Rumor: Sharks pursuing re-signing Vandermeer (Signed with Canucks)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SactoShark

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
May 1, 2009
12,483
1,054
Sacramento
robinson-larry-2.jpg
"You did what with Vandermeer last year? Wait... Colin White? Srsly?!"

620-mclellan-todd-thumb-620xauto-96961.jpg


Robinson_Larry_1.jpg
"Step down son. Imma fix this ****"

9576760-large.jpg
 

Hatrick Marleau

Just Win The Game
May 16, 2012
4,604
211
He would be fine on the 3rd d pair while Demers, Braun, and Burns are out for a game or two. They just want to pick up a player that is already familiar with the defensive system they run.
 

Evil Janney

Registered User
Jul 12, 2004
3,545
250
What if DW is working to deal either Braun or Demers? Worcester guys can fill the hole for that 8th dman spot, so it wouldn't make much to pursue Vandermeer.

I liked Vandy, he just never got to play as much as he should have. Plus, it's never a bad thing to have a veteran guy like him to rely on if the prospects from the minors don't work out.
 

Vaasa

Registered User
Aug 23, 2006
8,937
23
Sacramento, CA
More likely they are thinking of moving Murray (or have a deal in place) and Vandemeer would be the #6/7 d-man who can replace some of Murray's physical play.
 

Kitten Mittons

Registered User
Nov 18, 2007
48,903
80
Murray said in an interview a couple of days ago that he was pretty badly hurt during the entire season last year and he is all healed up now. Don't see a point in trading him now unless he sucks and it's a trade deadline deal.
 

sr228

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
7,113
0
Unless two of Burns, Braun or Demers are out long term I don't see Vandemeer signing with the Sharks (or I guess if Murray is moved but I don't see that happening).

That article is very clear (yes, that's sarcasm!) as it says the Sharks are talking to Vandermeer, Vandermeer has been talking to several teams, Vandermeer didn't like the way he was handled last season and the Sharks want to give their 'kids' a chance - that all adds up to him going somewhere else unless he's pretty sure he's going to get ice time or realized he's OK being the 7th d-man / 13th forward again.
 

Evil Janney

Registered User
Jul 12, 2004
3,545
250
More likely they are thinking of moving Murray (or have a deal in place) and Vandemeer would be the #6/7 d-man who can replace some of Murray's physical play.

I'd be okay with this.

And who will replace the rest of Murray's play?

Murray will be a UFA at the end of the season. The new salary cap limitations won't start until next season. With what KM said about Murray feeling fully healed, why would San Jose want to a downgrade the role of their top physical defensive defenseman (Murray) to Vandermeer? If Murray is gone who does the team rely on for the physical presence at the back end?

It's tougher, right now, for the team to satisfy Murray's role as opposed to a right handed defenseman with offensive prowess (Boyle...Burns...Bruan...Demers...).
 

Vaasa

Registered User
Aug 23, 2006
8,937
23
Sacramento, CA
And who will replace the rest of Murray's play?

Murray will be a UFA at the end of the season. The new salary cap limitations won't start until next season. With what KM said about Murray feeling fully healed, why would San Jose want to a downgrade the role of their top physical defensive defenseman (Murray) to Vandermeer? If Murray is gone who does the team rely on for the physical presence at the back end?

It's tougher, right now, for the team to satisfy Murray's role as opposed to a right handed defenseman with offensive prowess (Boyle...Burns...Bruan...Demers...).

The rest of Murray's play? That would be Brad Stuart.

Vlasic - Burns
Stuart - Boyle
Braun - Demers

I think this line-up is perfectly fine. You lose Murray's physicality, but you add MUCH greater mobility in Stuart, and a guy who is still a legit 3/4 guy instead of Murray's 4/5 (but really more of a 5).

If you need physicality you have Pelech readily available. And maybe a guy like Vandermeer as an insurance policy. Or maybe even Petrecki (doubtful, but who knows).

The point to me is that while Murray is a favorite (remember I once said that Murray would have been a better choice for Captain and JT and I still think that), from a defensive standpoint he isn't a critical piece any more.

Then when you add all of the other prospects down in Woostah who could fill in for a bit in case of injury (especially assuming Pelech re-signs) and that fact that Murray is an impending UFA who honestly should not be re-signed, it makes sense to trade Murray now. Especially if DW can move him to a team that will offer some some decent players who might improve some current roster issues.

BTW, just to be clear, I would rather re-sign Pelech than re-sign Vandy. Vandy would need to ride the bench most of the year and he wouldn't be very motivated in that role.
 

Grave

Mondo Cool
Jun 23, 2009
13,913
129
Northern California
How many roster spots do The Sharks have open? Don't they still have to ink Sheppard and a few others? Also would we all rather see Acolatse instead of Vandermeer? Unless he's being brought in just for fisticuffs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

  • USA vs Sweden
    USA vs Sweden
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $1,050.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Finland vs Czechia
    Finland vs Czechia
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $200.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $1,000.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $150.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Alavés vs Girona
    Alavés vs Girona
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $22.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad