Ristolainen Signed, 6yrs 5.4mil per

[Randall Flagg]

FTR, he did get beat by those guys, but he also snuffed several opportunities by each of them as well. I saw Doughty get wrecked by McDavid like four times in one game. Karlsson's lowlight video is hours long. Risto is not the perfect d-man against a superstar team, and no d-man is a perfect d-man against tanking oilers teams, not even this year's Norris winner. I don't know what more Risto needs to show you, pi. I guess he needs to be perfect.

 

Speed? Against Pittsburgh in OT, he beat a charging Crosby to a puck in his zone, shrugged him off, and ripped a pass up the wing to send a Sabre in on a chance to win a game. Against Detroit, he caught up to freaking Nyqvist, who can fly, and turned a breakaway into nothing. Before he was worn down by 28 minutes a game against top lines getting high d-zone starting percentages with Josh Gorges (quality of competition, linemates, and zone starts all play a role in making your +/- stats incapable of actually telling us anything about Risto) late in the season, this stuff was happening every game. Remember how giddy this board was over his play?

 

Look, Doughty, Keith, Karlsson at 21 years old had plenty of bonehead plays and still do. They had fans questioning. Was Keith even in the NHL yet? He certainly wasn't as established as Risto. Show me a single NHL defenseman that was more consistent in Risto's on-ice situation than Risto is, at his age. I'll wait right here.

 

Give the kid his 8 year deal. We'll be paying him 5.5 mil a year to be the best defenseman on two cup winning teams.

Oh, and with the state of our defense, I'm not scared of a long deal coming back to bite us. We NEED Risto to be an elite 1D to have a shot. If he doesn't get there, the contract isn't going to be the thing that kills us. We wouldn't be missing out on any playoff success that could have come with giving Risto a bridge deal.

[MattPie]

So they need to compromise :)    Which is why I think 5 gets it done.    Doesn't mean he's gone after year 5, you resign him well before that if he develops, or you trade him for what would amount to a hefty return.    

 

Yeah I get it, +/- can be considered a team stat, but guess what... Risto is a big part of that team, he's on the ice for those goals against, so you can't just ignore that stat completely.     He was a -21 on a .500 team last season....   that's terrible.    Let's look at other .500 teams top defensemen (by minutes played)....

 

BUF -21 (team goal diff),  Risto -21, Bogo -11

NJD -24, Greene +7, Larsson +15

COL -24, Beauchamin -7, E. Johnson -19

MTL -15,  Subban +4, Markov -6

ARI -36, OEL -6, Stone -10

WPG -24, Byfuglien +4, Myers +6, Trouba +10

 

First part: 3 through 8 years aren't a spectrum where 5 is the middle. I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this further but, with the pros for each "side":

- 3 year deal: The Sabres aren't locked in if it all goes to hell; Risto has the chance to get paid a ton more per year if he continues developing.

- 8 year deal: The Sabres are locked in but have a cost-controlled player that'll look like a bargain in years 6-8 if all goes well; Risto has the security that he gets paid a bunch of money if he gets injured or is terrible tomorrow.

- 5 year deal: The only advantage to the Sabres is if he does turn to garbage they get out a couple years earlier (but that's what a 3-yr is for); Risto gets all the advantage; he becomes a UFA in the prime of his career and can command a metric ton of money.

 

Again, if the Sabres think he'll progress, go 8. If they think there's a decent chance he'll be terrible, go 3. There is no good reason to go 5.

 

+/- discussion: this is why advanced stats exist. Even within a team +/- doesn't mean anything for players unless everyone gets the same ice time and a random distribution of opponents. As soon as you get to "We try to match Risto with Crosby whenever possible", Franson's numbers are going to look better.

Edited September 20, 2016 by MattPie

[LGR4GM]

So they need to compromise :)    Which is why I think 5 gets it done.    Doesn't mean he's gone after year 5, you resign him well before that if he develops, or you trade him for what would amount to a hefty return.    

 

I'll say it again, he hasn't shown enough to warrant an 8-year deal.    He's slow on puck retrievals and doesn't have very good hands or quickness, his transitions (backward to forward mostly) are slow and clumsy at times.   He gets beat wide quite often... see McDavid last season, or Matthews in the World Cup on Eichel's goal.    Yeah, those are some great players, but you need your franchise defenseman to be able to defend those guys.     Murray didn't draft him and yes, most folks who know anything about hockey like him as a prospect.    He took his game to another level last season, but that needs to continue for another few years before you lock him up for nearly a decade.  

 

Dmitri Kalinin is a guy that comes to mind, he too was a nice prospect but never developed... how do you know this isn't the best we'll ever see from Risto?  If this is his best, are you still willing to give him 8 years?     

 

Yeah I get it, +/- can be considered a team stat, but guess what... Risto is a big part of that team, he's on the ice for those goals against, so you can't just ignore that stat completely.     He was a -21 on a .500 team last season....   that's terrible.    Let's look at other .500 teams top defensemen (by minutes played)....

 

BUF -21 (team goal diff),  Risto -21, Bogo -11

NJD -24, Greene +7, Larsson +15

COL -24, Beauchamin -7, E. Johnson -19

MTL -15,  Subban +4, Markov -6

ARI -36, OEL -6, Stone -10

WPG -24, Byfuglien +4, Myers +6, Trouba +10

 

5 years is not a compromise. How many different ways can I explain this to you? That means Ristolainen is a 27yr old going into UFA. That is the prime age to be UFA, he would almost be dumb not to at least hear what other teams say to him and even if we lock him up, he has the leverage of that UFA to push up his money. If you aren't comfortable with 3 or 8, I could see a possible compromise at 6 but that would be it. 

 

Cool, you put +/- in some context. Now go look up who Risto's defense partner was last season. I bet it wasn't Trouba or Byfuglien or Markov, or even Zach Bogosian. His +/- wasn't great last year but that # needs more context than anything you have been willing to give it. Go look up his CF%, I think it is around 45% which isn't great for a top defender, you want him above 50% in my book. 

 

As to your actual critique of his play, I watched a very different player than you. "He's slow on puck retrievals and doesn't have very good hands or quickness, his transitions (backward to forward mostly) are slow and clumsy at times." I'm sorry when was this? He most assuredly is not slow, his hands are fairly good for a defender, and he skates backwards better than some forwards can forward. As to McDavid beating him wide, pretty much every defender gets beat wide now and again, if McDavid is the guy doing it, well it is Connor McDavid, he's probably the best player to enter the league since Crosby. 

 

Again, 3 years if fine with me. 8 years is fine. 4 or 5 years is absolute garbage. or get off the pot. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by LGR4GM

[qwksndmonster]

The Myers comparison is so terrible. Myers had a terrific rookie season and then regressed big time. Risto has had a much smoother trajectory, getting better every year.

 

Going a step further, I don't think I can name two more different defensemen in the way these guys mentally approach the game. Risto is confident, smooth, and implacable. Myers, after his rookie year, was inconstant and nervous. You could see Myers trying to think whereas Risto just does.

 

Ever see Myers get a point shot through? Now think of how Risto floats backwards at the blue line with the puck just waiting for the opposing forwards to move one inch out place.

[pi2000]

First part: 3 through 8 years aren't a spectrum where 5 is the middle. I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this further but, with the pros for each "side":

- 3 year deal: The Sabres aren't locked in if it all goes to hell; Risto has the chance to get paid a ton more per year if he continues developing.

- 8 year deal: The Sabres are locked in but have a cost-controlled player that'll look like a bargain in years 6-8 if all goes well; Risto has the security that he gets paid a bunch of money if he gets injured or is terrible tomorrow.

- 5 year deal: The only advantage to the Sabres is if he does turn to garbage they get out a couple years earlier (but that's what a 3-yr is for); Risto gets all the advantage; he becomes a UFA in the prime of his career and can command a metric ton of money.

 

Again, if the Sabres think he'll progress, go 8. If they think there's a decent chance he'll be terrible, go 3. There is no good reason to go 5.

 

+/- discussion: this is why advanced stats exist. Even within a team +/- doesn't mean anything for players unless everyone gets the same ice time and a random distribution of opponents. As soon as you get to "We try to match Risto with Crosby whenever possible", Franson's numbers are going to look better.

 

You can't just look at the contract the length from purely a salary cap standpoint.    There is a chance that an 8-year deal at his age will derail his career by removing some incentive to reach his full potential.    A 5-year deal keeps him motivated to keep improving... a 3-year deal likely pisses him off, I think he's shown enough that 5 years is fair value and keeps him working hard for his next contract.

 

WRT +/-, I compared top defensemen (by TOI) on teams with similar goal differentials.     Risto is by far the worst, I'm still waiting for an explanation why.   OEL plays the same minutes on a worse team and is in the single digit range which is respectable.    In fact, OEL signed a 6 year $5.5mil deal at age 21, which has worked out well... even he didn't get 8 years.

Edited September 20, 2016 by pi2000

[LGR4GM]

First part: 3 through 8 years aren't a spectrum where 5 is the middle. I'm not sure why I'm trying to explain this further but, with the pros for each "side":

- 3 year deal: The Sabres aren't locked in if it all goes to hell; Risto has the chance to get paid a ton more per year if he continues developing.

- 8 year deal: The Sabres are locked in but have a cost-controlled player that'll look like a bargain in years 6-8 if all goes well; Risto has the security that he gets paid a bunch of money if he gets injured or is terrible tomorrow.

- 5 year deal: The only advantage to the Sabres is if he does turn to garbage they get out a couple years earlier (but that's what a 3-yr is for); Risto gets all the advantage; he becomes a UFA in the prime of his career and can command a metric ton of money.

 

Again, if the Sabres think he'll progress, go 8. If they think there's a decent chance he'll be terrible, go 3. There is no good reason to go 5.

 

+/- discussion: this is why advanced stats exist. Even within a team +/- doesn't mean anything for players unless everyone gets the same ice time and a random distribution of opponents. As soon as you get to "We try to match Risto with Crosby whenever possible", Franson's numbers are going to look better.

I agree.

[Randall Flagg]

You can't just look at the contract the length from purely a salary cap standpoint. There is a chance that an 8-year deal at his age will derail his career by removing some incentive to reach his full potential. A 5-year deal keeps him motivated to keep improving... a 3-year deal likely pisses him off, I think he's shown enough that 5 years is fair value and keeps him working hard for his next contract.

 

WRT +/-, I compared top defensemen (by TOI) on teams with similar goal differentials. Risto is by far the worst, I'm still waiting for an explanation why. OEL plays more minutes on a worse team and is in the single digit range which is respectable. In fact, OEL signed a 6 year $5.5mil deal at age 21, which has worked out well... even he didn't 8 years.

I explained why his +/- doesn't mean anything, and why the stat is trash in general. You've given no meaningful statistical context, in the form of usage and linemates and QoC that lets us use +/- to say anything about Risto's ability (relative to a 24/25 year old who is a top 7 D in the world, no less)

 

OEL is a top 7 defenseman in the NHL and will get a new deal at age 27 which likely takes him out of Phoenix because they won't want to pay it. I don't want to give Risto that contract until he's 29/30, because I want him winning cups at age 26, 27, 28, or 29 at 5.5 mil a year. I don't want him making 9 mil at age 26, like what PK is doing.

[LGR4GM]

You can't just look at the contract the length from purely a salary cap standpoint.    There is a chance that an 8-year deal at his age will derail his career by removing some incentive to reach his full potential.    A 5-year deal keeps him motivated to keep improving... a 3-year deal likely pisses him off, I think he's shown enough that 5 years is fair value and keeps him working hard for his next contract.

 

WRT +/-, I compared top defensemen (by TOI) on teams with similar goal differentials.     Risto is by far the worst, I'm still waiting for an explanation why.   OEL plays the same minutes on a worse team and is in the single digit range which is respectable.    In fact, OEL signed a 6 year $5.5mil deal at age 21, which has worked out well... even he didn't get 8 years.

A 5 year deal let's him become a UFA if he chooses at 27, the prime years of his career. This makes is a bad deal. This is a recording.

 

OEL will be a 28yr old UFA and I bet money Arizona wishes they had him for those additional 2 years. 

 

OEL last year did play on a worse team... His CF% is 5% higher and his Fenwick is only 4.8% higher. OEL is a better defender right now than Rasmus. He is also 25, has played over twice as many games, and scored 55pts last year. He's what we want Risto to get to. OEL didn't decline after signing a mega 6 year deal at age 21 but Risto you seem convinced will.

Edited September 20, 2016 by LGR4GM

[TrueBlueGED]

5 years is not a compromise. How many different ways can I explain this to you? That means Ristolainen is a 27yr old going into UFA. That is the prime age to be UFA, he would almost be dumb not to at least hear what other teams say to him and even if we lock him up, he has the leverage of that UFA to push up his money. If you aren't comfortable with 3 or 8, I could see a possible compromise at 6 but that would be it. 

 

Though I generally think Pi is out to lunch, I don't think we should be too worried about this. Ever year stars enter their UFA season without a contract, and every year they re-sign with their current team. Stamkos was the only one who even flirted with leaving.

I explained why his +/- doesn't mean anything, and why the stat is trash in general. You've given no meaningful statistical context, in the form of usage and linemates and QoC that lets us use +/- to say anything about Risto's ability (relative to a 24/25 year old who is a top 7 D in the world, no less)

 

OEL is a top 7 defenseman in the NHL and will get a new deal at age 27 which likely takes him out of Phoenix because they won't want to pay it. I don't want to give Risto that contract until he's 29/30, because I want him winning cups at age 26, 27, 28, or 29 at 5.5 mil a year. I don't want him making 9 mil at age 26, like what PK is doing.

 

I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, sure the longer of his prime we get signed now the better. On the other hand, I don't want to be in the spot Chicago was where they had to pay a soon-to-be (or already, depending on who you ask) declining player (Seabrook) big money at 30. If we could sign Risto for 8 I probably prefer that to 6, but I don't think 6 is a bad option.

[Randall Flagg]

Though I generally think Pi is out to lunch, I don't think we should be too worried about this. Ever year stars enter their UFA season without a contract, and every year they re-sign with their current team. Stamkos was the only one who even flirted with leaving.

 

 

I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, sure the longer of his prime we get signed now the better. On the other hand, I don't want to be in the spot Chicago was where they had to pay a soon-to-be (or already, depending on who you ask) declining player (Seabrook) big money at 30. If we could sign Risto for 8 I probably prefer that to 6, but I don't think 6 is a bad option.

I take the trade-off for anything approaching what Chicago did in those years before Seabrook's contract. I really do. Get this city a championship no matter what Ristolainen is paid at age 36.

[pi2000]

I explained why his +/- doesn't mean anything, and why the stat is trash in general. You've given no meaningful statistical context, in the form of usage and linemates and QoC that lets us use +/- to say anything about Risto's ability (relative to a 24/25 year old who is a top 7 D in the world, no less)

 

OEL is a top 7 defenseman in the NHL and will get a new deal at age 27 which likely takes him out of Phoenix because they won't want to pay it. I don't want to give Risto that contract until he's 29/30, because I want him winning cups at age 26, 27, 28, or 29 at 5.5 mil a year. I don't want him making 9 mil at age 26, like what PK is doing.

 

+/- means something, it's a statistic for a reason.    You can't make assumptions about players by looking only at their +/-, but it does help paint the picture of who that player is.    

 

Do you think OEL would be where he is today if signed for 8-years instead of 6?    Maybe, maybe not.    If Risto becomes OEL at age 26-27, then the team is like a contender at that point and he wants to stick around, so you open negotiations on an extension before the final year in his deal.    This isn't Darcy running the team anymore.... eg, O'Reilly had one year left on his deal when GMTM signed him to an extension.     Maybe Risto can get more money somewhere else at that point, but will he want to leave?  Did Stamkos leave?   Kopitar?   Getzlaf?  etc..

 

 

A 5 year deal let's him become a UFA if he chooses at 27, the prime years of his career. This makes is a bad deal. This is a recording.

 

OEL will be a 28yr old UFA and I bet money Arizona wishes they had him for those additional 2 years. 

 

OEL last year did play on a worse team... His CF% is 5% higher and his Fenwick is only 4.8% higher. OEL is a better defender right now than Rasmus. He is also 25, has played over twice as many games, and scored 55pts last year. He's what we want Risto to get to. OEL didn't decline after signing a mega 6 year deal at age 21 but Risto you seem convinced will.

 

(not sure why I bolded everything, it)   Anyway, like I said above, if he becomes a top defender the team is likely contending, he won't want to leave, we'll sign him to an extension before he even gets to his final year.    Will it be costly?  Likely, but you'll have a highly motivated player in years 3-4 of his deal so he can maximize his value... it's those years I want to see the Sabres hoisting the Cup, anything after that is just gravy.    

 

Yeah, OEL is great, that contract worked well, he has continued to develop knowing a career contract is on the horizon... if he signed 8 years, maybe he's not so motivated as a 22, 23, 24 year old.   

 

I'd be OK with 6 years, but no more.   OEL has been a near 0 +/- player even on bad ARI teams, he was a -18 the year they tanked, Risto was a -32 that season.    Therefore I grant Risto 5 years, not 6.     

[TrueBlueGED]

I take the trade-off for anything approaching what Chicago did in those years before Seabrook's contract. I really do. Get this city a ###### championship no matter what Ristolainen is paid at age 36.

 

Totally fair. I will say that if Risto gets 8, then Jack and Sam must also get 8 because there's no f'n way I want all three hitting UFA at once...not that I'd want to sign Jack and Sam for less than 8 anyway. Just sayin.

[pi2000]

Totally fair. I will say that if Risto gets 8, then Jack and Sam must also get 8 because there's no f'n way I want all three hitting UFA at once...not that I'd want to sign Jack and Sam for less than 8 anyway. Just sayin.

 

This is where being a GM gets tough.   You have to be very careful about who you give term.   You have to be absolutely certain those guys are the future core of your franchise if you go max term.    We all know how that worked out with Myers and Vanek.   

[JohnnyK]

It seems to me a deal will come only after the world cup of hockey is over due to the fact he might get hurt.  This would suggest a longer deal vs. a shorter deal.

any thoughts?

 

Go Sabres!!!

[qwksndmonster]

This is where being a GM gets tough. You have to be very careful about who you give term. You have to be absolutely certain those guys are the future core of your franchise if you go max term. We all know how that worked out with Myers and Vanek.

Really? Vanek? Talk about apples and Apple Jacks.

[pi2000]

Really? Vanek? Talk about apples and Apple Jacks.

 

He was supposed to be the cornerstone of the franchise, nobody predicted his decline back then, we all wanted him to get that long term deal.  

 

He scored 42g in Roch as a 19 year old, 43g in BUF two years later, hovered around the 40g mark during his ELC, then signed a 7 year deal and packed it in.  

 

Maybe if we only gave him a 4 or 5 year deal, he'd have maintained his work ethic?       

[MattPie]

He was supposed to be the cornerstone of the franchise, nobody predicted his decline back then, we all wanted him to get that long term deal.  

 

He scored 42g in Roch as a 19 year old, 43g in BUF two years later, hovered around the 40g mark during his ELC, then signed a 7 year deal and packed it in.  

 

Maybe if we only gave him a 4 or 5 year deal, he'd have maintained his work ethic?       

 

Couldn't possibly be that he went from the 3rd line to the 1st and the increased D quality he faced, right? I'm not saying Vanek was great, but a lot changed in the league and team at the same time he went from ELC to his big contract.

[Taro T]

He was supposed to be the cornerstone of the franchise, nobody predicted his decline back then, we all wanted him to get that long term deal.  

 

He scored 42g in Roch as a 19 year old, 43g in BUF two years later, hovered around the 40g mark during his ELC, then signed a 7 year deal and packed it in.  

 

Maybe if we only gave him a 4 or 5 year deal, he'd have maintained his work ethic?

 

Revisionist history. Though many here (yours truly included) believed they needed to keep him due to the 7/1 carnage, there were several that wanted the 5 picks.

[Doohicksie]

Couldn't possibly be that he went from the 3rd line to the 1st and the increased D quality he faced, right? I'm not saying Vanek was great, but a lot changed in the league and team at the same time he went from ELC to his big contract.

 

The loss of leadership on the team couldn't have helped him either.  I gotta believe that if either Drury or Briere had decided to stay, they would have helped him through the bumps along the way and helped prevent the dropoff.

[LGR4GM]

+/- means something, it's a statistic for a reason.    You can't make assumptions about players by looking only at their +/-, but it does help paint the picture of who that player is.    

 

Do you think OEL would be where he is today if signed for 8-years instead of 6?    Maybe, maybe not.    If Risto becomes OEL at age 26-27, then the team is like a contender at that point and he wants to stick around, so you open negotiations on an extension before the final year in his deal.    This isn't Darcy running the team anymore.... eg, O'Reilly had one year left on his deal when GMTM signed him to an extension.     Maybe Risto can get more money somewhere else at that point, but will he want to leave?  Did Stamkos leave?   Kopitar?   Getzlaf?  etc..

 

 

 

(not sure why I bolded everything, ###### it)   Anyway, like I said above, if he becomes a top defender the team is likely contending, he won't want to leave, we'll sign him to an extension before he even gets to his final year.    Will it be costly?  Likely, but you'll have a highly motivated player in years 3-4 of his deal so he can maximize his value... it's those years I want to see the Sabres hoisting the Cup, anything after that is just gravy.    

 

Yeah, OEL is great, that contract worked well, he has continued to develop knowing a career contract is on the horizon... if he signed 8 years, maybe he's not so motivated as a 22, 23, 24 year old.   

 

I'd be OK with 6 years, but no more.   OEL has been a near 0 +/- player even on bad ARI teams, he was a -18 the year they tanked, Risto was a -32 that season.    Therefore I grant Risto 5 years, not 6.     

+/- tells me how good that player is relative to their team. 

 

You can't know what motivates someone else like a pro athlete. So everytime you resort to the "maybe he won't be motivated after getting an 8yr deal" talking point all I have to do is counter with, "maybe it will push him to live up to the deal" and around and around we go. Most pro athletes are not just motivated by money, they have other things added to the mix with money and such. Winning matters to these players. Being good matters. We don't know what motivates Ristolainen.

 

As to the bolded section, OEL was 23 instead of Rasmus' 20 and had played 4 seasons compared to Ristolainen's 1. Come on man, at least think about that stuff.

He was supposed to be the cornerstone of the franchise, nobody predicted his decline back then, we all wanted him to get that long term deal.  

 

He scored 42g in Roch as a 19 year old, 43g in BUF two years later, hovered around the 40g mark during his ELC, then signed a 7 year deal and packed it in.  

 

Maybe if we only gave him a 4 or 5 year deal, he'd have maintained his work ethic?       

Vanek and Ristolainen are not the same player. Also Vanek went from having some cushy minutes mostly to having Derek Roy as his permanent center. Barf.

[MattPie]

Vanek and Ristolainen are not the same player. Also Vanek went from having some cushy minutes mostly to having Derek Roy as his permanent center. Barf.

 

Cushy minutes yes, but IIRC the 3rd line in 05-06 was SRV (Vanek, Roy, and Stafford) and they tore it up against 3rd pair D. Once 07-08 came around, suddenly they're getting 1st pair D and shutdown forwards.

[pi2000]

+/- tells me how good that player is relative to their team. 

 

You can't know what motivates someone else like a pro athlete. So everytime you resort to the "maybe he won't be motivated after getting an 8yr deal" talking point all I have to do is counter with, "maybe it will push him to live up to the deal" and around and around we go. Most pro athletes are not just motivated by money, they have other things added to the mix with money and such. Winning matters to these players. Being good matters. We don't know what motivates Ristolainen.

 

As to the bolded section, OEL was 23 instead of Rasmus' 20 and had played 4 seasons compared to Ristolainen's 1. Come on man, at least think about that stuff.

Vanek and Ristolainen are not the same player. Also Vanek went from having some cushy minutes mostly to having Derek Roy as his permanent center. Barf.

