Teams that Pickup the Rotten Core

[Derrico]

Pommer and Vanek also are both on the wrong side of 30.  They will not be with that team when it is ready to make a real push. 

True.  But again, the point was the core is rotting somewhere else.  This point agrees with that.  Pommers still has 3 years remaining on his deal paying him $5.6 mil per season.  He's scored 7 goals so far this year.  Ouch.

 

Edit - Not Molson bad, but still pretty bad.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Derrico

[Eleven]

True.  But again, the point was the core is rotting somewhere else.  This point agrees with that.  Pommers still has 3 years remaining on his deal paying him $5.6 mil per season.  He's scored 7 goals so far this year.  Ouch.

 

Edit - Not Molson bad, but still pretty bad.

 

Oh, I was supplementing your point, not arguing against it.

[Derrico]

Oh, I was supplementing your point, not arguing against it.

:flirt:

[Randall Flagg]

Paille has a SC and is probably on his way to another. :doh:

Where does he play now?

[MattPie]

Stafford and Myers were the reason the Jets made the playoffs last year. Vanek to the Isles was basically the start of their climb back to a respectable franchise, and Vanek was great in Montreal until their coach stopped using him on the top line. For most habs fans that was a huge signal that they had a major coaching problem. I think all of your examples are giant reaches, aside from Vanek and Poms in Minn. They also have two guys on 100mil contracts though that are bigger targets than Vanek and Poms.

 

Just to note on Parise and Suter, while the total value of their contracts are around $100M, their cap hits are $7.5M, which isn't anything egregious. Their numbers are actually $7,538,462, which is only $38,462 more than Ryan O'Reilly. There are certainly other good teams out there that have two guys in that neighborhood at the top (Chicago, Anaheim, St Louis, NYR, Pittsburgh).

[Hoss]

Where does he play now?

Rangers

[SwampD]

Where does he play now?

 

 

Rangers

My bad. I heard his name in the background last night and assumed he was on the Blackhawks.

 

He's not headed for another SC with the Rags. :lol:

Edited February 18, 2016 by SwampD

[Hoss]

My bad. I heard his name in the background last night and assumed he was on the Blackhawks.

 

He's not headed for another SC with the Rags. :lol:

To be fair he did start the year with Chicago's AHL roster.

[nfreeman]

Stafford and Myers were the reason the Jets made the playoffs last year. Vanek to the Isles was basically the start of their climb back to a respectable franchise, and Vanek was great in Montreal until their coach stopped using him on the top line. For most habs fans that was a huge signal that they had a major coaching problem. I think all of your examples are giant reaches, aside from Vanek and Poms in Minn. They also have two guys on 100mil contracts though that are bigger targets than Vanek and Poms.

 

No.  He was terrible in Montreal and universally regarded as a major disappointment.

[Eleven]

No.  He was terrible in Montreal and universally regarded as a major disappointment.

 

He had 15 points in 18 games, and I think 78 might be right; I think those came early and then Therrien changed his usage.

[Hoss]

Didn't he have a hat trick in the playoffs for them?

[Stoner]

That was fruitful

They were the year they picked up Vanek. I know he wasn't their roster flaw, but it seems a pretty common factor that teams who pick up our main core guys from back then, and rely on them as core guys, end up bad

Now that I remember he was there for 2013-2014, when they missed the playoffs, I am more inclined to agree.

[nfreeman]

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/montreal-canadiens-legend-guy-lafleur-blames-max-pacioretty-thomas-vanek-for-failure-to-reach-final
 

 

“It’s not enough to be happy with a good season. You don’t play hockey to have a good season. You play to win the Stanley Cup. Let’s be objective,” Lafleur told La Presse in French. “Guys like Vanek and Pacioretty, you don’t keep these guys on your team. They should stay home if they’re not ready to pay the price. Your team will never win with players like this who fade when confronted by adversity.”

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/05/21/dustin_tokarski_to_start_in_goal_again_for_canadiens_in_game_3_of_eastern_conference_final.html
 

 

Plekanec had been playing with Vanek, who had no points and was minus-3 with one shot on goal in the opening two games against the Rangers: a 7-2 wipeout on Saturday and a 3-1 loss on Monday night.

He has been slammed for a perceived lack of effort and involvement, and some are starting to call him Thomas Vanish.

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Pomminstein signing ...

 

:flirt:  

[Eleven]

Didn't he have a hat trick in the playoffs for them?

 

He did not.  2 braces and one single-goal game.

[Hoss]

He did not. 2 braces and one single-goal game.

Google machine shows me it was a regular season game in March.

[Eleven]

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/montreal-canadiens-legend-guy-lafleur-blames-max-pacioretty-thomas-vanek-for-failure-to-reach-final

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/05/21/dustin_tokarski_to_start_in_goal_again_for_canadiens_in_game_3_of_eastern_conference_final.html

 

 

If LaFleur thinks reaching the semifinal is a failure, well, he's welcome to that.  I cannot possibly share that opinion, especially when advancing beyond that point requires a fair amount of luck.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

If LaFleur thinks reaching the semifinal is a failure, well, he's welcome to that.  I cannot possibly share that opinion, especially when advancing beyond that point requires a fair amount of luck.

 

You have to keep in mind when LaFleur was playing. If he played 10 years for the Habs they probably won the cup six times in those 10 years.

[Eleven]

You have to keep in mind when LaFleur was playing. If he played 10 years for the Habs they probably won the cup six times in those 10 years.

 

5 in 14, but that kind of fits with my point anyway.

[pastajoe]

Paille has a SC and is probably on his way to another. :doh:

Just pointing out that some of them do well. Clarke MacArthur is another who did better.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

5 in 14, but that kind of fits with my point anyway.

 

Your point about having some luck?

