Speculation: Captain (Rolston - Captain To Be Named Today)
- Thread starter vcv
- Start date
- Status
Wisent42
Registered User
Agreed, and Vanek has earned it. Yes, it's a bit of an issue that he's on the last year of a contract, but sidestepping him for captaincy would exactly help if you want to re-sign him. There were these words about him not being big on rebuild, but then Vanek himself opened the door, said some things about interesting youth and nice to be a part of it. The way I see it, you engage Vanek in the rebuild by slapping a C on him.
There's also all that talk about Vanek not being a leader. I don't buy it. You can lead in different ways. Running your mouth, trying to ignite the team with hits, that's one way. The Ott-way. But you don't need a letter to do that. Being a class act is another. Like talking to the opposing teams captain about a joint celebration of the crowd right after the Boston marathon bombing. Wearing a letter is not just about leading your own team, it's also about being the teams ambassadeur. Like communicating with refs, for example. And as much as I'd like to give the C to a sandpaper-guy as payback for refs and the league not showing proper respect, I doubt it will do us any favors.
Vanek as C and Ehrhoff, Stafford, Ott and Hodgson as home/away A. That's my prediction. Not that big on either Stafford or Hodgson as letters though.
Agree with your point about varying types of leaders.Agreed, and Vanek has earned it. Yes, it's a bit of an issue that he's on the last year of a contract, but sidestepping him for captaincy would exactly help if you want to re-sign him. There were these words about him not being big on rebuild, but then Vanek himself opened the door, said some things about interesting youth and nice to be a part of it. The way I see it, you engage Vanek in the rebuild by slapping a C on him.
There's also all that talk about Vanek not being a leader. I don't buy it. You can lead in different ways. Running your mouth, trying to ignite the team with hits, that's one way. The Ott-way. But you don't need a letter to do that. Being a class act is another. Like talking to the opposing teams captain about a joint celebration of the crowd right after the Boston marathon bombing. Wearing a letter is not just about leading your own team, it's also about being the teams ambassadeur. Like communicating with refs, for example. And as much as I'd like to give the C to a sandpaper-guy as payback for refs and the league not showing proper respect, I doubt it will do us any favors.
Vanek as C and Ehrhoff, Stafford, Ott and Hodgson as home/away A. That's my prediction. Not that big on either Stafford or Hodgson as letters though.
My biggest thing, though, is that I don't want it forced.
Lock3Boys
Registered User
Exactly. I love Kaleta. Probably my favorite player on the team.
No way in hell should he be the captain.
You have to admit, it would be amazing though.
Yes to all this.
Lock3Boys
Registered User
Me either, but I can't defend my reasoning with facts. He just doesn't strike me as captain material with what I see on the ice.
Won't be upset in the slightest if he is named captain though.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
Yes to all this.
Will the internet explode if it goes like this?
C - Kaleta
A - Ott
A - Weber
That would be seriously entertaining, at a minimum.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
I'm not a fan of giving the C to a guy who isn't signed beyond this year and seems to be non-committal at best about re-signing.
- Sep 21, 2005
- 19,185
- 1,089
When discussing Vanek getting the C, no one seems to be addressing the pink elephant.... what if they re-sign him... long term... it's hard to take the C away from a franchise forward locked up long term... and when new leaders start emerging, and a new core.... is that a good position to be in (as a franchise)?...
ok... "pink elephant" is overdoing it... but the question is serious.
ok... "pink elephant" is overdoing it... but the question is serious.
stokes84
Registered User
He'll still be our best player, and by the time he's not, he'll be our most veteran player knocking on the door of some all time sabre greats in scoring, so I'd be fine with that.
- Sep 21, 2005
- 19,185
- 1,089
stokes84
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 19,185
- 1,089
Do you think Peca, Drury or Stuuuuuuuuuu Barnes was the best player while the Captain here ?
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
So Pominville, Rivet, and Barnes were the best players while wearing a Sabre C?
How about Ruff? How about Mike Ramsey?
And that's just the Sabres.
"a lot" of the time indicates well over 50% of the time. Not the case, when you look at all the other NHL teams as well.
stokes84
Registered User
stokes84
Registered User
Did I say always? And I didn't know "a lot" indicated anything other than "a lot".
I've said this before, but the thing about leadership is...you don't (and shouldn't) need to have a letter on your sweater in order to be a leader, if in fact you ARE a "leader".
Whoever ends up with letters is just getting a superficial recognition of their status or contribution to the team. That doesn't preclude others from contributing leadership, and it doesn't have an overall effect on how issues are handled in the locker room, aside from who might take the lead in dealing with them.
Whoever ends up with letters is just getting a superficial recognition of their status or contribution to the team. That doesn't preclude others from contributing leadership, and it doesn't have an overall effect on how issues are handled in the locker room, aside from who might take the lead in dealing with them.
- Sep 21, 2005
- 19,185
- 1,089
what does that have to do with what you said ..... ?
there are several examples right on this page that isn't the case (and that is just the Sabres !)
stokes84
Registered User
Please show me where I said that. Oh... I didn't. So you're just intentionally being an ass. Got it.
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
well, a lot really means minority of the time. Too stubborn to say, "ok guys i guess that was wrong of me to say a lot. i just think Vanek should get it"
stokes84
Registered User
A lot means a lot. You guys are freaking lunatics. There have thousands of NHL captains. If 200 of them were the best players, that would be "a lot". Holy crap.
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
so if i gave you $10, and i took it from bucket full of $10's that you saw me holding. You would think, "wow that's a lot of money you just gave me compared to your bucket."
If there were thousands of captains, and only 200 of them were the best players at the time they were captains, that's not a lot compared to the thousands that were. That's the exact opposite of a lot. If there were 2,000 captains in the history of the NHL and 1,500 were the best players while they were the captains. That's a lot, compared to the number of captains overall. I know you subbornly disagree.
stokes84
Registered User
Am I really the stubborn one here, or is it the guy trying to pick an argument in order to pick an argument?
- Sep 21, 2005
- 19,185
- 1,089
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Discussion: 2024 Playoffs - First Round - Jets vs Avalanche
- Latest: Wateredgarden
-
-
-
Historical relevance of Kucherov and MacKinnon's 2024 season?- Latest: jigglysquishy
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 3Staked: $245.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 2Staked: $60.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 3Staked: $5,625.00Event closes- Updated: