thewookie1 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 I'd offer him a PTO if it gets that far, let him compete against the young wingers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 So the answer to my original post is a resounding no. Anything involving Andrew Peters should be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 I'd offer him a PTO if it gets that far, let him compete against the young wingers And... the anti Vanek crowd has officialy reached fever pitch. 17-31-48 in 62 games last year. Most of his goals were even strength. He'd make any team in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 And... the anti Vanek crowd has officialy reached fever pitch. 17-31-48 in 62 games last year. Most of his goals were even strength. He'd make any team in the league. Then why has no one signed him? (Now, I do expect that he'll be on an NHL roster next season. But I also think it'll be on a one-year deal and that he'll probably be on a different team, or out of the NHL, the following season.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Then why has no one signed him? (Now, I do expect that he'll be on an NHL roster next season. But I also think it'll be on a one-year deal and that he'll probably be on a different team, or out of the NHL, the following season.) He probably is looking for a long term deal of 3 - 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 He probably is looking for a long term deal of 3 - 4 years. Would be shocked if he gets that on this side of the pond. Can't even see him getting 2 years at this point. Too lazy to look up his age & games played from last year, but pretty sure he's old enough to get a 1 year contract w/ performance bonuses. If so, would expect him to get a 1 year $1MM contract w/ incentives making it $3MM if he isn't useless. If not, would still expect the contract to be 1 yr @$2MM or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Then why has no one signed him? (Now, I do expect that he'll be on an NHL roster next season. But I also think it'll be on a one-year deal and that he'll probably be on a different team, or out of the NHL, the following season.) I think it's safe to assume his ask is more than GMs want to commit, not that GMs don't think he can make their teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 I think it's safe to assume his ask is more than GMs want to commit, not that GMs don't think he can make their teams. Well, Vanek made $2.6MM last year, so his ask is probably in that neighborhood -- which isn't that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Well, Vanek made $2.6MM last year, so his ask is probably in that neighborhood -- which isn't that high. It almost has to be term length, then. I'd think many teams would take his production at that cost for a year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Would be shocked if he gets that on this side of the pond. Can't even see him getting 2 years at this point. Too lazy to look up his age & games played from last year, but pretty sure he's old enough to get a 1 year contract w/ performance bonuses. If so, would expect him to get a 1 year $1MM contract w/ incentives making it $3MM if he isn't useless. If not, would still expect the contract to be 1 yr @$2MM or less. I think you have to be over 35 to sign a contract like that and Vanek is younger than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 It almost has to be term length, then. I'd think many teams would take his production at that cost for a year or two. This is exactly what I have been saying. He probably wants one last contract (3 years or so) and no one has signed him because of his age. I bet he's asking in the neighborhood of 3x3. He'll be signed and in the league still next year I bet. Then why has no one signed him? (Now, I do expect that he'll be on an NHL roster next season. But I also think it'll be on a one-year deal and that he'll probably be on a different team, or out of the NHL, the following season.) My guess is his term requirement is more than teams want to commit to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marions Piazza Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 i bet Vanek is kicking himself that he turned down the supposed offer from LaFontaine of 8 years $8M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) i bet Vanek is kicking himself that he turned down the supposed offer from LaFontaine of 8 years $8M I thought it was worse than that. I remember reading some rumor/article saying Pegula was prepared to make Vanek the highest paid player in the league which I believe at the time would have meant they would have needed to beat Malkin and his $9.5 million or something along those lines. Either way we dodged a huge bullet on that one. Thank you GMTM. Edited July 27, 2017 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marions Piazza Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 I thought it was worse than that. I remember reading some rumor/article saying Pegula was prepared to make Vanek the highest paid player in the league which I believe at the time would have meant they would have needed to beat Malkin and his $9.5 million or something along those lines. Either way we dodged a huge bullet on that one. yikes, that would've been a huge mistake. glad that didn't happen, but, in a way we still got screwed, trading Vanelk; we got Moulson (who i respect as a guy, he hooked me up in Dallas two seasons ago and was super cool) but i am not thrilled we are stuck with him a few more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) yikes, that would've been a huge mistake. glad that didn't happen, but, in a way we still got screwed, trading Vanelk; we got Moulson (who i respect as a guy, he hooked me up in Dallas two seasons ago and was super cool) but i am not thrilled we are stuck with him a few more years. That had nothing to do with the trade though. Vanek and Moulson were both pending UFA's and we unloaded Moulson to Minnesota at the deadline that year. TMGM then proceeded to screw up all that good deal making of Regier and Murray by giving a 30 year old Moulson (who was never fleet of foot to begin with) a 5 year contract with the undertone of the justification being that we needed to get to the cap floor. We should have offered him more money and less term instead (something like a 3 year, $21 million contract). Edited July 27, 2017 by Drunkard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 I thought it was worse than that. I remember reading some rumor/article saying Pegula was prepared to make Vanek the highest paid player in the league which I believe at the time would have meant they would have needed to beat Malkin and his $9.5 million or something along those lines. Either way we dodged a huge bullet on that one. Thank you GMTM. Vanek was traded by Regier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Vanek was traded by Regier You're right. I corrected myself in my next post. Regier traded Vanek for Moulson and then Murray traded Moulson to Minnesota at the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 Missed that, my mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Come onnnnn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Jones Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 I certainly hope this doesn't happen. huge step in the wrong direction imo. Guy was always a floater who never showed up when the going got tough. Why do you think it is he's still available? Other GMs already know he is wasted money. Signing him would be very similar to Murray's signing of Fransen. Desperately grabbing at the dregs nobody wanted in an attempt to be better instantly. It would be a huge mistake and bad for the attitude on this team. Somebody mentioned Stafford, same for him. (and of course we should have taken the 5 picks, but that was then) I think Tim Connolly is still available too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Steve Bartlett his agent, was on GR Today. He mentioned that things have picked up for both Vanek and Stafford in terms on teams interest. He expects something to break on both in the next week or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Steve Bartlett is also the agent for Will Butcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 Steve Bartlett is also the agent for Will Butcher. Yes sir. He would not give any indication where Butcher was leaning, however when Rivet mentioned the reasons he should sign with the Sabres, he stated he could not argue with any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/450353 I'd like Vanek back, I want to win now and I don't feel like hoping a youngster comes up huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 Would be shocked if he gets that on this side of the pond. Can't even see him getting 2 years at this point. Too lazy to look up his age & games played from last year, but pretty sure he's old enough to get a 1 year contract w/ performance bonuses. If so, would expect him to get a 1 year $1MM contract w/ incentives making it $3MM if he isn't useless. If not, would still expect the contract to be 1 yr @$2MM or less. Make those about his defensive play and watch him hustle back :p 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.