Do you still want to trade Vanek/Miller?

Gabrielor

"Win with us or watch us win." - Rasmus Dahlin
Jun 28, 2011
13,023
13,353
Buffalo, NY
Based on what we've seen in the preseason (note: a small, semi-relevant sample), would you still deal away Miller and/or Vanek? Alternatively, would you try to resign one/both?
 
Last edited:

Myllz

RELEASE THE KRAKEN
Jan 16, 2006
19,621
1,424
Vegas
Yes to both. I'd resign Vanek if possible, but that decision is ultimately going to be his. If he doesn't want to stay there's not much you can do, so deal him at the deadline.
 

stokes84

Registered User
Jun 30, 2008
19,285
4,156
Charleston, SC
Well, it really comes down to what kind of contract they want. If Vanek wants $8 mil+ a year, I just don't know if it makes sense.
 

SabresFanNorthPortFL

Registered User
Aug 9, 2007
2,490
207
North Port, FL
IMO, we can be very competitive next year with both. I think both see the hungry talent coming and understand this year will have bumps but next year a 20 year old Grigs, 20 year old Girgs, 22 year old Larson, 21 year old Armia, 24 year old Ennis, 22 year old Foligno, 24 year old Myers, 19 year old Risto, 19 year old Zardov and 23 year old Hodgson is going to be a competitive team, and they will only make those youngsters that much better.

Resign them both but realistically, I don't think Miller wants to be here. Put the "C" on Vanek and show him how much we want him.

They're not stupid, they can see this is an up and coming team.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
I believe in the young core of talent we have. So I'd be very concerned in locking up cap space long term, when the current state of the league drives RFA contracts up, and we are playing so many young guys that they will be getting significant 2nd/3rd contracts.

I have no interest in a Miller extension

I'd be open to a short term Vanek extension (2-3 yrs). it may be a benefit to both. Give Vanek max dollars (8 mil?). Let him see the organization turn itself around, and if it's a contender when he comes due for his next contract, having earned significant career money, hopefully he'd then be willing to take the hometown discount to finish his career with a contender?

I would not give Vanek a long term, top dollar extension... I'd give him 8.0 per over 3 years (max), and work from there
 

Sabresfansince1980

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
10,834
5,191
from Wheatfield, NY
A lot of posters have said to trade them in order to speed up the rebuild. If those two weren't so valuable I'd agree, but there is no goalie in the system that can replace Miller (I'll wait until I see more of Enroth, but I still doubt it). There is no scoring talent to replace Vanek, even if we project Armia to his best potential.

Trading these guys might indeed speed up the rebuild, but remember what a "rebuild" means...no current success. The team with these prospects can be successful in 2-3 years, and not in regard to a rebuild, but in regard to playoffs and Cup contention. However, to get that far they still need a legit scorer and a proven goalie that won't be phased by playoff pressure. Vanek and Miller have 3-4 more years of prime ability left, so they're worth keeping.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
A lot of posters have said to trade them in order to speed up the rebuild. If those two weren't so valuable I'd agree, but there is no goalie in the system that can replace Miller (I'll wait until I see more of Enroth, but I still doubt it). There is no scoring talent to replace Vanek, even if we project Armia to his best potential.

Trading these guys might indeed speed up the rebuild, but remember what a "rebuild" means...no current success. The team with these prospects can be successful in 2-3 years, and not in regard to a rebuild, but in regard to playoffs and Cup contention. However, to get that far they still need a legit scorer and a proven goalie that won't be phased by playoff pressure. Vanek and Miller have 3-4 more years of prime ability left, so they're worth keeping.

to me, Myers, Pysyk, Risto, Zadarov is how you replace Miller. The league has shown for YEARS now, that you get good goaltending from a good defense.
 

jamers

bleep bop bloop
Sep 17, 2011
3,122
0
I believe in the young core of talent we have. So I'd be very concerned in locking up cap space long term, when the current state of the league drives RFA contracts up, and we are playing so many young guys that they will be getting significant 2nd/3rd contracts.

I have no interest in a Miller extension

I'd be open to a short term Vanek extension (2-3 yrs). it may be a benefit to both. Give Vanek max dollars (8 mil?). Let him see the organization turn itself around, and if it's a contender when he comes due for his next contract, having earned significant career money, hopefully he'd then be willing to take the hometown discount to finish his career with a contender?

I would not give Vanek a long term, top dollar extension... I'd give him 8.0 per over 3 years (max), and work from there

Those are my thoughts as well. I like Miller a lot, but I don't see the value in tying up more money in goaltending. Vanek, however, is a different story.
 

Sabresfansince1980

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
10,834
5,191
from Wheatfield, NY
to me, Myers, Pysyk, Risto, Zadarov is how you replace Miller. The league has shown for YEARS now, that you get good goaltending from a good defense.

That's true to some extent, but a playoff season is a grind and we know all too well that D-men can get injured and be out of the line-up. If the roster breaks down or the team defense breaks down due to the competition, Miller is still a better option to have to fall back on than Enroth.

