Oh my gosh -- Vanek was injured

[darksabre]

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?

 

For the record, I see what you see.

 

Vanek is a player that is trying, but not being properly utilized. It's like using a scalpel to chop down a tree.

[waldo]

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?

 

PERFECT response... :rolleyes:

[BarDown]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

I understand everything you said here...it's a great post. The only thing I can say about it is that athletes (and coaches) have a saying, or a code..."are you injured or are you hurt?" If you are injured you sit, if you're hurt you play...simple as that...especially if you are making 7 million to play, and the team needs to win every game in the second half like the Sabres did.

[Campy]

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?

He has jump when it's a scoring opportunity, so I imagine he might have a similar number of points. But he'd also be on the ice for fewer odd man rushes and goals against.

 

To say laziest ever was hyperbole. And I love his hands, he's as quick as they come with getting his stick onto loose pucks in front of the opponent's goal. He has a knack for effective screens and deflections. I just wish he'd consistently put forth the same effort on the wing, working along the boards, in the corners, on the back check, getting up off the ice like he wants to get back involved in the play as he's watching it go the other way, and in his own zone. At the start of the season we saw him dominate play; he was a complete beast for a handful of games. I thought that maybe he was re-born given the expectations around the club at the start of the season And then the same ol'-same ol' TV re-appeared...

 

I'm just describing what I see: he's got a lot more to give than he does in any given night.

[RazielSabre]

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.

 

Good point, very good point.

 

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.

 

Could that be because you don't seem him dangle and weave with the puck? To be fair if that is the case Vanek seems deadliest when goal hanging around the net, he can deflect and fight with the best of them. Could that possibly be why he looks lazy?

[LTS]

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.

 

You should read for comprehension. You are implying that I said he should be shutdown for the 2nd half of the season. I did NOT say that. I said, it would have been better to shut him down for two weeks if that let him heal up so he could be more productive for the rest of the season. If he's going to be able to play at 50% and only score a few points then sit him down and put in someone else who might score more. Rest him up a bit and let him come back putting up the points as he's shown he can.

 

As for laziness...

 

Around the net Vanek is deadly. He CAN be deadly in open ice. We all remember his OT winner against the Caps where he grabbed the puck and seemingly found speed that he's never shown to blow by defenders. I've seen Vanek do this many times. Unfortunately I also see Vanek get caught from behind and fail to catch any players when coming back up the ice to backcheck. He CAN do it but he doesn't always do it. That's my problem with Vanek. He pouts and he disappears for long stretches. If he WANTS to be the best player on the team he absolutely could be.

[Robviously]

You should read for comprehension. You are implying that I said he should be shutdown for the 2nd half of the season. I did NOT say that. I said, it would have been better to shut him down for two weeks if that let him heal up so he could be more productive for the rest of the season. If he's going to be able to play at 50% and only score a few points then sit him down and put in someone else who might score more. Rest him up a bit and let him come back putting up the points as he's shown he can.

Actually, I wasn't implying that which makes me question your reading comprehension. How ironic.

 

We don't know that how much a two week break would have helped Vanek recover. He did get more productive as the season went on after bottoming out in January so he did recover without sitting. Would two weeks off have helped? Maybe. We don't know. The Sabres don't get to make these decisions in April with the benefit of hindsight though. There's no "If we sit Vanek for 2 weeks, he'll be 80% the rest of the season" versus "If he keeps playing, he'll be at 70% the rest of the season." And, as X pointed out, playing a hurt Vanek draws attention away from other players and actually DOES help "someone else" score. The "someone else's" late in the year were Foligno, Stafford, and Ennis.

 

And is Brad Boyes still your "someone else" to get Vanek's playing time? You're sure that makes the team better?

[shrader]

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?

 

People read too much into his facial expressions. That's where the lazy label comes from.

[Punch]

People read too much into his facial expressions. That's where the lazy label comes from.

 

It's no different than Bills' fans thinking that Joe Ferguson's slumped shoulders when he walked off the field meant he had a defeatist attitude. Peyton Manning does the same thing and also always has a pained look on his face.

[LaFontaineToMogilny]

As for laziness...

 

Around the net Vanek is deadly. He CAN be deadly in open ice. We all remember his OT winner against the Caps where he grabbed the puck and seemingly found speed that he's never shown to blow by defenders. I've seen Vanek do this many times. Unfortunately I also see Vanek get caught from behind and fail to catch any players when coming back up the ice to backcheck. He CAN do it but he doesn't always do it. That's my problem with Vanek. He pouts and he disappears for long stretches. If he WANTS to be the best player on the team he absolutely could be.

 

This is what continues to puzzle me about Thomas Vanek as well. Some games, or at least for parts if games he assumes beast form and becomes dominant. Not just around the net, but on the back check, along the boards, nehind the net, anywhere he goes basically. Then for long periods of time he's not even visible on the ice.

 

I suppose it could be injuries, but I suspect that Thomas Vanek is not able to push himself mentally to play at his best level consistently. I have always assumed that this is the reason why Lindy Ruff is so extremely hard on him, and why he seemingly gives players like Roy more leeway. Knowing what Thomas Vanek is capable of it's got to be insanely frustrating to see him not play up to that level.

 

I am saying this as a huge Thomas Vanek fan btw. I think he is the best player on the Sabres by comfortable margin. I think he is so skilled that if he would play up to his potential every game, every shift he could put up Stamkos like numbers. Now feel free to laugh at me.

[MattPie]

People read too much into his facial expressions. That's where the lazy label comes from.

 

I figure he's lazy because he's 6' foot and doesn't fight or lay guys out with HUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEEE checks every game. ;-)

[Campy]

You should read for comprehension. You are implying that I said he should be shutdown for the 2nd half of the season. I did NOT say that. I said, it would have been better to shut him down for two weeks if that let him heal up so he could be more productive for the rest of the season. If he's going to be able to play at 50% and only score a few points then sit him down and put in someone else who might score more. Rest him up a bit and let him come back putting up the points as he's shown he can.

 

As for laziness...

 

Around the net Vanek is deadly. He CAN be deadly in open ice. We all remember his OT winner against the Caps where he grabbed the puck and seemingly found speed that he's never shown to blow by defenders. I've seen Vanek do this many times. Unfortunately I also see Vanek get caught from behind and fail to catch any players when coming back up the ice to backcheck. He CAN do it but he doesn't always do it. That's my problem with Vanek. He pouts and he disappears for long stretches. If he WANTS to be the best player on the team he absolutely could be.

OK, I'm somewhat relieved that at least one other person has seen what I've seen.

 

People read too much into his facial expressions. That's where the lazy label comes from.

No, it's not. And I could give a rat's arse about his facial expressions. The "lazy label" stems from his lack of desire to hustle any time other than a scoring opporturtunity.

[fan2456]

OK, I'm somewhat relieved that at least one other person has seen what I've seen.

 

No, it's not. And I could give a rat's arse about his facial expressions. The "lazy label" stems from his lack of desire to hustle any time other than a scoring opporturtunity.

 

He works hard and has a great nose for the puck in the offensive zone. He is not a great or smooth skater which seems to limit his speed and endurance . That's not LAZY, but it can give that impression. If you get a chance to watch him live, he limits the duration of his shifts. He's not LAZY, but rather makes great use of his skills despite his limtations. Thirty plus goals is hard to replace. He would benefit greatly if we can keep ihim healthy and have two scoring lines for the opposition to worry about.. Still, I'd trade him if the right piece was coming our way.

[LTS]

Actually, I wasn't implying that which makes me question your reading comprehension. How ironic.

 

We don't know that how much a two week break would have helped Vanek recover. He did get more productive as the season went on after bottoming out in January so he did recover without sitting. Would two weeks off have helped? Maybe. We don't know. The Sabres don't get to make these decisions in April with the benefit of hindsight though. There's no "If we sit Vanek for 2 weeks, he'll be 80% the rest of the season" versus "If he keeps playing, he'll be at 70% the rest of the season." And, as X pointed out, playing a hurt Vanek draws attention away from other players and actually DOES help "someone else" score. The "someone else's" late in the year were Foligno, Stafford, and Ennis.

 

And is Brad Boyes still your "someone else" to get Vanek's playing time? You're sure that makes the team better?

 

If the best you have to come back with is how I said you were implying, whatever. Point is, your response was based on my saying somehow he should have been shelved for the 2nd half of the season when I never said any such thing. You go on to address my ACTUAL argument right after this, as shown above, which I think shows that you were off the mark on what I was saying in the first place. Doesn't really matter.

