bob_sauve28 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Should we have taken the 5 first rounders and run? How good is he? Compared to Crosby, Datsuk, Zetterberg or Ovechkin? Can he lead this team to the promised land eventunally? You like or dislike him? I think he is a really good player, but I wish we had kept Campbell and let Vanek go, if that was possible. He isn't a super star, IMO, just a very good player who will help us win but won't be a dominate player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I've liked Vanek since college and was glad the Sabres drafted him. I'm quite happy with him as a Sabre. He still needs to take on more of a leadership role on the ice and Lindy still needs to give him more chances. But I could see 5 1st rounders really allowing the team to change direction if they had thought that was needed (which we know they do not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Should we have taken the 5 first rounders and run? How good is he? Compared to Crosby, Datsuk, Zetterberg or Ovechkin? Can he lead this team to the promised land eventunally? You like or dislike him? I think he is a really good player, but I wish we had kept Campbell and let Vanek go, if that was possible. He isn't a super star, IMO, just a very good player who will help us win but won't be a dominate player. First, I'm down with the choice to keep Vanek. Even if you might not think he's worth his contract, can you blame the FO for signing him after losing Briere and Dru? Despite the poor decisions made by DR over the years, I think most will agree it had to be done. Compared to Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk and the like: not even close. I guess my definition of a great player involves slightly more pure talent than Vanek's stand-in-front-of-the-net garbage goal routine. Not that it's a bad way to play -- he gets the job done and he's got good hands for that style of play -- I just think a guy like Datsyuk who can undress the entire opposing team on his way to beating the goalie should be considered a better player. A guy like Crosby who can skate, make plays out of practically nothing, and score highlight-reel goals from time to time should be considered a better player. And, of course, a guy like Ovechkin who has arguably the best shot in the game, consistently scores goals, and loves using his body is obviously a better player. That being said, he is a good player. He's no leader and doesn't have the best speed or stick handling ability, but if he gets back on track next season he can certainly be considered a star player (just not superstar). Also there is no question I would rather have Vanek than Campbell, especially when considering Brian's salary, but even if salary were irrelevant, it's no contest that I would prefer Vanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Should we have taken the 5 first rounders and run? No. You don't get to take a player of his ilk very often. I hate his on ice demeanor, his facial expressions and his skating style but his hands are among the best in the league. You just don't find that very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 First, I'm down with the choice to keep Vanek. Even if you might not think he's worth his contract, can you blame the FO for signing him after losing Briere and Dru? Despite the poor decisions made by DR over the years, I think most will agree it had to be done. Compared to Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk and the like: not even close. I guess my definition of a great player involves slightly more pure talent than Vanek's stand-in-front-of-the-net garbage goal routine. Not that it's a bad way to play -- he gets the job done and he's got good hands for that style of play -- I just think a guy like Datsyuk who can undress the entire opposing team on his way to beating the goalie should be considered a better player. A guy like Crosby who can skate, make plays out of practically nothing, and score highlight-reel goals from time to time should be considered a better player. And, of course, a guy like Ovechkin who has arguably the best shot in the game, consistently scores goals, and loves using his body is obviously a better player. That being said, he is a good player. He's no leader and doesn't have the best speed or stick handling ability, but if he gets back on track next season he can certainly be considered a star player (just not superstar). Also there is no question I would rather have Vanek than Campbell, especially when considering Brian's salary, but even if salary were irrelevant, it's no contest that I would prefer Vanek. Just Jack being Jack good post well put. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Well, who would the first two of the five first-round picks likely have been? I like when that red light goes on, but all in all he's a tough player to like on a personal level. His talent is rotting on the vine in Buffalo with Ruff at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Should we have taken the 5 first rounders and run? How good is he? Compared to Crosby, Datsuk, Zetterberg or Ovechkin? Can he lead this team to the promised land eventunally? You like or dislike him? I think he is a really good player, but I wish we had kept Campbell and let Vanek go, if that was possible. He isn't a super star, IMO, just a very good player who will help us win but won't be a dominate player. Good Question...... I think he is worth the money ....but he is not in the same sentence as Crosby, Zetterberg, Ovechkin. .... He's more of a John Ogrodnick type player. He's going to put up dominating numbers without ever appearing dominating. I don't think the fan base would have tolerated losing Vanek when they had already lost Briere et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 No. You don't get to take a player of his ilk very often. I hate his on ice demeanor, his facial expressions and his skating style but his hands are among the best in the league. You just don't find that very often. Exactly. His "go to the net, garbage goal routine" certainly isn't flashy to look at, but it takes talent and we really need his type of player given the current tone and style of the NHL. There's a reason his redirected point shots go into the net while guys like Paille put the same redirection 15 rows deep in the lower bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I guess my definition of a great player involves slightly more pure talent than Vanek's stand-in-front-of-the-net garbage goal routine. Not that it's a bad way to play -- he gets the job done and he's got good hands for that style of play -- I just think a guy like Datsyuk who can undress the entire opposing team on his way to beating the goalie should be considered a better player. A guy like Crosby who can skate, make plays out of practically nothing, and score highlight-reel goals from time to time should be considered a better player. And, of course, a guy like Ovechkin who has arguably the best shot in the game, consistently scores goals, and loves using his body is obviously a better player. I think a lot of those attributes, especially his skating skills and hands and ability to score unbelievable goals, were well known to NHL scouts. One college hockey site even predicted that with Miller in goal and Vanek up front, there would be a Stanley Cup parade on Chippewa St. The writer certainly did not appreciate the hockey sausage grinder Vanek was about to enter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JujuFish Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The compensation for losing a restricted free agent >$5mil is 4 first rounders, not 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Good Question...... I think he is worth the money ....but he is not in the same sentence as Crosby, Zetterberg, Ovechkin. .... He's more of a John Ogrodnick type player. He's going to put up dominating numbers without ever appearing dominating. I don't think the fan base would have tolerated losing Vanek when they had already lost Briere et al. Wow! That's going back a few years! I remember him but not the type of player he was. I guess I should have asked if the Vanek thing happened seperate from the Briere/Drury losses would that have been different. Vanek is a strange player. He's tough in the sense that he goes where the goals are scored and scores, but unlike a Crosby or Ovechkin, he doesn't hit a lot or mix it up a whole bunch. He just scores gaols. Which is what he is suppose to do. I guess what I'm getting at is that he doesn't make the people around him better like some other players do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I guess I should have asked if the Vanek thing happened seperate from the Briere/Drury losses would that have been different. I still would have been all for them keeping him. Although, as DeLuca mentioned in another thread, it was probably the FO's fault that Edmonton even got an offer sheet in to begin with; so I might have been a little ticked with the contract. There's no way he was worth his early money (didn't he make 10 mil the first year?), but if he had been signed at his current salary -- definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Wow! That's going back a few years! I remember him but not the type of player he was. I guess I should have asked if the Vanek thing happened seperate from the Briere/Drury losses would that have been different. Vanek is a strange player. He's tough in the sense that he goes where the goals are scored and scores, but unlike a Crosby or Ovechkin, he doesn't hit a lot or mix it up a whole bunch. He just scores gaols. Which is what he is suppose to do. I guess what I'm getting at is that he doesn't make the people around him better like some other players do. :lol: I guess I just remember the yearly Ogrodnick rumors....Buffalo was always going to sign him to get him back on a line with Mike Foligno....and then he would get hot and score 15 goals that month. :lol: The guy just was never a premier star, and not a media type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 There's no way he was worth his early money (didn't he make 10 mil the first year?), but if he had been signed at his current salary -- definitely. In the salary cap era, yearly salary should be a secondary consideration to a players worth as his annual cap hit is the real value point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 In the salary cap era, yearly salary should be a secondary consideration to a players worth as his annual cap hit is the real value point. Not when the team's budget is the deciding factor, not the cap. Going into 2007-08, they knew that their internal budget was getting leapfrogged by the cap, so his early $10 million and $8 million years were far more significant than his cap hit. Of course, you did say "should" ... On a side note: PA asked who the first two picks would likely have been and my answer is "who knows?" Can we assume that Edmonton would have done the same with Vanek, not Penner? I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 In the salary cap era, yearly salary should be a secondary consideration to a players worth as his annual cap hit is the real value point. Understood, but what I'm saying is that if the Briere/Drury debacle never went down -- let's just say they were never even on the team. Then, I would have been a little upset about Vanek's early contract years inflating that cap hit, especially after only 2 years of NHL experience that he had. But because of losing Briere/Drury, I'm fine with his 7.x cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Even after 4 years, I still think the jury's out on Vanek. He is not in the same league as Ovechkin, Crosby, Datsyuk, Malkin, and Zetterberg. Can he get there? Maybe. Vanek is a goal scorer, he's not a playmaker and anyone who thinks that's his role doesn't get what he's here for. In that regard, I don't think he'll ever be the type of player that makes his teammates better because really those guys tend to be centerman or playmakers and Vanek is neither one. Vanek's defensive game is no where in the same league as Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and to a lesser extent Malkin and Crosby. Vanek still seems to be adjusting to facing checking lines and top pair defenseman, and even with that plus an injury shortened season, he put up 40 goals. I think Vanek can become a super star if super star means a guy who faces tons of defensive pressure and still puts up tons of points. His defensive game has improved a lot, but he still sometimes does not hustle back on the backcheck and could definitely improve his defensive game. As much as Ruff and Vanek don't seem to get along, I think Ruff is good for Vanek and his tough love has made Vanek a better player over the last four years, especially as a two way player. I still don't think we have seen the full potential of Vanek as of yet. I think there's more there than we have seen. I think Vanek can improve defensively as I stated before, but I think he can also improve in terms of his decision making. This is one area that I have noticed a lot over the last few years where he has a tendency to make the pass unselfishly on plays where clearly he needs to be shooting the puck. He needs to get a better sense of when to shoot and when to pass. Along with that, he could improve his playmaking ability as well. By improving his playmaking ability, he can create some unpredictability in goalies' and defensemen's minds and they won't know if he's going to shoot or pass because he is equally good at both and can hurt you in both ways. I think there is still a lot more room for improvement for Vanek even considering he's a 40 goal scorer. With regard to the question, if Briere and Drury are re-signed, I say take the draft picks, no question about it. If Briere and Drury are signed, Vanek probably does not get an offer sheet that big anyway and Darcy negotiates a deal in the $4-$5 million range. But, none of that matters now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Well, Columbus just signed Roy, so I guess it's good to still have Vanek. :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Here's my 2 cents: 1. We'll never know whether the Sabres could've signed Vanek to a better contract had they been more proactive. Bucky seems sure of it, but OTOH I listened to an interview with Vanek's agent in which he said pretty definitively that their intention was to try to get an offer sheet, which is exactly what happened. Of course, the agent could've been saying that because (i) it made the agent look smart and (ii) it helped the Sabres, who had just committed a huge amount of cash to Vanek. 2. I would much rather have kept Vanek than taken 4 first-round picks. Edmonton's first-rounder in 2007 (#6 in the draft) was Sam Gagner, who looks like a nice player and had 13 goals in his 1st year and 16 in his 2nd. With Vanek, Edmonton might have finished a few slots higher, resulting in a worse draft pick. No one picked near Gagner has had much of an impact in the NHL yet. Edmonton also had, via trades, the #15 and #21 picks that year -- not sure if those would've gone to the Sabres as compensation, or whether it would've been Edmonton's "natural" first-rounder for 4 years in a row. Either way, the guys they picked -- Alex Plante and Riley Nash -- aren't going to make anyone forget Vanek. In 2008, coincidentally enough, Edmonton originally had the 13th pick, which they traded to LA, who then traded it to Buffalo, who picked Myers. Edmonton also had #22 via trade and picked Jordan Eberle, who played in juniors last year. Bottom line on first-rounders is that it is a huge crapshoot and unless you are going to get top-3 picks, I think it's crazy to give up a guy like Vanek. 3. Vanek's game reminds me most of Phil Esposito's. Not the best skater, but phenomenal hands, a big body, and a great talent for "posting up" and scoring goals in front of the net. Esposito scored 23, 27, 21 and 35 goals in his 1st 4 full NHL seasons, before getting traded to Boston and producing 35, 49, 43, 76, 66, 55, 68, and 61 goals. 4. Vanek has a different game from Ovechkin and Crosby (and Zetterberg and Datsyuk), but he can develop into a player that is close to their level. In the first few months of last season, he was the best player on the ice many nights. I can see Vanek reeling off a string of 45-to-60 goal seasons for the Sabres. 5. Just so PAFan's BS doesn't go unchallenged: Vanek will get more ice time when he earns it. When he does, his scoring numbers will improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 No. You don't get to take a player of his ilk very often. I hate his on ice demeanor, his facial expressions and his skating style but his hands are among the best in the league. You just don't find that very often. Stop having the same opinion as me. I never get to say anything original anymore. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Stop having the same opinion as me. I never get to say anything original anymore. :cry: Just don't get calf implants, tons of ink and an unhealthy obsession with spndnchz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Stop having the same opinion as me. I never get to say anything original anymore. :cry: That's what happens when your (edit: you're!) ink's bitch. Been there, done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Just don't get calf implants, tons of ink and an unhealthy obsession with spndnchz. 1 out of 3 ain't bad... :unsure: That's what happens when your ink's bitch. Been there, done that. Who said I'm the bitch? :chris: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven233 Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Should we have taken the 5 first rounders and run? How good is he? Compared to Crosby, Datsuk, Zetterberg or Ovechkin? Can he lead this team to the promised land eventunally? You like or dislike him? I think he is a really good player, but I wish we had kept Campbell and let Vanek go, if that was possible. He isn't a super star, IMO, just a very good player who will help us win but won't be a dominate player. This is a tough question to answer. I do believe that he is a Superstar, but he is a total different type of star than those you mentioned. The guys you mentioned play a totally different style that Vanek does. I think that if you are considered a Superstar, you have to be the best at what you do. Guys like you mentioned are the best at what they do (skating and shooting)..........more of an up and down the ice style. Vanek on the other hand, while he can skate and has a great shot, does not play the same style as those guys. He parks himself in front of the net and tips shots and gets beat up scoring the dirty goals. BUT, HE MAY BE THE BEST IN THE NHL AT THAT. So, he still gets the goals and makes the plays, it just happens in a different way. So, like I said, it is tough to compare Vanek to the other players that you mentioned, but the fact is that he GETS THE JOB DONE and he is ONE OF THE BEST AT WHAT HE DOES AND THE WAY HE PLAYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.