make tough decisions - such as who is going to draw shut-down coverage.

 

If Vanek is injured but still draws top coverage.....a Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line can thrive against 2nd pairings and weaker defensive forwards. Which is pretty much what happened.

[Robviously]

Not really a bad move IMO. As a coach you have to make the other team make tough decisions - such as who is going to draw shut-down coverage.

 

If Vanek is injured but still draws top coverage.....a Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line can thrive against 2nd pairings and weaker defensive forwards. Which is pretty much what happened.

But Vanek doesn't make his teammates better...... :unsure:

[LTS]

Ugh, sorry about that. I didn't see that in the other thread and really thought this belonged on the board somewhere.

 

 

Who did you want to give his ice time to?

 

He had 7 goals and 13 assists in the last 35 games of the season. He was a -7 during that span. During the first 47 games he had 19 goals and 22 assists.and +2. I'd elevate anyone up the depth chart for two weeks to play in his place to let him heal up and bring back that potential production. Having him limp along for 35 games (granted, he's productive) is inane. Bring up someone from Rochester to fill a 3rd or 4th line spot and move someone up. I'd move Boyes up, regardless of what people think of him.. he CAN score because he has.. whether he would or wouldn't... who knows.

 

It's not just a sports thing, how many of us have worked while feeling down and out? I know I have because I make damn sure I do everything I can to go to work. You can argue it's sense with logic but all Vanek did is do what most of us would do, do our best to be in the game; even if that means working through multiple injuries.

 

I get his desire to play. It's misguided desire. In my office if you are sick we kick your ass out the door. Why? Because first, you aren't going to be productive and second you are going to spread the sickness. It's a liability. In Pro Sports the mentality is usually that you work your ass off to get to that level and it's easy to be replaced. What if the next guy outperforms me? It happened to Gerbe. I get that mentality. At the same time the coach has to yank him. If Vanek is hiding it (although if we as fans are aware of it then Ruff HAD to be) then he's hurting his team. Take a few games.. you are the top paid player and an "A". Your spot isn't going away.

 

Why do you think he was on the ice.

Why do you think he was on the ice with a third line center and an AHL winger?

Why was Miller back in net so soon? (some could argue way to soon)

 

 

Miller? Perhaps because he convinced Ruff that he was better and perhaps because there would other people to blame for his poor play.

 

After the trade deadline the Sabres essentially had three 2nd lines. He's on the ice with Hodgson because Vanek is worthless with Roy and Ennis was on fire so you aren't changing that. Tropp is there because, once again, the chemistry was right. And if he's on the ice with a "3rd" line then he should be off the ice because that only backs my argument that you heal him up and play a 3rd liner.

 

Not really a bad move IMO. As a coach you have to make the other team make tough decisions - such as who is going to draw shut-down coverage.

 

If Vanek is injured but still draws top coverage.....a Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line can thrive against 2nd pairings and weaker defensive forwards. Which is pretty much what happened.

 

I don't know that any team was really keying on Vanek at that point. Again, if fans can tell Vanek's injured then other players and coaches sure as hell know it.

[X. Benedict]

 

 

I don't know that any team was really keying on Vanek at that point. Again, if fans can tell Vanek's injured then other players and coaches sure as hell know it.

 

Its easiest to tell at the away games. Last one in NY...Vanek was drawing Staal and Del Zotto for sure.

[Robviously]

He had 7 goals and 13 assists in the last 35 games of the season. He was a -7 during that span. During the first 47 games he had 19 goals and 22 assists.and +2. I'd elevate anyone up the depth chart for two weeks to play in his place to let him heal up and bring back that potential production. Having him limp along for 35 games (granted, he's productive) is inane. Bring up someone from Rochester to fill a 3rd or 4th line spot and move someone up. I'd move Boyes up, regardless of what people think of him.. he CAN score because he has.. whether he would or wouldn't... who knows.

Vanek had 20 points in his last 35 games, which is apparently horrible, so we should give his playing time to Brad Boyes, who had 23 points in all 65 games he played this season. I guess I'm not convinced.

 

And I'm pretty sure we brought up every forward in Rochester who has any chance of being a future Sabre at some point this season. Should we have brought up Phil Varone as well?

 

Also, FWIW, Vanek was least effective in January (2 points), a little better in February, and then decent in March and April (finishing with 11 points in his last 10 games). So maybe he did play through it and get stronger as the year went on even without being benched.

[waldo]

Not really a bad move IMO. As a coach you have to make the other team make tough decisions - such as who is going to draw shut-down coverage.

 

If Vanek is injured but still draws top coverage.....a Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line can thrive against 2nd pairings and weaker defensive forwards. Which is pretty much what happened.

 

You are too smart.. You had to go and answer the question I asked of LTS.

 

Do you want to answer the Miller question too? :rolleyes: .

[Campy]

It was obvious he was hurting and gets kudos for giving it a go in the 2nd half of the season. He has good hands, is strong in front of the net (epecially on the PP), and with the exception of 5 games at the start of this season, he is also one of the laziest hockey players I've ever seen.

 

But he's as good as we have, so we need to keep him.

[X. Benedict]

It was obvious he was hurting and gets kudos for giving it a go in the 2nd half of the season. He has good hands, is strong in front of the net (epecially on the PP), and with the exception of 5 games at the start of this season, he is also one of the laziest hockey players I've ever seen.

 

But he's as good as we have, so we need to keep him.

Interesting.

 

Except for some silly stick minors that can slip into his came, I have a very different impression. I think Vanek brings it nearly every shift. He absorbs a lot of punishment while, lazy players tend to avoid it.

 

Not his best season, of course, but nothing has changed my impression.

[Robviously]

It was obvious he was hurting and gets kudos for giving it a go in the 2nd half of the season. He has good hands, is strong in front of the net (epecially on the PP), and with the exception of 5 games at the start of this season, he is also one of the laziest hockey players I've ever seen.

 

But he's as good as we have, so we need to keep him.

It's bizarre that we watch the same player and you're 100% confident that he's one of the laziest you've ever seen and I'm 100% confident that he's busting his ass out there.

 

We do know he has 447 points in 547 NHL games. Assuming you're right and he's one of the laziest players ever, how many points do you think he'd have if he was trying? 500? 600?