Jump to content

Field Sobriety Test: Should the Sabres Consider Trading for Thomas Vanek?


Mustache of God

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by MattPie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by mustacheofgod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...