Jump to content


Vanek speculation on CBC's HNIC


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:04 PM

During the Hotstove segment on CBC's HNIC, Elliotte Friedman talked about Vanek's future with the Sabres. He said, teams LOVE his skillset and many GMs believe he would be a massive help to their team, but, the team execs he's spoken to, say they will not go after him because there is a league-wide feeling that Vanek has already made up his mind and no matter where he ends up this season, he will sign with the Minnesota Wild. This all but kills any value Vanek has.

What a disaster this is turning out to be for hockey heaven.

#2 Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton / Buffalo

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:45 PM

Wow never even thought about this............makes so much sense though well I guess we have 2 options, Vanek's value will obviously be diminished, Darcy NEEDS to realize this, some team will be willing to have him as a rental because he could be a huge part to a Stanley Cup run....Or Darcy will not realize this and get nothing for him.

Obviously I see the latter happening but this info doesn't mean Vanek won't get traded

#3 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:55 PM

More ineptitude from our boy Darcy. I really don't remember hearing of a G.M. that screwed his team out of getting assets back on a commodity such as Vanek. Aside from the times he's done it here in the past with the likes of Drury and Briere do any G.M.s come to mind and are they still employed ? I realize it happens every year where they let guys go to ufa but to get absolutely nothing in return when you know years in advance when that status kicks in.

Edited by bunomatic, 12 October 2013 - 06:56 PM.


#4 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:57 PM

not true..is my guess..a couple of talking heads with a screw loose. At the trade deadline, the first question asked is will 26 consider resigning with us. i am sure the Sabres will ask him. He, 26, would have to be crazy not to go to  teams like the blues, boston , detroit etc. this will all get flushed out when the team probes ..like a no trade without the clause. Vanek controls his value... be nice darcy..trade for a skilled rw for 26 to play with here and enhance his value with good 2013 numbers


funny.. many teams love his skill sets and fans here dump on him regularly..lol

Edited by waldo, 12 October 2013 - 07:17 PM.


#5 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:59 PM

View PostVanek-Man, on 12 October 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

During the Hotstove segment on CBC's HNIC, Elliotte Friedman talked about Vanek's future with the Sabres. He said, teams LOVE his skillset and many GMs believe he would be a massive help to their team, but, the team execs he's spoken to, say they will not go after him because there is a league-wide feeling that Vanek has already made up his mind and no matter where he ends up this season, he will sign with the Minnesota Wild. This all but kills any value Vanek has.

What a disaster this is turning out to be for hockey heaven.
It wouldn't kill his value to teams that want him as a rental.  Or to the Wild themselves if they're serious about making a run this year.  (They were serious enough last year to trade for Pominville and just re-signed him.)

But, yeah, the Sabres probably would have been better off dealing him at the deadline last year.  Another 1st round pick in that draft would have been terrific.

#6 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:05 PM

I can't imagine the Wild surrendering MORE first round draft picks to the Sabres but stranger things have happened.

#7 Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton / Buffalo

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:41 PM

View Postinkman, on 12 October 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

I can't imagine the Wild surrendering MORE first round draft picks to the Sabres but stranger things have happened.
Why would the Wild trade for him when they know they're getting him next season?

#8 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:52 PM

View PostLorenzo Von Matterhorn, on 12 October 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Why would the Wild trade for him when they know they're getting him next season?
Unlike the Sabres, maybe they want to win "this" year.

#9 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:53 PM

View PostLorenzo Von Matterhorn, on 12 October 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Why would the Wild trade for him when they know they're getting him next season?
To try to win this season.  Also to make damn sure they *do* sign him for later seasons.  Crazy stuff happens in free agency, and I think the new rules give players time to talk to a bunch of teams before they can sign with anyone.

Quote

Free Agency will still begin on July 1 however, players and teams will now be allowed  to interview with each other after the NHL Draft and before that July 1 date.
http://flyersfaithfu...hl-entry-draft/

It's not crazy to think another team could swoop in with a better offer.

