I'd rather have Vanek... he's a proven goal scorer in the NHL that has never failed to put up 25+ goals every year he's ever played in this league.
Zucker... MIGHT one day become a 20 goal scorer, but he has not shown he can consistently get those prime chances at the NHL level as of yet.
And Vanek MIGHT sign with us, and MIGHT be a 25 goal scorer for us, but again you can't say for certain... and not to say that this is all that matters, but Zucker is alot younger with alot of Veteran leadership/Young competition to keep him growing as a player every day.
Fans at one point thought granlund was not going to be as successful as he was this year... his 2nd year... Yea they are completely different players, but the point remains the same... with patience, young guns come in and fill major roles that Cup contending teams win with all the time.
He's fast, hes naturally a goal scorer, he pushes competition for every young guy in this line up, and continues to work on his weakest part of his game.
Why would you want to spend 6+ million for 5-7 years for a hopeful 60+ points winger that has major baggage if he does not pan out? and get rid of a young potential 50+pts, faster and younger player with no baggage at all but his development?
The only answer i come back too is our "window" to win it all. Now i don't completely believe in the "window" concept, but i tend to use it as a guide line at this point(lol sound like yeo) and i can see the argument from this side too.
its splitting hairs imo, but i personally like the fact that Zucker has no baggage/no risk with keeping him, compared to Vanek who i can see having a problem with if he does not pan out + if we are forced to pay high on him.