 

Well, IMO, those Hab teams of the mid-late 70s were not lucky at all, well maybe a bit in the '79 semi-final against the Bruins.

[WildCard]

Stafford and Myers were the reason the Jets made the playoffs last year. Vanek to the Isles was basically the start of their climb back to a respectable franchise, and Vanek was great in Montreal until their coach stopped using him on the top line. For most habs fans that was a huge signal that they had a major coaching problem. I think all of your examples are giant reaches, aside from Vanek and Poms in Minn. They also have two guys on 100mil contracts though that are bigger targets than Vanek and Poms.

Vanek did not begin the Isles climb, not even close. They made the playoffs the year before, and then absolutely bombed the next season when they got Vanek. Then, back to the playoffs. A lot of that has to do with Hamonic and Boychuck, but having Vanek certainly hurt them

 

Vanek was terrible in Montreal

 

Sabres, I think. Don't really know what is in the pipeline for those other teams, though, and teams are built to win many different ways. I have no more confidence that the Sabres will be a SC contender any sooner than any of those teams.

 

That really doesn't have anything to do with the thread, though. To say teams get rotten when they take our players, and then list seven teams, six of which made it to the playoffs with those players, seems a bit of a stretch. I don't need to see how bad other teams are doing in order to feel better about the garbage we've been subjected to in the recent past, cuz it doesn't really make me feel any better.

 

…and playoffs?! Yeah, I'll take that kind of rotten any day.

They made the playoffs, sure. Half the teams in the league make the playoffs, and the Sabres made multiple playoff trips with that core too. Does success = playoffs? Not IMO. All of those teams with our players, besides Nashville, were bounced hard and early with our guys. Though I think Minnesota may have made it to the 2nd round

 

How about:

Cody Hodgson

Christian Erhoff

Steve Ott

Nathan Gerbe

Chris Stewart

Danny Paille

I didn't count those guys, because they were tank-era core.

 

Paille has a SC and is probably on his way to another. :doh:

No, no he is not.

 

My bad. I heard his name in the background last night and assumed he was on the Blackhawks.

 

He's not headed for another SC with the Rags. :lol:

Ah, that explains the above  :lol:

 

No.  He was terrible in Montreal and universally regarded as a major disappointment.

Yeap

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/montreal-canadiens-legend-guy-lafleur-blames-max-pacioretty-thomas-vanek-for-failure-to-reach-final

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/05/21/dustin_tokarski_to_start_in_goal_again_for_canadiens_in_game_3_of_eastern_conference_final.html

 

Exactly

 

 

This really doesn't seem like a stretch to me. Everyone here knows of the shortcomings of that core, and when teams pick parts of it, and add it to their own core, we're surprised when they fail? Better yet, when they reach the same levels of success the Sabres did? Constant disappointing finishes and 1st round playoff bounces.

If LaFleur thinks reaching the semifinal is a failure, well, he's welcome to that.  I cannot possibly share that opinion, especially when advancing beyond that point requires a fair amount of luck.

It was a failure for that team. 

[beerme1]

The other guy being Torrey Mitchell.

 

 

Sorry. I meant Mitchell and that other guy :w00t:

[TrueBlueGED]

So, I've started to notice a pattern around the league, and it's this: Teams that take our old, rotten core, have become just that, rotten. For clarity, the 'core' refers to what we all commonly remember as the post Drury-Brier Sabre core. For current rosters, off the top of my head, we have:

 

Minnesota: Pomminstein, Vanek

 

Winnipeg: Armia, Stafford, Myers, Lemieux

 

Nashville:  Gaustad

 

Vancouver: Miller

 

St.Louis: Miller

 

Montreal: Vanek

 

NYI: Vanek

 

I know I'm missing some, but that's essentially it. All teams that are, after the addition of our guys, terrible. With, of course, the exception of Nashville. Not only that, but in each case outside of Nashville, those guys are core players as well; they are major parts of those franchises. It amazes me that nobody learned from what took the Sabres years to learn with these guys

 

I would suggest that those teams have fallen short because they were fatally flawed before the additions of the Sabres' old core, not because of those additions. 

 

Minnesota: I like Mikko Koivu just fine, but if he's your team's best center...and to be totally fair to Minnesota, it's not like losing to Chicago a bunch of times is something to be especially ashamed of.

 

Winnipeg: Budget team, questionable goaltending, best center is...Bryan Little? I like him and all, but that's worse than platooning Roy and Connolly as your top centers.

 

Nashville: Lackluster forwards (before the Forsberg and Johansen acquisitions, anyway). And we're not really going to blame them losing in the playoffs on their 3rd line center, are we?

 

Vancouver: Talk about a team that's old and was poised to go over the hill. 

 

Blues/Habs/Isles: Does being somewhere for a cup of coffee really count?

[WildCard]

I would suggest that those teams have fallen short because they were fatally flawed before the additions of the Sabres' old core, not because of those additions. 

 

Minnesota: I like Mikko Koivu just fine, but if he's your team's best center...and to be totally fair to Minnesota, it's not like losing to Chicago a bunch of times is something to be especially ashamed of.

 

Winnipeg: Budget team, questionable goaltending, best center is...Bryan Little? I like him and all, but that's worse than platooning Roy and Connolly as your top centers.

 

Nashville: Lackluster forwards (before the Forsberg and Johansen acquisitions, anyway). And we're not really going to blame them losing in the playoffs on their 3rd line center, are we?

 

Vancouver: Talk about a team that's old and was poised to go over the hill. 

 

Blues/Habs/Isles: Does being somewhere for a cup of coffee really count?

A good point. My question then is this, why did all of those teams, with the same flaws DR Sabres had post Black Friday, make the same exact mistakes we did? All of the right teams, with the right holes filled (legit 1-2 centers, 1-2 d-men) didn't go near our guys