 

Point is, we don't know, you are right. I said *IF*.. IF implies that it's unknown. I am not saying it is fact. And you want to go back to Boyes.. whatever. Fine. Yes, because it's not about points. It's about not being a defensive liability which Vanek also was on the ice. It's about putting the best team on the ice and when your best player is playing like a 4th liner then why bother putting him out there? Why not let him get better? I get the argument, draw the other team's best players. Perhaps it happens, perhaps it doesn't.

 

So, *IF* he could have been shelved for 6-8 games to get better and be more productive for the other games I would be all for it.

 

^^^^ -- Sorry, wanted to make sure you could see it this time.

[Campy]

He works hard and has a great nose for the puck in the offensive zone. He is not a great or smooth skater which seems to limit his speed and endurance . That's not LAZY, but it can give that impression. If you get a chance to watch him live, he limits the duration of his shifts. He's not LAZY, but rather makes great use of his skills despite his limtations. Thirty plus goals is hard to replace. He would benefit greatly if we can keep ihim healthy and have two scoring lines for the opposition to worry about.. Still, I'd trade him if the right piece was coming our way.

I have seen him live and I agree on all counts except the lazy bit. He just doesn't get after it. Over the years, I have played enough and watched enough hockey to know lazy when I see it. I know he's a pretty bad skater and spends too much energy just getting up and down the ice and I know it's too late to overhaul his technique. But as I said before, he seems to find the burst or jump when he has a scoring opportunity. While his skillset is limited in other areas of the game, if he were to show that same jump and burst anywhere not near the net or not on a potential odd-man rush or breakaway opportunity, he'd be a much more valuable player and potentially a superstar in the league. But he doesn't, and the only reason I can see for not doing it is pure laziness.

 

Like LTS said, he can take over a game when he wants to. I just wish he wanted to.

[Robviously]

If the best you have to come back with is how I said you were implying, whatever. Point is, your response was based on my saying somehow he should have been shelved for the 2nd half of the season when I never said any such thing. You go on to address my ACTUAL argument right after this, as shown above, which I think shows that you were off the mark on what I was saying in the first place. Doesn't really matter.

Me correcting you after you said I was implying something that I wasn't implying is not a "comeback." And, no, my response is not based on me thinking you said he should be shelved for the second half of the season. I'm still not sure where you're getting that. It was based on you saying he should be benched "for a few weeks" (i.e. your original point in this thread).

 

Point is, we don't know, you are right. I said *IF*.. IF implies that it's unknown. I am not saying it is fact. And you want to go back to Boyes.. whatever. Fine. Yes, because it's not about points. It's about not being a defensive liability which Vanek also was on the ice. It's about putting the best team on the ice and when your best player is playing like a 4th liner then why bother putting him out there? Why not let him get better? I get the argument, draw the other team's best players. Perhaps it happens, perhaps it doesn't.

 

So, *IF* he could have been shelved for 6-8 games to get better and be more productive for the other games I would be all for it.

 

^^^^ -- Sorry, wanted to make sure you could see it this time.

That's great except that your initial point didn't leave any room for "IF." Sorry I didn't notice that you apparently slid it in there after the fact to cover your ass:

So, he was injured, and completely ineffective. Good thing he was still going out there every night and being a defensive liability and not producing offensively. Good thing he took ice time away from others who could have been more effective while he was injured.

 

Good thing the coach kept playing him when he knew he was injured. So rather than take a few weeks to heal up and be effective he decided to stretch it out and suck? Outstanding, that's a team first mentality if I ever saw one.

 

I hate that mentality in sports, it's not just a Vanek thing. Although in this case it annoys me a bit more because it is a Vanek thing.

There's no big, bold "IF" in there. Oops. :rolleyes:

[rickshaw]

I like Vanek, but I don't like how Ruff handles him or his playing time. It's not Vanek's fault the Oilers signed him to that offer sheet. Was he supposed to say, "No Edmonton, that's too much?"

 

I think going fwd the coaching staff needs to find a way to get Vanek into less hazardous areas of the ice. He should not be parked in front of the net no matter how good he is. He's not Tim Kerr. He has a great shot and they should be utilizing it on the PP instead of having him at the top of the crease looking for tips. He needs a better, consistent combination of linemates. He's been on every line combo imaginable and it needs to stop. Get him playing with the right mix and I think we see results. Not saying how or that it's easy but that should be the goal.