#10 sabre snipe

sabre snipe

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:54 PM

View Postbunomatic, on 12 October 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

More ineptitude from our boy Darcy. I really don't remember hearing of a G.M. that screwed his team out of getting assets back on a commodity such as Vanek. Aside from the times he's done it here in the past with the likes of Drury and Briere do any G.M.s come to mind and are they still employed ? I realize it happens every year where they let guys go to ufa but to get absolutely nothing in return when you know years in advance when that status kicks in.

parise? suter?

#11 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,233 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:55 PM

The math just doesn't work. The Wild already have 4 big money contracts (all with NTC) totaling $27.35 mil against the cap. How will they be able to function if they added another long term deal in the $7+ mil range.

#12 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Postdeluca67, on 12 October 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

The math just doesn't work. The Wild already have 4 big money contracts (all with NTC) totaling $27.35 mil against the cap. How will they be able to function if they added another long term deal in the $7+ mil range.

Dany Heatley is a UFA after the season so that helps.

#13 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Postsabre snipe, on 12 October 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

parise? suter?

Yeah. Two big ones. It happens often but it makes no sense in team management. Get something in return. DR knew he was going the rebuild route early last season. His value had to be higher with most of two years left under contract. The longer he waits the less he gets.

#14 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,203 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:05 PM

View Postdeluca67, on 12 October 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

The math just doesn't work. The Wild already have 4 big money contracts (all with NTC) totaling $27.35 mil against the cap. How will they be able to function if they added another long term deal in the $7+ mil range.
I'd build a team that way.  Have my top 5 players taking up 50% of the cap, use the other $30+ mil on 3rd liners and 3rd pair Dmen.  If you fill out your roster with kids and league minimum players it could work.

#15 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:12 PM

View Postinkman, on 12 October 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

I'd build a team that way.  Have my top 5 players taking up 50% of the cap, use the other $30+ mil on 3rd liners and 3rd pair Dmen.  If you fill out your roster with kids and league minimum players it could work.
Right, but it hinges on finding the right five star players to take up 50% of your cap, which is pretty much the problem that vexes every team.

Once you have your star players, you're good to go.

#16 Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton / Buffalo

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:19 PM

View Postinkman, on 12 October 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Unlike the Sabres, maybe they want to win "this" year.

View PostRobviously, on 12 October 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

To try to win this season.  Also to make damn sure they *do* sign him for later seasons.  Crazy stuff happens in free agency, and I think the new rules give players time to talk to a bunch of teams before they can sign with anyone.

Minnesota only has 675k in cap space right now & they can add 3.37 mil in annual average salary at the deadline, and with us retaining salary it is possible now that I look at it better.

Also, another thing I thought about is Heatley's 7,5 mil cap hit for the rest of the year and then he's a free agent & there's no way Minny is keeping him so they could trade him as well to make room for Vanek because once he's gone that's just swapping his salary for Vanek's

#17 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    Sam Reinhart, please

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:31 PM

View PostLorenzo Von Matterhorn, on 12 October 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Why would the Wild trade for him when they know they're getting him next season?

This. They wouldn't give a whole lot.



While I think this report is true and that Vanek wants to and will be in Minnesota after this year, it's not the end of everything. There's a few things that can and will happen here:
1. Contenders will call.
2. Teams will be willing to take him purely as a rental at slightly lower value.
3. Some teams will make big offers thinking they can convince him to stay with them and not Minnesota.

View Postdeluca67, on 12 October 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

The math just doesn't work. The Wild already have 4 big money contracts (all with NTC) totaling $27.35 mil against the cap. How will they be able to function if they added another long term deal in the $7+ mil range.

Heatley out, Vanek in.

#18 JJFIVEOH

JJFIVEOH

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boca Raton, FL

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:56 PM

Hell, the Pens gave up a 1st rounder plus some for Iginla knowing he might not sign.

Not that I want Vanek to leave, I want him to retire in BFLO.

#19 calti

calti

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 210 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:01 PM

we have one of the richest guys in the country as owner...just get rid of regier--get in a proven guy..and start letting the money fly( in an intelligent way). cripe lets not become the damn buffalo bills

#20 Nitro60

Nitro60

    "In case of doubt, attack." General Patton

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Speedway, IN

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:11 PM

No veteran will want to come to a rebuilding team unless he will be over compensated.  Vanek has value but not much as Darcy thinks.  He hung on him too long.  The fire sale (Gerbe, Sekera, Roy, Pominville, Regehr, and Leopold) over the past 2 years should have included all assets of any value.  This team has the feel of an expansion franchise with a few decent vets. The question is would you rather have a mediocre veteran team or a rebuilding team based on youth and a ton of losses.  Long seasons ahead.  3 years away from being a playoff contender.

#21 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:19 PM

for those saying Heatley out Vanek in, just a heads up, it's not that simple.
There are long term implications, future considerations on supporting players contracts, flexibility in an unstable cap era period and other variables to consider. I think you will find it's not that simple as many believe.
With that being said, Vanek to Minny is a real possibility in the off season, and if so, then so be it. But don't attempt to dilute Vaneks worth as a rental at the deadline. At the minimum he's going to command a 1st and 2nd/3rd as far as picks go IMO.

#22 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:52 PM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 12 October 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

for those saying Heatley out Vanek in, just a heads up, it's not that simple.
There are long term implications, future considerations on supporting players contracts, flexibility in an unstable cap era period and other variables to consider. I think you will find it's not that simple as many believe.
With that being said, Vanek to Minny is a real possibility in the off season, and if so, then so be it. But don't attempt to dilute Vaneks worth as a rental at the deadline. At the minimum he's going to command a 1st and 2nd/3rd as far as picks go IMO.

So, less then Pominville and you're telling people not to dilute Vanek's worth?

#23 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:35 PM

View PostVanek-Man, on 12 October 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

So, less then Pominville and you're telling people not to dilute Vanek's worth?

As I've always stated, he'll get less then Pominville due to the years worth on Pommers contract as opposed to Vanek. I was commenting to those that state they wouldn't get a whole lot for Vanek, and let's not sway from the common sense subject line of the opinion itself. It merely serves to derail the conversation.

#24 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    Sam Reinhart, please

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:02 AM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 12 October 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

for those saying Heatley out Vanek in, just a heads up, it's not that simple.
There are long term implications, future considerations on supporting players contracts, flexibility in an unstable cap era period and other variables to consider. I think you will find it's not that simple as many believe.
With that being said, Vanek to Minny is a real possibility in the off season, and if so, then so be it. But don't attempt to dilute Vaneks worth as a rental at the deadline. At the minimum he's going to command a 1st and 2nd/3rd as far as picks go IMO.

It's not necessarily one in, the other out, but it's a lot less complicated than you seem to be making it. The owner is committed to being a near-cap team. The cap is almost 100% going to go way up soon, not down. So signing Vanek won't be much of a risk in that aspect.

#25 Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton / Buffalo

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:06 AM

View PostDStebb, on 13 October 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

It's not necessarily one in, the other out, but it's a lot less complicated than you seem to be making it. The owner is committed to being a near-cap team. The cap is almost 100% going to go way up soon, not down. So signing Vanek won't be much of a risk in that aspect.
Think I heard Jacobs expects to rise to around 70 million next season

#26 Ghost of Dwight Drane

Ghost of Dwight Drane

    Texting Nun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,876 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:56 AM

This is stupid. I mean...we got Slava Kozlov for 60 games in return for Hasek.......this kind of stuff never happens......

#27 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:48 AM

View PostGhost of Dwight Drane, on 13 October 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

This is stupid. I mean...we got Slava Kozlov for 60 games in return for Hasek.......this kind of stuff never happens......

I know that you know it's not the same situation.

#28 krt88

krt88

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 56 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:23 AM

Minnesota doesn't have a lot of wiggle room with their salary cap.

#29 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    Sam Reinhart, please

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:37 AM

View Postkrt88, on 13 October 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Minnesota doesn't have a lot of wiggle room with their salary cap.

Read the other posts in this thread. They will when it matters in the offseason. They'll have almost $15 mill available after Heatley and a bunch of smaller contracts come off the books (not counting a huge raise in the cap potentially). And they don't really have any free agents that they'll have to spend much money on.

#30 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:49 AM

View PostNitro60, on 12 October 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

No veteran will want to come to a rebuilding team unless he will be over compensated.  Vanek has value but not much as Darcy thinks.  He hung on him too long.  The fire sale (Gerbe, Sekera, Roy, Pominville, Regehr, and Leopold) over the past 2 years should have included all assets of any value.  This team has the feel of an expansion franchise with a few decent vets. The question is would you rather have a mediocre veteran team or a rebuilding team based on youth and a ton of losses.  Long seasons ahead.  3 years away from being a playoff contender.

3 years ,,,lol...oh my

#31 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,501 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

View PostDStebb, on 13 October 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

Read the other posts in this thread. They will when it matters in the offseason. They'll have almost $15 mill available after Heatley and a bunch of smaller contracts come off the books (not counting a huge raise in the cap potentially). And they don't really have any free agents that they'll have to spend much money on.

I don't doubt they'll have some of that 15 mil. You cannot say with a certainty that 70 mil will be the cap ceiling as I cannot say it will not be. But I'm not looking at merely next season. I'm considering the follow up years to that as well. Vanek, Pomers, Parise, Suter while seemingly a good core to build around will take up an overwhelming amount of cap space. See the Pittsburg Penguins for how that works out. Just saying, it's more likely to go that route then the other if history is any indicator.

View Postwaldo, on 13 October 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

3 years ,,,lol...oh my

My sentiments exactly waldo. I'm looking at 5 years, if we get lucky and some of this youth pans out while we inject young, all star talent from the top of the next few draft classes in. My fingers are crossed.

#32 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:32 AM

View Postwaldo, on 13 October 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

3 years ,,,lol...oh my
The Blackhawks went from 1st overall pick to Stanley Cup Champion in 3 years.

I don't think it's crazy to think the Sabres will be a playoff team again in 3 years.

#33 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,233 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:47 AM

View PostRobviously, on 13 October 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

The Blackhawks went from 1st overall pick to Stanley Cup Champion in 3 years.

I don't think it's crazy to think the Sabres will be a playoff team again in 3 years.
There was a huge difference between the Blackhawks then and the Sabres now, Darcy Regier wasn't the GM of the Blackhawks. It's difficult enough to turn a franchise around with a competent GM. Having Regier is going to make it tougher and means a longer turn around time.

#34 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:41 PM

View Postbunomatic, on 12 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Yeah. Two big ones. It happens often but it makes no sense in team management. Get something in return. DR knew he was going the rebuild route early last season. His value had to be higher with most of two years left under contract. The longer he waits the less he gets.
We should discuss this idea.  Honestly what happens is starting after last seasons trade deadline through 2 weeks before this trade deadline, you are correct and values plummet down down down. There is a spike at the draft and just prior to free agency but then values return low. Now at around 2 weeks prior to the current NHL trade deadline, teams with legitimate cup hopes and teams who are dreamers start to gamble the future on the now.  Vanek and even Miller's value again begin to go upwards.

Right now we are in the declining value period and it should hit bottom probably around december.  Then starting in January and heading into the deadline the value of players creeps up and up.

Should DR have traded Vanek and Miller last year or this summer? Yes, I believe he should have.  However now he has to wait because value is currently not there. January to March is when value will again be added to these players.

Edited by LGR4GM, 13 October 2013 - 12:42 PM.


#35 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 13 October 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostLGR4GM, on 13 October 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

We should discuss this idea.  Honestly what happens is starting after last seasons trade deadline through 2 weeks before this trade deadline, you are correct and values plummet down down down. There is a spike at the draft and just prior to free agency but then values return low. Now at around 2 weeks prior to the current NHL trade deadline, teams with legitimate cup hopes and teams who are dreamers start to gamble the future on the now.  Vanek and even Miller's value again begin to go upwards.

Right now we are in the declining value period and it should hit bottom probably around december.  Then starting in January and heading into the deadline the value of players creeps up and up.