 

Risto was a team worst -21 last season, on a .500 team that had a -21 goal differential.     Bogo was a -11.     Gorges a -7.    Those are the only 3 d-men to avg >20min a game.    Why is Risto so much worse than Bogo and Gorges?    If his poor +/- is due to a ###### D partner, then why doesn't that guy have nearly as bad a +/-?     I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really am trying to understand why we shouldn't read so much into Risto's terrible +/- when compared to others on the team.     And you can't argue that he's out there all the time, because then he should be out there for goals for as well.

 

I can name probably 5 times as many players who packed it in after signing a max term deal, than those who took their game to the next level.    

 

And how many players have career years coming up on their contract year?   Too many to mention.

 

You know Vanek and Risto personally?   What makes them so much different than each other at 21?

Edited September 20, 2016 by pi2000

[qwksndmonster]

He was supposed to be the cornerstone of the franchise, nobody predicted his decline back then, we all wanted him to get that long term deal.

 

He scored 42g in Roch as a 19 year old, 43g in BUF two years later, hovered around the 40g mark during his ELC, then signed a 7 year deal and packed it in.

 

Maybe if we only gave him a 4 or 5 year deal, he'd have maintained his work ethic?

Vanek scored 40 goals in the 2 run and gun post lock out seasons of ancient legend. Then he had one kind of bad season- 53 points in 71 games and then produced at the level of a legit 1st liner for the rest of his Sabres career despite having a meh supporting cast. It's not Vanek's fault that Darcy failed to build a forward core. Vanek was our best forward when he should've been our 3rd or 4th best.

 

Not to mention that his contract was forced onto us by black sunday and the offer sheet. It wasn't a GM navigating a Myers/Risto type extension, like your comparison makes it seem.

 

Vanek made faces. He was a weirdo Euro gambler dude. He didn't play lots of defence.

 

But (and this goes to anybody that wants to talk about Thommy V), stop trying to pretend that Vanek didn't try or wasn't good. The dude sacrificed his body in front of the net nightly, and no doubt shortened his career in the proccess.

 

Thomas Vanek lived through Darcy purgatory and took it like a man. Like the depressed, compulsive gambling weird man that he was.

[pi2000]

Vanek scored 40 goals in the 2 run and gun post lock out seasons of ancient legend. Then he had one kind of bad season- 53 points in 71 games and then produced at the level of a legit 1st liner for the rest of his Sabres career despite having a meh supporting cast. It's not Vanek's fault that Darcy failed to build a forward core. Vanek was our best forward when he should've been our 3rd or 4th best.

 

Not to mention that his contract was forced onto us by black sunday and the offer sheet. It wasn't a GM navigating a Myers/Risto type extension, like your comparison makes it seem.

 

Vanek made faces. He was a weirdo Euro gambler dude. He didn't play lots of defence.

 

But (and this goes to anybody that wants to talk ###### about Thommy V), stop trying to pretend that Vanek didn't try or wasn't good. The dude sacrificed his body in front of the net nightly, and no doubt shortened his career in the proccess.

 

Thomas Vanek lived through Darcy purgatory and took it like a man. Like the depressed, compulsive gambling weird man that he was.

 

My intention wasn't to slam Vanek.    My point is that he peaked (statistically) at 21-22 years old.   How do we know Risto hasn't peaked?   Did Vanek slack off a bit after signing the 7-year deal?   Probably some... did Myers?  yeah likely.   Let's not see what happens to Risto by giving him the same term at the same stage of his development.    

 

We'd all like to think he's the next Lidstrom, or OEL, or guys like that.    But we don't know, and honestly his shortcomings are things like foot speed and agility, hand-eye, etc.. things I'm not convinced he can improve... maybe he can, maybe he does get a step quicker or more fluid.   

 

Let me put it this way.... if this is the best Risto will ever be, do you still offer him an 8-year deal?

[qwksndmonster]

Pi, why do you keep using completely useless statistical data to back your arguments? Context matters. Saying Vanek peaked statistically means absolutely nothing because he was on a stacked team in the relatively wide open run and gun post lockout seasons. I just mentioned that and you ignored it. Vanek's peak pretty much lasted him until he was 28-29 or so if I remember correctly.

 

Foot speed? Agility? Hand-eye? Does anybody know what he's even talking about?