Do you still want to trade Vanek/Miller?

[Crazy Tasty]

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)

I see that contract totaling 20m. Just my opinion.

 

[Zman5778]

What do you guys think Miller is asking for in salary? I assume 5-6 year term.

I think he realizes that while he can play like a top 3 goalie in spurts....he's not consistent enough to ask for that kind of money.

Given that the best young guys are making $7 mil per cap hit, I think he's LOOKING for something around $6 mil cap hit......but I think will ultimately wind up being about $5.5 mil cap hit.

 

[Shoey]

I still try to re-sign Vanek if at all possible. I'm very into the idea of him being a Sabre for his entire career.

He's never been the problem with this team. Vanek is the kind of guy that good teams have lying around and I think it'd be a mistake to let that go.

that said, if you can't get it done by the deadline I see little choice.

 

[Chainshot]

I want to see where they are as the season progresses. At this point, I'm not any more or less interested in extending either until the team starts producing (or not) on the ice.

 

[Beerz]

We're either resigning Miller or lose him to free agency ..I cant see a trade happening at deadline for a goalie like Miller...barring an injury to a starting goalie on a legitimate contender. As for Vanek..he's too talented not to r3sign..but if its not possible before trade deadline he has to be shipped

 

[buffalowing88]

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.

THIS.

You don't need to tie up your money in a high priced goaltender to compete in the NHL. Goalies are going the way of the running back in football. They are highly replaceable. Enroth will be just fine in net platooning with Hackett if we have a solid defense like we should in a few years and an offense that can sustain some semblance of puck possession.

Let Vanek and Miller go and make this a true rebuild. I have no earthly idea what Miller is worth anymore, especially with Lundqvust potentially hitting the market but I am certain Vanek can get us a very nice prospect and a good pick.

 

[joshjull]

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.

So you just make a up a time line based on the two most recently drafted players as the anchors and use that as the justification to trade Vanek/Miller? That makes little sense.

Where is Myers? Or Pysyk? Or Ehrhoff? Why do we need to wait for those two recently drafted players to be anchors?


EDIT: I have no idea why you think extending them would derail anything. You seem to have this idea in your head that rebuilding = getting rid of every NHL vet with the hopes of crapping out. Rebuilding takes on many forms and as of right now we have rebuilt our roster. Its a far different roster right now than it was two years ago. Most of the key pieces we've needed are either already here, will be here at some point this season on a call up or will be arriving within the next 1-2yrs. But you refuse to accept we have the talent we have.

 

[MacOfNiagara]

Miller yes, although not as a reflection of a dislike for him. Great goalie, good guy, but the time is right for a move.

Vanek, no. Nice to see him knocking guys off the puck in the D zone last game.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I want to sign Vanek and trade Miller.

 

[Djp]

I have always preferred to keep Vanek and resign him. If no deal by the dealine---then he is dealt for something.

a player of Vanek's caliber is a rarety.

Miller----Im less concerned about keeping him and for what salary cost? We have two goalies behind him who can play in the NHL at a far cheaper cost.

Same with Miller---if he by chance isnt resigned at a reasonable price---then id deal him for something.

 

[koarl]

@Miller: Trade him if he can't be extended to a 1 or 2 year contract. I don't need him after 2 years.

@Vanek: Try to extend him to any deal he accepts.

 

[dma0034]

I'd trade Miller right meow.

 

[joshjull]

@Miller: Trade him if he can't be extended to a 1 or 2 year contract. I don't need him after 2 years.

@Vanek: Try to extend him to any deal he accepts.

I have a feeling if he extends it will be a 6 year deal to keep him here the length of Hodgson's deal.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

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.

I agree it's a calculated risk. I'm betting on the cap going up to 90-100 million 5 years from now.

I just think Vanek is worth it. I think the rebuild needs a Vanek type player. A first liner who can help show the younger players the way. I also believe Vanek can help us win a cup when the younger players are ready a few years from now.

 

[Dubi Doo]

I've always wanted to keep Vanek. We lack topline wingers, and that's exactly what he is. I think he gets down on himself too much, but he's come a long way since his early years in the NHL.

I could careless about Miller. If the value's there, then trade him.

 

[haseoke39]

So you just make a up a time line based on the two most recently drafted players as the anchors and use that as the justification to trade Vanek/Miller? That makes little sense.

Where is Myers? Or Pysyk? Or Ehrhoff? Why do we need to wait for those two recently drafted players to be anchors?