Edit - also, Miller's next contract (won't be more than his current cap hit) probably won't be a big hinderance with the cap going up. Vanek won't stay for a 2-3 year extension. That's almost an insult to offer him anything less than a 7-8 year deal.
 

haseoke39

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
13,938
2,490
Trade them. You don't throw your team building strategy away based on 5 preseason games.

Smart team building requires you to think of when player's primes are going to be, and Vanek and Miller will be well out of their prime when these kids start to enter theirs. If Ristolainen and Zadarov are going to be anchoring this team's defense in the Cup Finals, I think the reasonable thing is to expect them to be doing that around age 24. Sure, we can have some good years while they grow, but that's the age when I think it's reasonable to expect them to be shutting down the best forwards in the league regularly. Which puts Miler at age 38 and Vanek at age 36, and I expect both of them to be replaceable players at that age. Vanek averages 28 goals over his last three complete seasons. At age 36, I'm thinking he can be replaced by a nice, veteran 20 goal scorer on the UFA market.

So get assets for them now who will also be peaking around that time. In the salary cap era, you can't just try to collect a hodgepodge of good players at all different development stages. You have to try and get guys who are going to all be great together in the same window.
 

Mit Yarrum

HoF Turd Shiner
Apr 1, 2010
5,747
112
My issue with trading Miller is that I'm not sure we have anyone behind him consistent enought to fit the "great D == great goalie" theory.

In other words, you need to have a guy back there that, while not great, won't **** his pants 1 out of every 3 or 4 starts.

I don't know if we have that guy in Enroth or Hackett in this stage of their careers. Granted, I'm not sure how you're supposed to find that out without throwing them to the wolves.
 

Crazy Tasty

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
5,260
192
Joisey
I don't think that prior to Game 1 of the regular season is the time to really think about re-signing either of them.
20-30 games in is the time to look at that.

With 4 quality 1st rounders in the system, cap space is going to get pretty thin in 4 years, not to mention the dearth of other talent in the pipe that should compete for contracts.

I wouldn't be opposed to a shorter term Vanek contract, but why would he sign one?
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
That's true to some extent, but a playoff season is a grind and we know all too well that D-men can get injured and be out of the line-up. If the roster breaks down or the team defense breaks down due to the competition, Miller is still a better option to have to fall back on than Enroth.

Edit - also, Miller's next contract (won't be more than his current cap hit) probably won't be a big hinderance with the cap going up. Vanek won't stay for a 2-3 year extension. That's almost an insult to offer him anything less than a 7-8 year deal.


I'll stick with a stable of young goalies battling to be the starter behind a good defense.

as for Vanek... I can think of plenty of reasons he'd sign a short term extension

1. If things look like they are heading in the right direction, he may want to stick around for a few years to see if they reach contendership... but still leave himself an out if they don't.

2. he's made over 50 million already, and a short term max type deal would put him over 75 million. I'd like to think that money isn't his primary motivator.

3. I don't think it's insulting. It's simply a possible outcome of 2 sides agreeing on a mutually beneficial step forward. In fact, I believe it's exactly what the Sharks did with Marleau many years ago... he was a 29 year old pending UFA, and they gave him a 2 year top dollar extension....
 

Sabresfansince1980

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
10,834
5,191
from Wheatfield, NY
Trade them. You don't throw your team building strategy away based on 5 preseason games.

Smart team building requires you to think of when player's primes are going to be, and Vanek and Miller will be well out of their prime when these kids start to enter theirs. If Ristolainen and Zadarov are going to be anchoring this team's defense in the Cup Finals, I think the reasonable thing is to expect them to be doing that around age 24. Sure, we can have some good years while they grow, but that's the age when I think it's reasonable to expect them to be shutting down the best forwards in the league regularly. Which puts Miler at age 38 and Vanek at age 36, and I expect both of them to be replaceable players at that age. Vanek averages 28 goals over his last three complete seasons. At age 36, I'm thinking he can be replaced by a nice, veteran 20 goal scorer on the UFA market.

So get assets for them now who will also be peaking around that time. In the salary cap era, you can't just try to collect a hodgepodge of good players at all different development stages. You have to try and get guys who are going to all be great together in the same window.

Why would five pre-season games have anything to do with how valuable two 30+ vets are?

We don't need Ristolainen and Zadorov to anchor a Cup winning team, that can happen with Ehrhoff and Myers. Weber and Pysyk are showing to be capable as 2nd pairing guys, let alone what Risto and Zadorov can prove of themselves. The two rookies just need to be solid contributors, not a top pair in their prime, for this team to be contenders. It won't be this season, but 2015 or 2016 can and that makes Vanek 33 or 34, and Miller 35 or 36. That's not too old.
 