Should DR have traded Vanek and Miller last year or this summer? Yes, I believe he should have.  However now he has to wait because value is currently not there. January to March is when value will again be added to these players.

Makes sense. My fear is unforeseen injuries at the crucial time for maximum return which would be devastating. Also Darcy, based on past history, may be caught with his pants down while waiting for the market to set itself instead of being proactive and setting the market .

#36 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:05 PM

View PostRobviously, on 13 October 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

The Blackhawks went from 1st overall pick to Stanley Cup Champion in 3 years.

I don't think it's crazy to think the Sabres will be a playoff team again in 3 years.

only a few million differences in the rosters ..they went ten years without a playoff appearence and won less than 40 games in eight of them.i assume they drafted pretty high in most of those shi--ty years) a pretty long rebuild huh ..is that what you want here... if you think you draft at 1 and then win,your crazy. you better have the other ten guys you need in place, skilled, mature and ready to go and playing the right system.....in those Chicago lean years ,take a look at their rosters..(98-2008) nothing like the Sabres now without Vanek and Miller.. they had tons of 25 and above first round picks during that periods... they had 7 top eight picks  and one 1st pick .he a great player but .that 1st and 3rd is not what put them over the top.

Edited by waldo, 13 October 2013 - 01:23 PM.


#37 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:11 PM

View Postbunomatic, on 13 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Makes sense. My fear is unforeseen injuries at the crucial time for maximum return which would be devastating. Also Darcy, based on past history, may be caught with his pants down while waiting for the market to set itself instead of being proactive and setting the market .
Agreed which is why I love the idea of firing Regier and bringing in a guy like Jason Botterill with maybe La Fontaine as his Assistant or something along those lines.

#38 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:42 PM

View Postwaldo, on 13 October 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

only a few million differences in the rosters ..they went ten years without a playoff appearence and won less than 40 games in eight of them.i assume they drafted pretty high in most of those shi--ty years) a pretty long rebuild huh ..is that what you want here... if you think you draft at 1 and then win,your crazy. you better have the other ten guys you need in place, skilled, mature and ready to go and playing the right system.....in those Chicago lean years ,take a look at their rosters..(98-2008) nothing like the Sabres now without Vanek and Miller.. they had tons of 25 and above first round picks during that periods... they had 7 top eight picks  and one 1st pick .he a great player but .that 1st and 3rd is not what put them over the top.
You "assume" they drafted high?  Why not just look it up before posting a long rant comprised entirely of sentence fragments and bizarre punctuation?

Here, I'll do the research you didn't.  This is their draft history:
http://www.hockeydb....dr00005218.html

2007: Drafted Kane 1st overall.  They have have a combined 10 NHL games out of the other guys they took that year.
2006: Toews 3rd overall.  No one else from that draft class has played an NHL game.
2005: Their first pick was Jack Skille at 7th overall.  He's a superstar, right?  The only contributor they got that year was Hjalmarsson (4th round pick).
2004: They took Cam Barker 3rd overall.  He spent time in the AHL last year.  They did find Bolland and Bickell in the 2nd round, but those are role players.
2003: The legendary draft year.  They got Seabrook 14th overall and Corey Crawford in the 2nd round.
2002: Their first pick was Babchuck, but they did find Duncan Keith in the 2nd round.

OK, so we can jettison the notion that the Blackhawks were loading up on talent for years before they finally bottomed out in 2007 to get Patrick Kane.  These five years aren't super impressive if you look past Kane (1st overall) and Toews (3rd overall).

But maybe they kept drafting really well right after they took Patrick Kane, right?  Wrong.

2008: Kyle Beach in the 1st round.  Has never played an NHL game.  Shawn Lalonde has played 1 NHL game and Ben Smith has played 23 NHL games.  That's what they have to show for 2008.
2009: Dylan Olsen in the 1st round.  Has played 28 NHL games with 1 career assist to show for it.  Marcus Kruger in the 5th round.
2010: Joakim Nordstrom has played 5 NHL games.

