Jump to content


Ouch!!!


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 bob_sauve28

bob_sauve28

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:56 AM

http://sports.yahoo....-155307895.html

#2 wyldnwoody44

wyldnwoody44

    dont pee into the wind

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springville, NY

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:59 AM

Uh oh, another vanek debate in 3....2.....1..........GRIMACE!!!!!

#3 thanes16

thanes16

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,986 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2014 - 11:06 AM

View Postwyldnwoody44, on 05 June 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Uh oh, another vanek debate in 3....2.....1..........GRIMACE!!!!!

Vanek doesn't vanish. He just...crap, I give up.

#4 wyldnwoody44

wyldnwoody44

    dont pee into the wind

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,986 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springville, NY

Posted 05 June 2014 - 11:10 AM

View Postthanes16, on 05 June 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:



Vanek doesn't vanish. He just...crap, I give up.
Lol, is that what he literally says... "crap, I give up" then slowly makes his way back to the bench ;)

#5 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,691 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:15 PM

View Postwyldnwoody44, on 05 June 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Uh oh, another vanek debate in 3....2.....1..........GRIMACE!!!!!
I'm not sure there is much debate anymore

#6 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    McDavid is to McDieFor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,421 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:31 PM

View Postinkman, on 05 June 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:


I'm not sure there is much debate anymore

AND I THINK THERE IS. THERE IS TOTALLY AT LEAST ONE VANEK DEBATE LEFT.

#7 dEnnis the Menace

dEnnis the Menace

    D63

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central NY (Fingerlakes)

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:50 PM

View PostTankalicious, on 05 June 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

AND I THINK THERE IS. THERE IS TOTALLY AT LEAST ONE VANEK DEBATE LEFT.

:doh:

#8 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:52 PM

OK, serious question:  for all those who felt Vanek was an "elite" player or for that matter a top-25 NHL player:  do you still feel that way?  If you were a GM, and Vanek's agent told you it was going to cost $7MM x 7 years to get Vanek, would you do it?

No mockery will ensue (from me, anyway).  This is a safe place.

#9 dEnnis the Menace

dEnnis the Menace

    D63

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central NY (Fingerlakes)

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:56 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 05 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

OK, serious question:  for all those who felt Vanek was an "elite" player or for that matter a top-25 NHL player:  do you still feel that way?  If you were a GM, and Vanek's agent told you it was going to cost $7MM x 7 years to get Vanek, would you do it?

No mockery will ensue (from me, anyway).  This is a safe place.

I've always loved Vanek's talent...but I don't feel he is elite or even top 25.  Top 25 players give 100% effort 100% of the time.  He doesn't and hasn't in a long time.

so no I wouldn't

Edited by dEnnis the Menace, 05 June 2014 - 12:56 PM.


#10 Tankalicious

Tankalicious

    McDavid is to McDieFor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,421 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:57 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 05 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

OK, serious question:  for all those who felt Vanek was an "elite" player or for that matter a top-25 NHL player:  do you still feel that way?  If you were a GM, and Vanek's agent told you it was going to cost $7MM x 7 years to get Vanek, would you do it?

No mockery will ensue (from me, anyway).  This is a safe place.

I thought he was short of elite and still do. I think he'll get near $7 mill. Just not for a deal that long.

#11 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:05 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 05 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

OK, serious question: for all those who felt Vanek was an "elite" player or for that matter a top-25 NHL player:  do you still feel that way?  If you were a GM, and Vanek's agent told you it was going to cost $7MM x 7 years to get Vanek, would you do it?

No mockery will ensue (from me, anyway).  This is a safe place.

Didn't we do this before, and we found out the poll you made back in the day had a whopping two people saying he was elite?  

Anyway, I still think he's an elite offensive player, and if I were on a team that had a window of contention for the next several seasons I would absolutely shell out that contract.  If you're not willing to pay $7MM for Vanek, just keep in mind Ryane Clowe got $4.9MM and David Clarkson got $5.3MM with an artificially lowered cap...so if you pass on Vanek and want "value" in the UFA market, you're going to end up with something like that.  Frankly, I expect Vanek to be undervalued by GMs this summer while Gaborik gets overvalued, simply because of their respective playoff runs.

#12 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:19 PM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 05 June 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

Didn't we do this before, and we found out the poll you made back in the day had a whopping two people saying he was elite?  

Anyway, I still think he's an elite offensive player, and if I were on a team that had a window of contention for the next several seasons I would absolutely shell out that contract.  If you're not willing to pay $7MM for Vanek, just keep in mind Ryane Clowe got $4.9MM and David Clarkson got $5.3MM with an artificially lowered cap...so if you pass on Vanek and want "value" in the UFA market, you're going to end up with something like that.  Frankly, I expect Vanek to be undervalued by GMs this summer while Gaborik gets overvalued, simply because of their respective playoff runs.

Well, that thread was before the Sabres traded him, and we've now had the benefit of another season's (and post-season's) worth of seeing how he plays.

Also, over half of that poll's respondents said that Vanek was a top-20 NHL player.  So check yo'self, girlfriend.

Also, if Gaborik produces in the playoffs but Vanek doesn't, shouldn't that affect the "overvalued/undervalued" analysis?

(FTR, I think that Gaborik is and has always been better than Vanek, but not by a huge margin, and that Vanek produced much better in the playoffs for the Sabres (although still not at a franchise-player level) than he did this year.  I was surprised that he fell off the table this year and would kinda expect him to perform better if he gets another shot at the playoffs while he's still got his legs.)

#13 bob_sauve28

bob_sauve28

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:22 PM

View Postnfreeman, on 05 June 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Well, that thread was before the Sabres traded him, and we've now had the benefit of another season's (and post-season's) worth of seeing how he plays.

Also, over half of that poll's respondents said that Vanek was a top-20 NHL player.  So check yo'self, girlfriend.

Also, if Gaborik produces in the playoffs but Vanek doesn't, shouldn't that affect the "overvalued/undervalued" analysis?

(FTR, I think that Gaborik is and has always been better than Vanek, but not by a huge margin, and that Vanek produced much better in the playoffs for the Sabres (although still not at a franchise-player level) than he did this year.  I was surprised that he fell off the table this year and would kinda expect him to perform better if he gets another shot at the playoffs while he's still got his legs.)
I bet Vanek would score a lot too in Gaborik's position, I mean that team is so stacked its impossible to watch everyone. But that's the point, Vanek is great, IMO, as an incredible second/third line player and on power play, but he is not the player in so many ways to carry a team. If that makes sense

#14 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:57 PM

When he disappeared in Buffalo, we blamed everyone but him. Now we have an independent data point. Vanek vanishes when it matters. My guess he will still get a payday

#15 Andrew Amerk

Andrew Amerk

    Heart Means Everything.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 06 June 2014 - 01:30 AM

Yep. Vanek will get his $$$

#16 X. Benedict

X. Benedict

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,336 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2014 - 04:35 AM

View Postwjag, on 05 June 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

When he disappeared in Buffalo, we blamed everyone but him. Now we have an independent data point. Vanek vanishes when it matters. My guess he will still get a payday

Vanek gets 5 goals 3 assists for 8 pts 21 SOG  in 11 games in the Boston and Tampa series. Respectable.
Gets demoted to 4th line for the ECF with new line-mates.  Looks lost.

Vanek didn't set the world on fire. But what the hell was Therrien thinking? Weak coaching move.
Put Vanek out in a checking, energy role at 11 minutes and then blame Vanek for his lack of production in that role?

Vanek is taking it on the chin. But Therrien really didn't have the balls to scratch him.
What's Therrien thinking here? Make the player play his way off the checking line in the ECF?

#17 wjag

wjag

    Buffalo Sports -- Dysfunction Junction

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just below the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 06 June 2014 - 04:43 AM

View PostX. Benedict, on 06 June 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:



Vanek gets 5 goals 3 assists for 8 pts 21 SOG  in 11 games in the Boston and Tampa series. Respectable.
Gets demoted to 4th line for the ECF with new line-mates.  Looks lost.

Vanek didn't set the world on fire. But what the hell was Therrien thinking? Weak coaching move.
Put Vanek out in a checking, energy role at 11 minutes and then blame Vanek for his lack of production in that role?

Vanek is taking it on the chin. But Therrien really didn't have the balls to scratch him.
What's Therrien thinking here? Make the player play his way off the checking line in the ECF?

I often wonder what the real story is.  Our optic is always so black and white.

#18 X. Benedict

X. Benedict

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,336 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2014 - 04:57 AM

View Postwjag, on 06 June 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

I often wonder what the real story is.  Our optic is always so black and white.

I'm not really sure. But it seemed to me that flipping Vanek with Gionta wasn't the answer from a coaching standpoint.
Vanek hasn't played 3 or 4th line since 2007. That wasn't the reason he was brought in as a rental, to find his way through defensive zone starts.

