Mustache of God Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Surely, they can't be serious on this crazy notion. Well in the spirit of answering the question posed by the OP ... NO!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Wouldn't even give them a 5th to bring back that history and mess into the locker room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustache of God Posted March 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 So Vanek was the locker room cancer... Teams That Add The Old Core for $500, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustache of God Posted March 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Moulson for Vanek straight up? Maybe. Anything more, absolutely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Owww! Sorry, I fell off my chair I was laughing so hard. What was the question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yes, I trade Moulson for Vanek straight up. Matt Moulson sucks so bad and we have him signed to a ridiculous contact foringever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 I think Moulson will rebound next year and still be useful to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.