Field Sobriety Test: Should the Sabres Consider Trading for Thomas Vanek?

[Mustache of God]

WGR ran an article today on the topic: http://www.wgr550.com/Should-the-Sabres-consider-trading-for-Vanek-this-/22598968

 

Is it as crazy as it sounds? I think so and I'm guessing this board will generate an emphatic "No F***ing Way"

 

Vanek is not the presence we need for our young, impressionable youth movement although it would make a nice full circle trade circuit.

[MattPie]

WGR ran an article today on the topic: http://www.wgr550.com/Should-the-Sabres-consider-trading-for-Vanek-this-/22598968

 

Is it as crazy as it sounds? I think so and I'm guessing this board will generate an emphatic "No F***ing Way"

 

Vanek is not the presence we need for our young, impressionable youth movement although it would make a nice full circle trade circuit.

 

It's not crazy, it'll surely drive a lot of clicks to WGR's web site.

Edited March 24, 2016 by MattPie

[LGR4GM]

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Surely, they can't be serious on this crazy notion.

 

Well in the spirit of answering the question posed by the OP ... NO!!

[WildCard]

Wouldn't even give them a 5th to bring back that history and mess into the locker room

[That Aud Smell]

Hell. And No.

 

Have you been reading the stuff out of MN? The guy's apparently not well-liked in that room. Parise, specifically, has been calling his sh1t OUT. ... Or, so I've read.

[darksabre]

[LGR4GM]

Hell. And No.

 

Have you been reading the stuff out of MN? The guy's apparently not well-liked in that room. Parise, specifically, has been calling his sh1t OUT. ... Or, so I've read.

So Vanek was the locker room cancer...

[Mustache of God]

Hell. And No.

 

Have you been reading the stuff out of MN? The guy's apparently not well-liked in that room. Parise, specifically, has been calling his sh1t OUT. ... Or, so I've read.

 

That's what the article is saying, Minnesota needs to get him off their roster, and cash strapped teams won't take him.

 

WOULD YOU TRADE MATT MOULSON FOR THOMAS VANEK STRAIGHT UP?

[WildCard]

So Vanek was the locker room cancer...

Teams That Add The Old Core for $500, Alex

[LGR4GM]

That's what the article is saying, Minnesota needs to get him off their roster, and cash strapped teams won't take him.

 

WOULD YOU TRADE MATT MOULSON FOR THOMAS VANEK STRAIGHT UP?

I wouldn't trade a bottle of Molson for Vanek straight up.

[WildCard]

That's what the article is saying, Minnesota needs to get him off their roster, and cash strapped teams won't take him.

 

WOULD YOU TRADE MATT MOULSON FOR THOMAS VANEK STRAIGHT UP?

Interesting, but nope.

 

Separately, my brother brought up a really good idea last night. If we do have an Expansion Draft next year, the rule is we need to shed at least 25% of our cap? Hello Matt Moulson. He's the perfect guy to keep until we can get rid of him for that purpose. That and he mentioned Bogo

[Mustache of God]

I wouldn't trade a bottle of Molson for Vanek straight up.

 

I'd like to go on record stating I don't want Vanek back on the team.

 

However, I would trade him for Moulson straight up in a heartbeat considering Vanek would only be signed through next year. This team is desperate for a touch of scoring and shedding Moulson's contract would be amazing.

 

edit: Wild also makes a valid point above.

Edited March 24, 2016 by mustacheofgod

[LGR4GM]

Interesting, but nope.

 

Separately, my brother brought up a really good idea last night. If we do have an Expansion Draft next year, the rule is we need to shed at least 25% of our cap? Hello Matt Moulson. He's the perfect guy to keep until we can get rid of him for that purpose. That and he mentioned Bogo

There are teams that will never approve of that rule actually happening unless they are allowed to shed players without it counting against the cap, just like a compliance buyout.

 

But yes that is a good reason to hang out to Moulson, that and he might surprise us next year.

[MattPie]

That's what the article is saying, Minnesota needs to get him off their roster, and cash strapped teams won't take him.

 

WOULD YOU TRADE MATT MOULSON FOR THOMAS VANEK STRAIGHT UP?

 

You know what? I might. Other stuff aside, Vanek is UFA at the end of next year. Moulson is under contract until 2019.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'd like to go on record stating I don't want Vanek back on the team.

 

However, I would trade him for Moulson straight up in a heartbeat considering Vanek would only be signed through next year. This team is desperate for a touch of scoring and shedding Moulson's contract would be amazing.

 

edit: Wild also makes a valid point above.

 

I like to consider myself open-minded, but I honestly can't imagine why anyone would be against doing this. Even if Vanek is a dumpster fire, put him on waivers, banish him from the team...whatever. 1 year of an albatross contract >>>>> 3 years.

 

 

There are teams that will never approve of that rule actually happening unless they are allowed to shed players without it counting against the cap, just like a compliance buyout.

 

But yes that is a good reason to hang out to Moulson, that and he might surprise us next year.

 

Yes, and Donald Trump may divorce his wife tomorrow and marry a Syrian refugee on Saturday.

[sabills]

Moulson for Vanek straight up? Maybe. Anything more, absolutely not. 

[LGR4GM]

I like to consider myself open-minded, but I honestly can't imagine why anyone would be against doing this. Even if Vanek is a dumpster fire, put him on waivers, banish him from the team...whatever. 1 year of an albatross contract >>>>> 3 years.

 

 

 

Yes, and Donald Trump may divorce his wife tomorrow and marry a Syrian refugee on Saturday.

That's just crazy talk. Wait would it somehow make him more money or give him a tax break?

[Sabre Dance]

Owww!  Sorry, I fell off my chair I was laughing so hard.  What was the question?

[That Aud Smell]

WOULD YOU TRADE MATT MOULSON FOR THOMAS VANEK STRAIGHT UP?

 

Oh, man. /thinking

 

I wouldn't trade a bottle of Molson for Vanek straight up.

 

This made me wanna kiss you.

 

Even if Vanek is a dumpster fire, put him on waivers, banish him from the team...whatever. 1 year of an albatross contract >>>>> 3 years.

 

This is why you might make that trade.

 

Would Eichel hafta move in with TV?

[LGR4GM]

Oh, man. /thinking

 

 

This made me wanna kiss you.

 

 

This is why you might make that trade.

 

Would Eichel hafta move in with TV?

Only if we cuddle afterwards.

[That Aud Smell]

Only if we cuddle afterwards.

 

ha. sure. maybe.

 

this belongs here, btw. it's how i imagined saying it (the first time joe says it):

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[ubkev]

Yes, I trade Moulson for Vanek straight up. Matt Moulson sucks so bad and we have him signed to a ridiculous contact foringever.

[darksabre]

I think Moulson will rebound next year and still be useful to us.

[ubkev]

I think Moulson will rebound next year and still be useful to us.

Even if he does and is, he still won't be useful for the length of his awful awful deal. He signed that contract and simultaneously turned 1000 years old.