I just find Therrien's moves strange.

#19 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,507 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 June 2014 - 06:41 AM

Vanek has been poorly coached his whole NHL career, so I'm sure he felt right at home in Munreal. Maybe (insert name of Minnesota coach I'm too lazy to look up, maybe Herb Brooks? here) will get it right.

#20 X. Benedict

X. Benedict

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,336 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:32 AM

View PostPASabreFan, on 06 June 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Vanek has been poorly coached his whole NHL career, so I'm sure he felt right at home in Munreal. Maybe (insert name of Minnesota coach I'm too lazy to look up, maybe Herb Brooks? here) will get it right.
Well he never became the league's "best-two way" player, if that's what you mean.

#21 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, NY/Apex, NC

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:44 AM

View PostdEnnis the Menace, on 05 June 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

I've always loved Vanek's talent...but I don't feel he is elite or even top 25.  Top 25 players give 100% effort 100% of the time.  He doesn't and hasn't in a long time.

so no I wouldn't

So your standard is one that the guy who wins the Rocket Richard Trophy each year doesn't even qualify for.  Overly strict criteria, wouldn't you say?

#22 Kristian

Kristian

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,694 posts

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:51 AM

View PostX. Benedict, on 06 June 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Well he never became the league's "best-two way" player, if that's what you mean.

I try not to pick at Lindy - He's gone, people know how I felt about his time here, but in this case I cannot help it - When you publically state your goal is to turn your first 40-goal guy in a decade into the "best two-way player" in the game, you've lost it.

Flame away.

#23 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,976 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:18 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 05 June 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Well, that thread was before the Sabres traded him, and we've now had the benefit of another season's (and post-season's) worth of seeing how he plays.

Also, over half of that poll's respondents said that Vanek was a top-20 NHL player.  So check yo'self, girlfriend.

Also, if Gaborik produces in the playoffs but Vanek doesn't, shouldn't that affect the "overvalued/undervalued" analysis?

(FTR, I think that Gaborik is and has always been better than Vanek, but not by a huge margin, and that Vanek produced much better in the playoffs for the Sabres (although still not at a franchise-player level) than he did this year.  I was surprised that he fell off the table this year and would kinda expect him to perform better if he gets another shot at the playoffs while he's still got his legs.)

Well for my own sanity, I hope I didn't name him a top 20 player...his all-around game isn't good enough. However, I think I could make a case for him being a top-20 offensive player and if we're being honest here, offense is what gets forwards paid.

Secondly, no, I wouldn't base my contract offers to him Gaborik on this year's playoffs. Making a 7 year investment decision on 20 games? Insanity. In an actual negotiation I'd try to use this year to lowball Vanek, but if I wanted to throw cash at him to months ago, this wouldn't dissuade me.

#24 dudacek

dudacek

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:High and wide

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:18 AM

A friend who is a huge Habs fan insists Vanek must have been hurt, despite what he says.
Points to a collision he had with Subban early in the Rangers series, saying he vanished from that point on, but was a weapon prior to that. Also says he played great with Pacioretty and Desharnais and doesn't understand why that line was broken up.

I say Vanek is what he always has been - streaky.

#25 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:28 AM

View PostPASabreFan, on 06 June 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Vanek has been poorly coached his whole NHL career, so I'm sure he felt right at home in Munreal. Maybe (insert name of Minnesota coach I'm too lazy to look up, maybe Herb Brooks? here) will get it right.

Still think it was Lindy's fault that Vanek never got to Ovechkin status, eh?  Therrien -- a second NHL coach with substantial playoff success --taking Vanek's measure and not liking what he saw doesn't move the needle for you?

View PostX. Benedict, on 06 June 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

Vanek gets 5 goals 3 assists for 8 pts 21 SOG  in 11 games in the Boston and Tampa series. Respectable.
Gets demoted to 4th line for the ECF with new line-mates.  Looks lost.

Vanek didn't set the world on fire. But what the hell was Therrien thinking? Weak coaching move.
Put Vanek out in a checking, energy role at 11 minutes and then blame Vanek for his lack of production in that role?

Vanek is taking it on the chin. But Therrien really didn't have the balls to scratch him.
What's Therrien thinking here? Make the player play his way off the checking line in the ECF?

But it wasn't really a checking/energy role -- when he got demoted, Briere was his center most of the time.  It was more like a third scoring line that Therrien just didn't like/trust enough to give them much ice time.

