carpandean Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Meh...I'll call it a push. OK, I'll say it ... it's good to be Thomas Vanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 OK, I'll say it ... it's good to be Thomas Vanek. ...and stupid. I don't care how hot his wife is, he could be banging a different hot chick every other night for the next 20 years. It should be illegal for professional athletes to marry before they are done playing. Once your done playing, cash in your chips and land that hottie you want to spend the rest of your life with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 ...and stupid. I don't care how hot his wife is, he could be banging a different hot chick every other night for the next 20 years. It should be illegal for professional athletes to marry before they are done playing. Once your done playing, cash in your chips and land that hottie you want to spend the rest of your life with. Do you really think marriage stops professional athletes from the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Do you really think marriage stops professional athletes from the above? No, but why bother with all the infidelity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbossy Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Meh...I'll call it a push. She looks like Andrew Peters' wife. Do all hockey wives look the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Meh...I'll call it a push. Those are going to be some good looking kids they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 Further to the point about keeping the great player instead of the draft picks, here is a good article about Joe Sakic, who signed a $7MM per year (x 3 years) offer sheet with the Rangers the year after leading Colorado to the Cup & how it changed the NHL's economic system. Colorado dug deep and matched the offer. As for the 1st-rounders (there were 5 back then) that they could've gotten from the Rangers if they had let Sakic go: They turned into Manny Malholtra (1998), Pavl Brendl (1999), Jamie Lundmark (also selected in 1999 in a trade with Tampa Bay in exchange for the first pick in 2000), Dan Blackburn (2001), and the 2002 first-round pick, which went to Florida as part of the package for Pavel Bure. Vanek ain't Sakic, but I'll say it again: it would be crazy to let him go for 1st-round draft picks unless more than one of them were guaranteed to be top-3. (BTW, I generally recommend the NYT hockey blog. It doesn't update as often as Mirtle or Puck Daddy, but the posts are usually quite good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Further to the point about keeping the great player instead of the draft picks, here is a good article about Joe Sakic, who signed a $7MM per year (x 3 years) offer sheet with the Rangers the year after leading Colorado to the Cup & how it changed the NHL's economic system. Colorado dug deep and matched the offer. As for the 1st-rounders (there were 5 back then) that they could've gotten from the Rangers if they had let Sakic go: Vanek ain't Sakic, but I'll say it again: it would be crazy to let him go for 1st-round draft picks unless more than one of them were guaranteed to be top-3. (BTW, I generally recommend the NYT hockey blog. It doesn't update as often as Mirtle or Puck Daddy, but the posts are usually quite good.) Good stuff. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 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. I would rather have Vanek than Campbell..I am glad they signed him..I was at first pissed they didnt take the draft picks..But he is on the verge of being a 50 goal scorer for the forseeble future...He isnt as good as Crosby etc.. obviously..But he sure would be a great guy to be your leading goal scoring winger on the SAbres..Now we just need a real center for him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Further to the point about keeping the great player instead of the draft picks, here is a good article about Joe Sakic, who signed a $7MM per year (x 3 years) offer sheet with the Rangers the year after leading Colorado to the Cup & how it changed the NHL's economic system. Colorado dug deep and matched the offer. As for the 1st-rounders (there were 5 back then) that they could've gotten from the Rangers if they had let Sakic go: Vanek ain't Sakic, but I'll say it again: it would be crazy to let him go for 1st-round draft picks unless more than one of them were guaranteed to be top-3. (BTW, I generally recommend the NYT hockey blog. It doesn't update as often as Mirtle or Puck Daddy, but the posts are usually quite good.) The Rangers were notoriously horrible drafters during those days, so I'd be curious to see what a team like Colorado could've done. Obviously we'll never know, but the point is still pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Obviously, if there is some "overall rating" that you give to players, Vanek is lower than Crosby. However, they are very different types of players. Vanek is a goal scorer, not a playmaker (Connolly is probably the closest to a Crosby-type player that we have.) In that sense, comparisons