So it was NOT a long rebuild.  They got drafted their two key guys in 2006 and 2007 and made a few key trades in that same time frame (Patrick Sharp acquired from the Flyers in December 2005).  

It doesn't take 5+ years to rebuild a hockey team.  There's no reason the Sabres can't be a playoff team in 3 years.

Also, just to keep injecting facts into the discussion:
The Maple Leafs drafted 5th overall in 2012 and were in the playoffs last year.
The Canadiens drafted 3rd overall in 2012 and were also in the playoffs last year.

#39 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 October 2013 - 03:20 PM

View PostRobviously, on 13 October 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:


You "assume" they drafted high?  Why not just look it up before posting a long rant comprised entirely of sentence fragments and bizarre punctuation?

Here, I'll do the research you didn't.  This is their draft history:
http://www.hockeydb....dr00005218.html

2007: Drafted Kane 1st overall.  They have have a combined 10 NHL games out of the other guys they took that year.
2006: Toews 3rd overall.  No one else from that draft class has played an NHL game.
2005: Their first pick was Jack Skille at 7th overall.  He's a superstar, right?  The only contributor they got that year was Hjalmarsson (4th round pick).
2004: They took Cam Barker 3rd overall.  He spent time in the AHL last year.  They did find Bolland and Bickell in the 2nd round, but those are role players.
2003: The legendary draft year.  They got Seabrook 14th overall and Corey Crawford in the 2nd round.
2002: Their first pick was Babchuck, but they did find Duncan Keith in the 2nd round.

OK, so we can jettison the notion that the Blackhawks were loading up on talent for years before they finally bottomed out in 2007 to get Patrick Kane.  These five years aren't super impressive if you look past Kane (1st overall) and Toews (3rd overall).

But maybe they kept drafting really well right after they took Patrick Kane, right?  Wrong.

2008: Kyle Beach in the 1st round.  Has never played an NHL game.  Shawn Lalonde has played 1 NHL game and Ben Smith has played 23 NHL games.  That's what they have to show for 2008.
2009: Dylan Olsen in the 1st round.  Has played 28 NHL games with 1 career assist to show for it.  Marcus Kruger in the 5th round.
2010: Joakim Nordstrom has played 5 NHL games.

So it was NOT a long rebuild.  They got drafted their two key guys in 2006 and 2007 and made a few key trades in that same time frame (Patrick Sharp acquired from the Flyers in December 2005).  

It doesn't take 5+ years to rebuild a hockey team.  There's no reason the Sabres can't be a playoff team in 3 years.

Also, just to keep injecting facts into the discussion:
The Maple Leafs drafted 5th overall in 2012 and were in the playoffs last year.
The Canadiens drafted 3rd overall in 2012 and were also in the playoffs last year.

you win ..three years and the cup..who am i to impose upon your fantasy...lol


True Chicago built their team through trade (That was my point ,all those picks were useful), the draft (there are some picks you keep) and the UFA market (all those picks come in handy again). It took longer than three years to assemble the required talent. That was my point when i mentioned the years of draft picks (capital) Their run did not happen because Johnny and Patrick showed up one day.  

What are the odds of a top five pick becoming an elite franchise player? hmmmmmmmm  If the Sabres had Kane post Vanek, they would have one third of a top line and one top six player.Have the Sabres been successful in the UFA market.How would you rate thier trades.. how many top six players, first pair  defensemen?

My spelling and typing is this way because i want it that way knowing that it bothers people like you.

Tell me.. what pieces do the Sabres have on their roster minus Miller and Vanek? What are the odds there is a franchise player in the top five next year. How many development years will it take to know?

Edited by waldo, 13 October 2013 - 03:38 PM.


#40 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,545 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanking it Old School

Posted 13 October 2013 - 03:22 PM

View Postwaldo, on 13 October 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

you win ..three years and the cup..who am i to impose upon your fantasy...lol


Chicago built their team through trade (all those picks), the draft and the UFA market (all those picks). It took longer than three years to assemble the required talent.

Tell me.. what pieces do the Sabres have on their roster minus Miller and Vanek?
That is a loaded question.  What pieces did Chicago have in 2007?