View Postdudacek, on 06 June 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

A friend who is a huge Habs fan insists Vanek must have been hurt, despite what he says.
Points to a collision he had with Subban early in the Rangers series, saying he vanished from that point on, but was a weapon prior to that. Also says he played great with Pacioretty and Desharnais and doesn't understand why that line was broken up.

I say Vanek is what he always has been - streaky.

Certainly possible, but if so, why would Therrien publicly throw Vanek under the bus the way he did?

#26 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:37 AM

Is Vanek always hurt?

#27 X. Benedict

X. Benedict

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,336 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:47 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 06 June 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

Still think it was Lindy's fault that Vanek never got to Ovechkin status, eh?  Therrien -- a second NHL coach with substantial playoff success --taking Vanek's measure and not liking what he saw doesn't move the needle for you?



But it wasn't really a checking/energy role -- when he got demoted, Briere was his center most of the time.  It was more like a third scoring line that Therrien just didn't like/trust enough to give them much ice time.


Certainly possible, but if so, why would Therrien publicly throw Vanek under the bus the way he did?

Well, he was on a line with Wiese. Limited time, and defensive zone starts.
Blaming Vanek for not producing in that role - well, why not scratch Vanek and start Travis Moen.
Therrien made the lines. I just think they were dumb.

Edited by X. Benedict, 06 June 2014 - 08:48 AM.


#28 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 06 June 2014 - 08:58 AM

View PostX. Benedict, on 06 June 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

Vanek gets 5 goals 3 assists for 8 pts 21 SOG  in 11 games in the Boston and Tampa series. Respectable.
Gets demoted to 4th line for the ECF with new line-mates.  Looks lost.

Vanek didn't set the world on fire. But what the hell was Therrien thinking? Weak coaching move.
Put Vanek out in a checking, energy role at 11 minutes and then blame Vanek for his lack of production in that role?

Vanek is taking it on the chin. But Therrien really didn't have the balls to scratch him.
What's Therrien thinking here? Make the player play his way off the checking line in the ECF?

I agree with this. They went out and got Vanek for production. Demoting him certainly wasn't putting him in a position to succeed.

#29 dEnnis the Menace

dEnnis the Menace

    D63

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central NY (Fingerlakes)

Posted 06 June 2014 - 10:55 AM

View Postshrader, on 06 June 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

So your standard is one that the guy who wins the Rocket Richard Trophy each year doesn't even qualify for.  Overly strict criteria, wouldn't you say?

going back and re-reading that...yeah, that's pretty strict.  what I meant in my head was guys that don't give up and cash it in more so than not.  How many times  did this board complain about Vanek mailing it in or getting down on himself and letting the smallest mistake seat at him.  That's not the sign of an elite player in my mind.  Look at Kane or Toews, or even someone like Chara, who even though I hate, I think he's one of the best defensemen in the league (whether he plays dirty or not).  They make a mistake, they lose a game, whatever, they turn around and use it as motivation so far as we the fans can see.

#30 Neuvirths Glove

Neuvirths Glove

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,351 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:33 PM

I'm gonna wait for the market to set itself before I comment.

#31 SabresBillsFan

SabresBillsFan

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 11:35 PM

Why do I feel that all this negative criticism against Vanek will sink into him making him better. Let's face it the guy has talent but it's his work ethic that u have to question. I still feel he signs with the Wild and I just have this strange feeling he's going to have a big year. His Family being there and his best buddy Pom's.

#32 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    This pleases Nikita

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2014 - 11:38 PM

View PostSabresBillsFan, on 07 June 2014 - 11:35 PM, said:

Why do I feel that all this negative criticism against Vanek will sink into him making him better. Let's face it the guy has talent but it's his work ethic that u have to question. I still feel he signs with the Wild and I just have this strange feeling he's going to have a big year. His Family being there and his best buddy Pom's.

Thomas Vanek is Thomas Vanek. He's not reinventing himself.

#33 PASabreFan

PASabreFan

    Resistance is futile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,507 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:59 AM

Austrian+a grimace+a certain body language=lazy. I always give professional athletes the benefit of the doubt. I don't think people prone to laziness make it that far. It's the easy answer to grasp for.

#34 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:26 PM

View PostPASabreFan, on 08 June 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Austrian+a grimace+a certain body language=lazy. I always give professional athletes the benefit of the doubt. I don't think people prone to laziness make it that far. It's the easy answer to grasp for.

Do you think this was Therrien's analysis?