Marvelo Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 My theory is Vanek has been playing hurt the past 30 games but as a $7 million man, he's a bust and the Sabres should trade him! Bottom line, he woulda rather played for Edmonton than the Sabres (Ruff) and I think he's unhappy in Buffalo. http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/tso/comments/help_wanted_from_slumping_sabre/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm not going to pretend to know what Vanek's motivations (or lack thereof) are, but the 2nd half of this season is causing me to rethink whether I see him as a part of a Stanley Cup contender. I have reached a point where I am starting to think that the team may be better off with a different #1 LW. I suppose that if word gets out about a nagging injury I may change my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Have to agree, seem Vanek is only able to play half a season. He either starts or finishes like his hair's on fire, only problem is he completely disappears through the other half of the season. Injury or not, he's never been worth the 7 mill. he's being paid, but I'd rather see Ruff go before Vanek, just to see how he plays under another coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm not going to pretend to know what Vanek's motivations (or lack thereof) are, but the 2nd half of this season is causing me to rethink whether I see him as a part of a Stanley Cup contender. I have reached a point where I am starting to think that the team may be better off with a different #1 LW. I suppose that if word gets out about a nagging injury I may change my thoughts. But he played very, very well against Carolina on March 7. He skated hard, he played almost 20 minutes and he scored. If he's been hurt for 3 months, why would he be able to deliver that performance in one game but not in others? 6 goals in 35 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I don't see a trade at his price point, so buyout: SEASON SALARY CAP HIT BUYOUT SAVINGS BUYOUT CAP HIT 2012-13 $6,400,000 $7,142,857 $2,133,333 $4,266,667 $2,876,190 2013-14 $6,400,000 $7,142,857 $2,133,333 $4,266,667 $2,876,190 2014-15 $0.............. $0................$2,133,333 -$2,133,333 $2,133,333 2015-16 $0...............$0................$2,133,333 -$2,133,333 $2,133,333 But he has no NMC, so from a competative standpoint a demotion and waivers would be better for the team. I just don't see it happening, surely Staff, Leino, and Leopold would get the Kotalik Treatment before him if it was absolutely necessary. Bottom line, the team needs goals, TV is not the first option to free up space to get those goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 It seems like Vanek goes into these funks every year, and every time it happens, someone starts speculating that he must be playing hurt. I say bull####. If it's true, and the injuries are affecting his play that much, GTFO of the lineup until you can contribute. My speculation...They are paying him 7 mil a year to be a great player. Instead they are getting a guy who goes into these prolonged funks, and will probably always be this way. If the Sabres could sign Parise, I'd trade Vanek in a heartbeat, and would not lose sleep wondering if I am winning the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 But he played very, very well against Carolina on March 7. He skated hard, he played almost 20 minutes and he scored. If he's been hurt for 3 months, why would he be able to deliver that performance in one game but not in others? 6 goals in 35 games. It was an "if". Just like I am not pretending to know his motivation, I'm not pretending to know if there are any other extenuating circumstances like injury. If there are no reasonable issues then it's time to look for other #1 LW's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 It was an "if". Just like I am not pretending to know his motivation, I'm not pretending to know if there are any other extenuating circumstances like injury. If there are no reasonable issues then it's time to look for other #1 LW's. Oh, no. You said it. You're accountable for him and the rest of those bums too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 How long has he been playing with Roy this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 But he has no NMC, so from a competative standpoint a demotion and waivers would be better for the team. I just don't see it happening, surely Staff, Leino, and Leopold would get the Kotalik Treatment before him if it was absolutely necessary. Not that I think that they will or should do this anyway, but I believe that a NMC (as apposed to a NTC) means that they also cannot demote him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Not that I think that they will or should do this anyway, but I believe that a NMC (as apposed to a NTC) means that they also cannot demote him. Some people here get carried away with Pegula's money. Just because Pegs allowed DR to bury Morrisson in the AHL for one year, and send Kotalik back to Europe for one year, doesn't mean he is going to bury millions in salary every year in order to get out of cap jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Not that I think that they will or should do this anyway, but I believe that a NMC (as apposed to a NTC) means that they also cannot demote him. Right, He does not have one of those. I could have phrased it better as "he does not have an NMC", rather than, "he has no NMC". Only Pommer, Regehr, and Ehrhoff are immune from the Kotalik Treatment beacuse their contracts contain NMCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Some people here get carried away with Pegula's money. Just because Pegs allowed DR to bury Morrisson in the AHL for one year, and send Kotalik back to Europe for one year, doesn't mean he is going to bury millions in salary every year in order to get out of cap jail. Actually, he might. He would certainly do that before buying a guy out and suffering a sizeable cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Some people here get carried away with Pegula's money. Just because Pegs allowed DR to bury Morrisson in the AHL for one year, and send Kotalik back to Europe for one year, doesn't mean he is going to bury millions in salary every year in order to get out of cap jail. You may be right, I think it is within reason to believe that he would. For instance, if he decides down the line that Darcy isn't getting it done, I'd think he'd be willing to give the new GM a cleaner slate to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcsaberks Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I vote hurt. He dominated all the first 2 months video game style on some nights, (skill is there) but the beatings he takes in front of the net (desire is there) have to catch up with him. Cross-check after cross-check to the back. I'm guessing bruised ribs. That said, I think he'd love to get away from Lindy before he's out of his prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 How long has he been playing with Roy this year? At this point, I don't care. The line doesn't work, we all see that. But there comes a time where a great player plays great regardless of his surroundings. This doesn't mean I expect 60 goals playing with Roy, but 6 in 35 is absurdly terrible and something that cannot simply be attributed to chemistry. Drew Stafford (!) appears to be putting in more effort than Vanek, and at least he's certainly producing more. Today's practice it looks like the lines have been totally reworked, which I'm fine with and hopefully it sparks something. Vanek has been flipped to RW with Leino and Hodgson. We'll see how it works. I still think Vanek can be a valuable member of a good playoff team, he isn't untradeable, but I'd like to keep him. That said, if we have to trade Vanek to open up room for Parise....well, so be it. And for what it's worth, I'm getting closer to the "get Nash" bandwagon (assuming we can get on his list). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Some people here get carried away with Pegula's money. Just because Pegs allowed DR to bury Morrisson in the AHL for one year, and send Kotalik back to Europe for one year, doesn't mean he is going to bury millions in salary every year in order to get out of cap jail. Agree 100%. There is NFW he's going to bury $28MM worth of Vanek's contract. My bottom line on Vanek: he's a good player and the Sabres shouldn't dump him. I don't think he hurts his teammates the way Roy does. However, he's not an elite player and is well overpaid. If a real elite player (like Nash or Getzlaf or Shea Weber) becomes available in trade, and Vanek is the key part of the price that needs to be paid (although there would clearly need to be additional sweeteners coming from the Sabres), it's a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 It was an "if". Just like I am not pretending to know his motivation, I'm not pretending to know if there are any other extenuating circumstances like injury. If there are no reasonable issues then it's time to look for other #1 LW's. I'm trying to figure things out by cues that happen. I'm not pretending anything. I'm a fan who has ideas thinking outside the box, putting 2 and 2 together. You can't count on the Blfo News or any local journalists for any insight. One thing is obvious, for one reason or another, he vanishes every season and I'm sick of it, especially at that bloated pricetag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Right, He does not have one of those. I could have phrased it better as "he does not have an NMC", rather than, "he has no NMC". Ha! My mind definitely combined the two no's. Your "he has no No Movement Clause" was read as "he has a No Movement Clause." Agree 100%. There is NFW he's going to bury $28MM worth of Vanek's contract. Actually, it's just $12.8M (2 more years at $6.4M in salary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Oh, no. You said it. You're accountable for him and the rest of those bums too. Doh !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Actually, it's just $12.8M (2 more years at $6.4M in salary.) You're right. I misread LPF's chart upthread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kishoph Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 To me Vanek seems like he's playing hurt, but he's not the type of player that will blame it on an injury (Roy). One thing that I'm interested in finding out (haven't looked it up yet) is how he performed before and after his benching by Lindy, he might of not been doing real good before it, but I would bet that after he was benched, his attitude went to ###### as far as giving any extra effort. I know that his salary should be all the incentive he needs, but it just doesn't work like that. You're not going to go out and play your ass off if you feel that you are unappreciated and not respected by your coach. As far as playing with Roy, of course that has something to do with his decline, Roy is not a playmaker, Vanek needs someone that can get the puck to him frequently, not someone that does it as often as a blind squirrel finding a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I wonder if he's just finally had enough of being Head Clown for life's whipping boy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Jesus........... somebody goes in a slump and it's 'Get him the hell out of BFLO, he sucks, demote him, trade him for a 5th rounder, he doesn't want to be here!!!!!!' Gimme a break. Show me an NHL'er that is consistent from start to finish. If it wasn't for P'Ville and Vanek singlehandedly carrying this team to a handful of wins while the rest of the team was completely invisible, we wouldn't be talking about playoff possibilities right now. That bandwagon's getting awfully full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 maybe the benching WAS a turning point. anyone know when the benching was? about 30 games ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.