Crazy Tasty

Registered User
Oct 5, 2005
5,260
192
Joisey
I'll stick with a stable of young goalies battling to be the starter behind a good defense.

as for Vanek... I can think of plenty of reasons he'd sign a short term extension

1. If things look like they are heading in the right direction, he may want to stick around for a few years to see if they reach contendership... but still leave himself an out if they don't.

2. he's made over 50 million already, and a short term max type deal would put him over 75 million. I'd like to think that money isn't his primary motivator.

3. I don't think it's insulting. It's simply a possible outcome of 2 sides agreeing on a mutually beneficial step forward

You would hope that's the case, but it never really is. His next 3-4 years are his 'prime'.
If he signs a 3x8 deal with us, I highly doubt he gets close to 8 when that deal is done. He'd likely give up about 20 million to sign a 3 deal.
 

Sabresfansince1980

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
10,834
5,191
from Wheatfield, NY
I'll stick with a stable of young goalies battling to be the starter behind a good defense.

as for Vanek... I can think of plenty of reasons he'd sign a short term extension

1. If things look like they are heading in the right direction, he may want to stick around for a few years to see if they reach contendership... but still leave himself an out if they don't.

2. he's made over 50 million already, and a short term max type deal would put him over 75 million. I'd like to think that money isn't his primary motivator.

3. I don't think it's insulting. It's simply a possible outcome of 2 sides agreeing on a mutually beneficial step forward. In fact, I believe it's exactly what the Sharks did with Marleau many years ago... he was a 29 year old pending UFA, and they gave him a 2 year top dollar extension....

I'd love to have a tandem in goal (I really loved watching Vanbiesbrouck and Richter back in the day) but I need to see more of Enroth with new pads, let alone Hackett.

I'd like to think you're right about Vanek, but I doubt that's how he'll feel.
 

FamilyGuy716

Registered User
Jun 15, 2011
1,583
29
Amherst NY
I want to keep Vanek. He's good for at least 5 more years. Give him a 7 year contract and 7.5 million per year.

Miller is tougher. I would trade him if we got a 1st round pick for him. Anything less than that and I would re-sign him. I wouldn't give him a contract for anymore than 3 years at 4 million per year.

Of course this isn't reality because I don't think either player wants to stay and we'll end up trading both by the trade deadline.
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
You would hope that's the case, but it never really is. His next 3-4 years are his 'prime'.
If he signs a 3x8 deal with us, I highly doubt he gets close to 8 when that deal is done. He'd likely give up about 20 million to sign a 3 deal.

more like 10 million...

3 yrs at 8 per (24 mil) - ages 30-32
then...
5 yrs at 6 per (30 mil) as UFA - ages 33-38

54 million over 8 yrs (54 total)
vs
8 yrs at 8 per (64 total)
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
I want to keep Vanek. He's good for at least 5 more years. Give him a 7 year contract and 7.5 million per year.

Miller is tougher. I would trade him if we got a 1st round pick for him. Anything less than that and I would re-sign him. I wouldn't give him a contract for anymore than 3 years at 4 million per year.

Of course this isn't reality because I don't think either player wants to stay and we'll end up trading both by the trade deadline.

It's a calculated risk... I'd hate to have 33-38 year old Vanek eating up 7.5 of cap space, starting to break down physically, and having our rebuilt core due for bigger contract extensions.

I'm sure it can be made to work (thank god for the Hodgson and Myers contracts - ;) ) Im just not in love with that path.
 

Sabresfansince1980

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
10,834
5,191
from Wheatfield, NY
I think Miller would accept a 3-4 year deal, ending when he's 37 or 38. I doubt he would expect a team to sign him long-term to age 40. As far as money, I also think he'd take less (maybe a 4-5 mil cap hit) if it meant fitting in a certain player or two in Buffalo that would solidify the roster. If he's going to another team then he'd probably negotiate for market value in the 5-6 mil range.
 

Clock

Registered User
May 13, 2006
22,225
73
Miller: Trade, unless there's zero market out there and he's willing to take a lesser contract (at least in term of years)
Vanek: Trade if you can get any consequential pieces that will would be ready to do damage in the NHL in a few years, which is what the current core seems poised for. Don't trade unless it's obvious he wants to stay with the team and will take a contract that won't prevent the team from keeping core talent in the future.

To me, keeping these guys around now is completely secondary to optimizing what the team could look like in 3-4 years.
 

Zman5778

Moderator
Oct 4, 2005
24,548
21,542
Cressona/Reading, PA
Miller I'm ambivalent about. I tend to agree with Jame that our defense looks to be setting up such that a steady, reliable goalie should be able to do well behind them. Hackett may be that guy....maybe it's Petersen or Ullmark.

Vanek, OTOH....I look to re-up. Yes, we have Armia in the system but beyond him we don't have any true snipers lined up. And scoring depth is always key for Cup contenders. Even if Vanek slips to the point where he becomes a 2nd line sniper/PP specialist....he'd still have worth to the team I think; I also think that point is 5-6 years down the road.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->