Semifinals Thread

[TrueBlueGED]

While I have intention of defending Vanek, you'd have to think that getting used to not one, but two different playing styles over the course of 7 months, would yield some doubtful results.

 

Especially since he's played his entire NHL career with one team, prior to getting traded twice this season.

 

That said, Vanek won't carry a team. Chances are he'll score 30 perhaps 35 in a good season, in a 2nd line role. But if Vanek plays the 1st line, it means his team is short on offense.

 

With respect, I think your perceptions on league-wide scoring are a bit off. There were a total of 7 LWs with 30+ goals this season: Pacioretty, Kunitz, Benn, Sharp, Steen, Skinner and van Riemsdyk (Parise almost certainly would have had 30 without the injury, but Kunitz is fraudulent because of Crosby, so it works out). Heck, there were only 21 30-goal scorers in the league this year regardless of position. If you think Vanek will get 30 per year for the foreseeable future, then he's a 1st line player. Not a franchise player, but absolutely a 1st line player.

[Trettioåtta]

I still think Vanek is a Hossa. A fantastic player but not someone you build around. Let them be your 3-6th best forward and you're in good shape

[X. Benedict]

I still think Vanek is a Hossa. A fantastic player but not someone you build around. Let them be your 3-6th best forward and you're in good shape

 

Hossa really is a great 2 way player. For Vanek, his value really is all about how well he is doing in the offensive zone.

[WildCard]

While I understand Vanek isn't exactly the star many thought him to be I don't understand how a team struggling to score doesn't play him more...

I'm confused on this too. Seems the only way to beat Henrik Lundqvist is to place some traffic in front of him; block his sight lanes and get a deflection. Vanek may not be a lot of things, but he is undoubtedly one of the best in the business at doing just that.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

It's been a treat reading the board the last week.

 

In a span of 8 months....Miller went from an elite goalie who should be signed at $7 million a year+ long term and crusades were taken upon posters who felt he was mediocre, to..."1 year contract....backup on a contender....no room for him on 25 of the teams."

 

Now we have Vanek who some have questioned his effort and defense for years, going from a top 20 forward in the league to complimentary piece getting 9 minutes a game.

 

The Vanek talk isn't so bad, but the pure abandonment or Ryan Miller by this board is astonishing.

[darksabre]

It's been a treat reading the board the last week.

 

In a span of 8 months....Miller went from an elite goalie who should be signed at $7 million a year+ long term and crusades were taken upon posters who felt he was mediocre, to..."1 year contract....backup on a contender....no room for him on 25 of the teams."

 

Now we have Vanek who some have questioned his effort and defense for years, going from a top 20 forward in the league to complimentary piece getting 9 minutes a game.

 

The Vanek talk isn't so bad, but the pure abandonment or Ryan Miller by this board is astonishing.

 

You've been on this board long enough to know this hategasm over Miller was coming no matter how well he played with the Blues.

[Claude_Verret]

It's been a treat reading the board the last week.

 

In a span of 8 months....Miller went from an elite goalie who should be signed at $7 million a year+ long term and crusades were taken upon posters who felt he was mediocre, to..."1 year contract....backup on a contender....no room for him on 25 of the teams."

 

Now we have Vanek who some have questioned his effort and defense for years, going from a top 20 forward in the league to complimentary piece getting 9 minutes a game.

 

The Vanek talk isn't so bad, but the pure abandonment or Ryan Miller by this board is astonishing.

 

Like most things the reality will lie somewhere between the two extremes. He ain't backing up the Brink's truck just as he isn't going to be a backup or retire.

[Kristian]

With respect, I think your perceptions on league-wide scoring are a bit off. There were a total of 7 LWs with 30+ goals this season: Pacioretty, Kunitz, Benn, Sharp, Steen, Skinner and van Riemsdyk (Parise almost certainly would have had 30 without the injury, but Kunitz is fraudulent because of Crosby, so it works out). Heck, there were only 21 30-goal scorers in the league this year regardless of position. If you think Vanek will get 30 per year for the foreseeable future, then he's a 1st line player. Not a franchise player, but absolutely a 1st line player.

 

I understand what you mean completely, and if you look at the numbers only, it definitely seems off, so allow me to elaborate :

 

What I mean when I say "if Vanek is your 1st line LW, you're short on offense", what I mean is that he's likely playing for a team like the Sabres.

 

IMHO, Vanek is a PP specialist, who's strong on the puck, and excellent in front of the net. He's not a playmaker, and he's not a pure sniper either, who routinely picks corners from the circles, or off the rush. He gets most of his goals from banging home loose pucks, and his fair share of tip-in's.

 

He's a better skater than he gets credit for, but I still think he's at his best in front of the net.

 

IMHO, you need a more versatile game from your top-wingers than Vanek brings, although I believe if used right, he can score 30-35. But I don't believe playing him 1st line minutes is using him right.

 

If any of that makes sense at all :blink:

Edited May 20, 2014 by Kristian

[nfreeman]

Franchise player? No, but he can play on my top line any day. I'll go to my grave thinking Buffalo fans woefully underappreciated him. As far as playing 11 minutes goes...you'd think that a team that has to beat Lundqvist enough to compensate for not having Price would say to hell with defensive effort and try to score some goals, but hey, I'm not Michel Therrien. I'm sure Brandon Prust will carry them to victory! :rolleyes:

 

Same as Callahan (just exchange great hands with other qualities), whom you and many others seem quite eager to back up the brinks truck for. Callahan had 0 points while getting 20 minutes per game as Tampa got swept out of the playoffs. Rick "quantum leap better than Vanek" Nash had a whopping 0 goals in 14 playoff games this year until he got to shoot on Peter Budaj and Dustin Tokarski.

 

Well, I still think Nash is significantly better than Vanek, but I can't argue with his lack of production this playoffs. As for Callahan, I think you'd agree that he's not a guy whose value is measured by scoring stats. Who would you rather have: 2006 Chris Drury or present-day Vanek?

 

As for the bolded part, I'd expect there's quite a bit that Therrien sees in Vanek's game that is not apparent to your (or my) eye.

 

I still think Vanek is a Hossa. A fantastic player but not someone you build around. Let them be your 3-6th best forward and you're in good shape

 

Respectfully, Hossa is twice the player that Vanek is.

 

It's been a treat reading the board the last week.

 

In a span of 8 months....Miller went from an elite goalie who should be signed at $7 million a year+ long term and crusades were taken upon posters who felt he was mediocre, to..."1 year contract....backup on a contender....no room for him on 25 of the teams."

 

Now we have Vanek who some have questioned his effort and defense for years, going from a top 20 forward in the league to complimentary piece getting 9 minutes a game.

 

The Vanek talk isn't so bad, but the pure abandonment or Ryan Miller by this board is astonishing.

 

I take your point, but I really object to the whole "first the board said X -- and now the board says Y" meme. "The board" hasn't said anything. There are lots of different opinions here. If you want to point out inconsistencies in a certain poster's views -- fire away. But the broad-brush thing is silly.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

You've been on this board long enough to know this hategasm over Miller was coming no matter how well he played with the Blues.

 

 

Like most things the reality will lie somewhere between the two extremes. He ain't backing up the Brink's truck just as he isn't going to be a backup or retire.

 

Yeah...but it's a little shocking even to me. I remember people saying "Lundqvist set the bar for Miller", and GR having a show dedicated to "I would be ok with a 7 year $50 million contract since they need to reach the cap floor anyway."

 

I think he was purely mismanaged once again. As they played him 7 in a row early on, I said he's gonna go bye bye. I actually feel bad for him. Maybe someone will finally figure out he needs to only play 55 games tops to be in good condition going into the playoffs. Maybe Toronto is that team.

[TrueBlueGED]

I understand what you mean completely, and if you look at the numbers only, it definitely seems off, so allow me to elaborate :

 

What I mean when I say "if Vanek is your 1st line LW, you're short on offense", what I mean is that he's likely playing for a team like the Sabres.

 

IMHO, Vanek is a PP specialist, who's strong on the puck, and excellent in front of the net. He's not a playmaker, and he's not a pure sniper either, who routinely picks corners from the circles, or off the rush. He gets most of his goals from banging home loose pucks, and his fair share of tip-in's.

 

He's a better skater than he gets credit for, but I still think he's at his best in front of the net.

 

IMHO, you need a more versatile game from your top-wingers than Vanek brings, although I believe if used right, he can score 30-35. But I don't believe playing him 1st line minutes is using him right.

 

If any of that makes sense at all :blink:

 

Thanks, that makes much more sense put that way.

 

I think the "1st or 2nd" line thing is really a function of how the team is constructed. Is the roster full of two-way players where player usage doesn't have to be specialized, or are there some offense-focused players and others defense-oriented? For example, what is Boston's top line? Bergeron is their best center, but he's given extremely tough defensive minutes while the Krejci line gets to feast on more favorable offensive situations. As a result, the Krejci line is the top scoring line, but is it the top line? Maybe it's semantics, but I think it matters when discussing Vanek.

 

If you consider Bergeron's line to be the top line, then I think Vanek wouldn't be maximized there. But if Kerjci's line is the top line, then Vanek would flourish there and certainly be a 1st line player. So we might be saying the same thing, but with different language, if that makes sense.

 

Personally I think I've evolved a great deal in my team building philosophy over the past few years. I used to want a roster of quality two-way forwards so I could roll my top 3 lines without much concern for matchups or situations. But I no longer think that's viable, because the supply of those players is limited and it doesn't leave much room for a Vanek or Gaborik. Basically, I now feel that if you can't find a roster spot for a consistent 30 goal scorer, then you're doing it wrong. You can't ice a team of offensive specialists and hope to go deep in the playoffs, but with proper role specialization they should absolutely have a place and Plat an important role on a winner.

 

Edit: put another way, when I say Vanek is a 1st line player, I mean he belongs on a top scoring line (see: the Daniel Sedin usage under Vigneault). But if your team is built in a way you expect your top line to start in the Dzone 55% of the time and match up against Crosby, then you've got the wrong guy.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[IKnowPhysics]

IMHO, Vanek is a PP specialist, who's strong on the puck, and excellent in front of the net.

 

He slaps it.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, I still think Nash is significantly better than Vanek, but I can't argue with his lack of production this playoffs. As for Callahan, I think you'd agree that he's not a guy whose value is measured by scoring stats. Who would you rather have: 2006 Chris Drury or present-day Vanek?

 

As for the bolded part, I'd expect there's quite a bit that Therrien sees in Vanek's game that is not apparent to your (or my) eye.

 

My pecking order would be Drury > Vanek >>> Callahan. Callahan has value not measured by traditional stats, however his offensive abilities are significantly behind Drury and he plays wing as opposed to center. So he may provide the same type of things Drury did, it's a full level or two below that in value--which is precisely why I feel giving him anywhere near a $7MMx7 contract is a really bad idea.

 

As for Therrien, I simply thinks he puts so much emphasis on what Vanek does poorly that it's preventing him from being a good coach and maximizing what Vanek does well.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

 

I take your point, but I really object to the whole "first the board said X -- and now the board says Y" meme. "The board" hasn't said anything. There are lots of different opinions here. If you want to point out inconsistencies in a certain poster's views -- fire away. But the broad-brush thing is silly.

 

I just don't feel like writing lawyer-speak every post. There was definitely a majority view that Miller was a near great to elite goalie. Those who pointed out regularly he wasn't, took a lot of crap. Now look at it!

 

Just like with DeLuca and the "negative" talk....there is tons more cover for someone who is supportive of something and almost never any organized rebuttal. The other way around though, many times anything goes.

 

There are always a pocket of "neutral" posters....just like there are plenty of well intended people in the Puerto Rican Day Parade.....that doesn't stop the chaos though.....

[Kristian]

Thanks, that makes much more sense put that way.

 

I think the "1st or 2nd" line thing is really a function of how the team is constructed. Is the roster full of two-way players where player usage doesn't have to be specialized, or are there some offense-focused players and others defense-oriented? For example, what is Boston's top line? Bergeron is their best center, but he's given extremely tough defensive minutes while the Krejci line gets to feast on more favorable offensive situations. As a result, the Krejci line is the top scoring line, but is it the top line? Maybe it's semantics, but I think it matters when discussing Vanek.

 

If you consider Bergeron's line to be the top line, then I think Vanek wouldn't be maximized there. But if Kerjci's line is the top line, then Vanek would flourish there and certainly be a 1st line player. So we might be saying the same thing, but with different language, if that makes sense.

 

Personally I think I've evolved a great deal in my team building philosophy over the past few years. I used to want a roster of quality two-way forwards so I could roll my top 3 lines without much concern for matchups or situations. But I no longer think that's viable, because the supply of those players is limited and it doesn't leave much room for a Vanek or Gaborik. Basically, I now feel that if you can't find a roster spot for a consistent 30 goal scorer, then you're doing it wrong. You can't ice a team of offensive specialists and hope to go deep in the playoffs, but with proper role specialization they should absolutely have a place and Plat an important role on a winner.

 

Edit: put another way, when I say Vanek is a 1st line player, I mean he belongs on a top scoring line (see: the Daniel Sedin usage under Vigneault). But if your team is built in a way you expect your top line to start in the Dzone 55% of the time and match up against Crosby, then you've got the wrong guy.

 

That's pretty much what I mean yes, IMHO using Vanek "correctly", would be on a line away from the opposition top d-pair, and on the PP.

[Eleven]

I just don't feel like writing lawyer-speak every post. There was definitely a majority view that Miller was a near great to elite goalie. Those who pointed out regularly he wasn't, took a lot of crap. Now look at it!

 

I still think he's near-great. I'll own that. He's going to start sliding, though. Maybe not next year, but the year after. This coming year is his best shot at a Cup since 2007.

[spndnchz]

A reasonable person would say that the board is well diversified of opinion. But for the unfortunate conversation has a chain of causation.

 

It is not insignificant but fanciful this void ab initio. Mixed with puffery.

[LGR4GM]

I'm lazy and not quoting.

 

Okay, Vanek is offensively very gifted but he doesn't have that drive you see from other players like Jonathan Toews for instance. Vanek is best when he can play at 80% not at 100% which means he feeds on 2nd pairing defenders and PP match ups. Vanek is not the player to build around.

 

Ryan Miller is what 34? He is going to start declining shortly. He may be able to provide solid GT next year and maybe the year after but he can't play 70 games a year plus playoffs, not anymore.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

A reasonable person would say that the board is well diversified of opinion. But for the unfortunate conversation has a chain of causation.

 

It is not insignificant but fanciful this void ab initio. Mixed with puffery.

 

You make me puffery.....

[Trettioåtta]

Hossa really is a great 2 way player. For Vanek, his value really is all about how well he is doing in the offensive zone.

 

Hossa has become a great two way player. He was average before the hawks. Plus Vanek is better on the PP etc. I mean role within a team, not specific functionality

[drnkirishone]

 

 

Hossa has become a great two way player. He was average before the hawks. Plus Vanek is better on the PP etc. I mean role within a team, not specific functionality

I don't recall that being the scouting report on Hossa at all. I recall hearing constantly how underrated and undervalued Hossa's defensive game was

[bunomatic]

Hossa knocked Bob Ryan on his assssssssss !

[PP Slapper]

He slaps it.

Beat me to it

[dudacek]

Vanek is a first-line scoring winger and elite power-play presence.

From his large body of work, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

He has his flaws and clearly his coach doesn't trust him because of those flaws.

I disagree with his coach, but I'm not the one who has made the final four.

 

I don't think there has been a huge shift in the board's feelings on Vanek or Miller.

It's mostly the same guys bashing and defending them now as before.

It's just that right now the bashers are winning the argument.

[nfreeman]

Vanek is a first-line scoring winger and elite power-play presence.

From his large body of work, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise.

He has his flaws and clearly his coach doesn't trust him because of those flaws.

I disagree with his coach, but I'm not the one who has made the final four.

 

I don't think there has been a huge shift in the board's feelings on Vanek or Miller.

It's mostly the same guys bashing and defending them now as before.

It's just that right now the bashers are winning the argument.

 

Good post.