 

And Ruff needs to stop treating him like he always has. I think Ruff has a big weakness in how he deals with different personalities. If Vanek is more sensitive than others, for example, then he needs to treat him differently than the guy who isn't sensitive. I'm saying that Vanek shouldn't be treated like a rookie but like a leader. Vanek cares even though he might not look like it. It seems injury always derails him so it's time to find him a safer way of playing. I know that might sound silly but extra abuse is not what he needs. When healthy, Vanek is a very good scorer.

[MattPie]

I like Vanek, but I don't like how Ruff handles him or his playing time. It's not Vanek's fault the Oilers signed him to that offer sheet. Was he supposed to say, "No Edmonton, that's too much?"

 

Techinally, he did sign the sheet so he could have refused. But you'd have to be pretty stupid (or high-minded) to pass on $7.1mil/yr on the hope that the Sabres come up with something similar.

 

Note that I'm using Vanek's Cap number, since that is A> the average salary over the course of the deal and B> the ONLY number that's relevant in this discussion. I only care how much of the salary cap he takes up, not if his W2 says $400,000 or $14,000,000. His Paycheck is Pegula's problem, not mine. :)

[Robviously]

Techinally, he did sign the sheet so he could have refused. But you'd have to be pretty stupid (or high-minded) to pass on $7.1mil/yr on the hope that the Sabres come up with something similar.

 

Note that I'm using Vanek's Cap number, since that is A> the average salary over the course of the deal and B> the ONLY number that's relevant in this discussion. I only care how much of the salary cap he takes up, not if his W2 says $400,000 or $14,000,000. His Paycheck is Pegula's problem, not mine. :)

No, just stupid. :) He definitely wasn't going to get a better offer from the Sabres as an RFA if he didn't sign Edmonton's offer. Plus, the Sabres had just lost their captains and best two players in Drury and Briere and were clearly a franchise in disarray. (They remained in disarray for the rest of the Golisano/Quinn era and you could argue they still are.) Summer 2007 wouldn't have been a bad time for Vanek to jump ship -- though, in hindsight, Edmonton didn't end up anywhere good either.

[Who Else?]

If he was so hurt, that he was basically useless, then why did he play in the season ending game?

[I am Defecting]

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.

 

What is the Envy about? It's about Money? What?! I think you are confusing disappointment with envy. They're actually quite dissimilar. Why blame it on the poor people?

[fan2456]

Less than 0 .9% make 400K per year in the US.. It would follow that a MUCH smaller number make 6.5 million or more. I would guess that anyone posting on this board is "poor" by that standard. LOL

[nostyle126]

If only we resigned briere, we could've let Edmonton sign him to the offer sheet. That would've given us a few things

 

1. A superstar player in Briere

2. The draft picks from Edmonton

3. Extra cap room

 

Then we wouldn't have to worry about our center problem for 5 more years like we have done.

 

Vaneks salary reminds us of that dark day in july.

 

Shoulda. Woulda. Coulda

Edmonton wouldn't have made that insane offer if he had signed Briere. They knew we were backed into a corner by losing Briere and Drury, so they made an offer they knew we would have to match.

[waldo]

What is the Envy about? It's about Money? What?! I think you are confusing disappointment with envy. They're actually quite dissimilar. Why blame it on the poor people?

 

This from Yuri Olesha? Yuri Olesha would have used proletariat instead of "poor people" in his response. :P I fear you, sir or madam, are an imposter.

 

"Envy is the art of counting the other fellow's blessings instead of your own."

[I am Defecting]

Yuri Olesha wrote the book on Envy. :angel:

 

I think the people who the aforementioned fans envy most are Ruff, Regier, and Pegula, in no particular order. When one says 7mil for whhaz? or 35mil whooz? I think they're implying that if it were their money to use or spend, than they would use/spend it more wisely. In my own case, I feel that once the money is spent, I could use the players on this roster better than Ruff. I envy his position, so to speak. I realize that this is pathetic.

 

Maybe there are fans who envy the players for money reasons. The sort of fans who would run through walls for that sort of money, oops! I meant the sort of proletariat who would...