with Ovechkin make more sense. He's definitely not in OV's league, but he's in the next tier with guys like Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik (when healthy), Carter, etc. While his goals numbers have looked good, Vanek does need to get his assist numbers back up to where they were in 2006-07 in order to really be in the same category as the rest of them. Also, he's more of a fight-in-the-paint "ugly goal" scorer than a stick-handling "pretty goal" scorer. Would I have taken Vanek or four first rounders? If we hadn't just lost (or let walk in Briere's case) both co-captains, my answer would have been less certain. Given that they did, there was no way that they could also let Vanek go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Obviously, if there is some "overall rating" that you give to players, Vanek is lower than Crosby. However, they are very different types of players. Vanek is a goal scorer, not a playmaker (Connolly is probably the closest to a Crosby-type player that we have.) In that sense, comparisons with Ovechkin make more sense. He's definitely not in OV's league, but he's in the next tier with guys like Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik (when healthy), Carter, etc. While his goals numbers have looked good, Vanek does need to get his assist numbers back up to where they were in 2006-07 in order to really be in the same category as the rest of them. Also, he's more of a fight-in-the-paint "ugly goal" scorer than a stick-handling "pretty goal" scorer. Would I have taken Vanek or four first rounders? If we hadn't just lost (or let walk in Briere's case) both co-captains, my answer would have been less certain. Given that they did, there was no way that they could also let Vanek go. Overpaying Drury and having the draft picks. I would have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Overpaying Drury and having the draft picks. I would have done it. I said it back then and I'll stick to it, Vanek need to be the top priority back then. Sure, I would've liked to have more than just him, but if I had to have any of the three players, it was, and still is, Vanek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I said it back then and I'll stick to it, Vanek need to be the top priority back then. Sure, I would've liked to have more than just him, but if I had to have any of the three players, it was, and still is, Vanek. Just hindsight. Buffalo hasn't quiet recovered up the middle yet. 4 years with 8 first round picks is a pretty strong hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudz Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just hindsight. Buffalo hasn't quiet recovered up the middle yet. 4 years with 8 first round picks is a pretty strong hand. Yeah because Darcy has been great picking first rounders. Althought I guess with 8 you'd expect at least 1 to develop well. Maybe they could trade them for like 40 third rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yeah because Darcy has been great picking first rounders. Althought I guess with 8 you'd expect at least 1 to develop well. Maybe they could trade them for like 40 third rounders. Kryukov is really the only true miss. I'm willing to see what happens in Russia before Zagrapan can be labeled a true flop. For the most part, Darcy has done relatively well in the 1st, especially since a lot of those picks were late. He's pulled in the likes of Novotny and Paille, up to Ballard, Stafford, and an elite like Vanek. And let's not forget the other possibility with the extra picks. Remember, Darcy turned one first rounder, Ballard and Rhett Warriner into Chris Drury (and Begin). If that had been the path they went, they could've done something interesting if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just hindsight. Buffalo hasn't quiet recovered up the middle yet. 4 years with 8 first round picks is a pretty strong hand. You would think that they would have addressed the situation by now..I mean its only been 3 offseasons now..LOL..They are gona have the same issues this coming year and no one to blame but themselves..It is beyond comical..Now its just sad to watch.. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just hindsight. Buffalo hasn't quiet recovered up the middle yet. 4 years with 8 first round picks is a pretty strong hand. I must disagree. If we could've kept Drury, I would've done so in a heartbeat, but I would also have kept Vanek. I would've fire-sold as many other guys as needed to fit both of them in the budget. At that point, it wouldn't have been that hard to unload, say, Max and Tallinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I must disagree. If we could've kept Drury, I would've done so in a heartbeat, but I would also have kept Vanek. I would've fire-sold as many other guys as needed to fit both of them in the budget. At that point, it wouldn't have been that hard to unload, say, Max and Tallinder. I'll agree with this. But. We still would've needed a vet center, besides Drury. I don't see Drury working that well with Vanek on the wing, or visa versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 You would think that they would have addressed the situation by now..I mean its only been 3 offseasons now..LOL..They are gona have the same issues this coming year and no one to blame but themselves..It is beyond comical..Now its just sad to watch.. :wallbash: Well you went from Drury, Briere, Connolly, Roy, Gaustad and Hecht and Mair to just the last four....with Hecht not really a natural center IMO. It isn't comical what has happened or the recovery....it was just they were loaded up the middle in 2007... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well you went from Drury, Briere, Connolly, Roy, Gaustad and Hecht and Mair to just the last four....with Hecht not really a natural center IMO. It isn't comical what has happened or the recovery....it was just they were loaded up the middle in 2007... And they added Zubrus down the stretch. Boy, it would've been nice to have kept Drury for $5.5MM x 4 years. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just hindsight. Buffalo hasn't quiet recovered up the middle yet. 4 years with 8 first round picks is a pretty strong hand. when drury left, i felt, and probably posted around here pre-crash, that we'd lost one of my 3 favorite sabres of all time. at the time, i was of the opinion that we should have paid a king's ransom for the guy - whatever it would take to keep him. but, with the passage of time, and having watched him give those mumble-mouthed-montone interviews for the rangers (he's got charASMA!) and having seen him serve as a top center (1-A? 2?) on a team that has struggled mightily to score goals, i have started to feel differently. i've gotten around to recognizing that the guy wasn't going to be our savior; that he's not even a particularly gifted playmaker, which is what i think you need from a #1 pivot. i don't think think that he was someone for whom we should have mortgaged the franchise. he was/is a truly special, super-clutch two-way forward who, like the team on which he played, captured lightning in a bottle in what turned out to be a specific and unique mini-era of the league. now, i'm not interested in getting into a bucky-esque b!tch-fest about when advances/overtures/offers were made, withdrawn, misplaced, etc. in 2006-2007. i've just come to a point where i no longer believe that we would have been better served over-paying for his services. the loss of drury is completely intertwined with the vanek analysis. i think it's a close call as to whether we would have come out ahead by letting him [vanek] go and taking the picks. i guess the abstracted question comes down to this: would the team be better off having overpaid for drury and having a slew of first round picks? maybe. strikes me that we could have turned out to be a slightly less robust version of drury's rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 when drury left, i felt, and probably posted around here pre-crash, that we'd lost one of my 3 favorite sabres of all time. at the time, i was of the opinion that we should have paid a king's ransom for the guy - whatever it would take to keep him. but, with the passage of time, and having watched him give those mumble-mouthed-montone interviews for the rangers (he's got charASMA!) and having seen him serve as a top center (1-A? 2?) on a team that has struggled mightily to score goals, i have started to feel differently. i've gotten around to recognizing that the guy wasn't going to be our savior; that he's not even a particularly gifted playmaker, which is what i think you need from a #1 pivot. i don't think think that he was someone for whom we should have mortgaged the franchise. he was/is a truly special, super-clutch two-way forward who, like the team on which he played, captured lightning in a bottle in what turned out to be a specific and unique mini-era of the league. now, i'm not interested in getting into a bucky-esque b!tch-fest about when advances/overtures/offers were made, withdrawn, misplaced, etc. in 2006-2007. i've just come to a point where i no longer believe that we would have been better served over-paying for his services. the loss of drury is completely intertwined with the vanek analysis. i think it's a close call as to whether we would have come out ahead by letting him [vanek] go and taking the picks. i guess the abstracted question comes down to this: would the team be better off having overpaid for drury and having a slew of first round picks? maybe. strikes me that we could have turned out to be a slightly less robust version of drury's rangers. You've pretty much summarized the seven stages of grief. :thumbsup: You are at peace with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 You've pretty much summarized the seven stages of grief. :thumbsup: You are at peace with yourself. 7 stages? 5 is the traditional Elizabeth Kubler-Art-Ross model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 7 stages? 5 is the traditional Elizabeth Kubler-Art-Ross model. Shock or Disbelief Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Testing Acceptance and Hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.