EDIT: I have no idea why you think extending them would derail anything. You seem to have this idea in your head that rebuilding = getting rid of every NHL vet with the hopes of crapping out. Rebuilding takes on many forms and as of right now we have rebuilt our roster. Its a far different roster right now than it was two years ago. Most of the key pieces we've needed are either already here, will be here at some point this season on a call up or will be arriving within the next 1-2yrs. But you refuse to accept we have the talent we have.

Extending them doesn't derail us. But if our window is well past their prime, it doesn't help us either, and we can deal them for things that help us more at that time. I think the equivalent of either player in their mid thirties can be had on the FA market.

Zads and Risto are just the biggest names on defense we're waiting on. On offense we'll be waiting for a few guys, too - Grigs, Girgs, Armia.

I know you understand my position. You just love coming and saying the same thing whenever I ring this little bell.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

The answer on Vanek is no. Let's sign him. I'm all in on seven or eight year deal. Miller depends on length. Four years tops.

 

[joshjull]

Extending them doesn't derail us. But if our window is well past their prime, it doesn't help us either, and we can deal them for things that help us more at that time. I think the equivalent of either player in their mid thirties can be had on the FA market.

Zads and Risto are just the biggest names on defense we're waiting on. On offense we'll be waiting for a few guys, too - Grigs, Girgs, Armia.

I know you understand my position. You just love coming and saying the same thing whenever I ring this little bell.

No, I keep posting hoping at some point you actually flesh out your team building position. Everything you advocate is about attaining a high pick. Its the goal in and of itself. I've seen little, if any, team building plan beyond that.

What are the holes in the current team/organization that need filling? What don't we have on the team or in the system? Lets hear what we need besides an abstract top pick.

I think much of your "theory" is based on a complete lack of understanding of what we have already combined with your obsession over where players are drafted.

 

[brian_griffin]

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

6 mo. ago, this was the post-2012-trade-deadline, pre-draft position I advocated, which you also endorsed. I believe that scenario was then and remains in the Sabres best interest.

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)

And we agreed on the math at that time too, and with the only benefit to Vanek of the shorter-term deal is he gets more money sooner which is a greater career-ending-injury "insurance policy" (though I don't know how much more insurance he believes he truly needs given his career earnings to date).

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.

Your scenario re: the defense is a possibility, but I think there are many more scenarios which require a deeper, more mature defense, either to increase the probability of BUF to be a Cup contender, or to trade for help at forward to make BUF a Cup contender.

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.

I just don't see it. Other than personal hope/want, do you have anything to base this on? Regardless of whether a 4-5mil cap hit for 3-4 years is a negotiable contract, it would likely also mean fewer games for Miller as the contract plays out in successive years, as BUF would still need to groom/develop the current heirs apparent (Hackett, Makarov, Ullmark). IMO, we should NOT ignore those implications when discussing a Miller extension:
1. Miller extension for 3-4 years likely means 10 fewer Miller starts each successive year - would Miller accept that in BUF?
2. Miller extension for 3-4 years likely means 1 of Enroth (more likely, IMO) or Hackett (less likely, IMO) is dealt. The possible return on the traded backup vs. the value of retaining that backup and not resigning MIller needs to be determined.
3. Possibility that retaining Miller and/or not adequately/fully developing a backup means that BUF may exit a rebuild and either attempt to, or become, a solid Cup contender while employing a 50/50 platoon where neither goalie is at their peak. I grant that's a lotta coulda-woulda there, but even so, I don't see how a 3-4yr Miller extension is the best way to do a rebuild (which was Clock's point on previous page).

The answer on Vanek is no. Let's sign him. I'm all in on seven or eight year deal. Miller depends on length. Four years tops.

Reduces ability to resign enough future RFAs to value deals when those RFA's come due. A 7-8yr Vanek extension at $6M+/year likely takes $3M+ away from the Sabres cap in years 3 or 4 through years 7-8. Could mean the difference between retaining or losing a couple (or more) RFAs, or inability to sign a UFA. If you believe Vanek's productivity will "forever" exceed that opportunity cost, then yes, sign him long-term. But I don't think that's the highest probability outcome.

 

[haseoke39]

No, I keep posting hoping at some point you actually flesh out your team building position. Everything you advocate is about attaining a high pick. Its the goal in and of itself. I've seen little, if any, plan beyond that.

What are the holes in the current team/organization that need filling? Lets hear what we need besides an abstract top pick.

You don't have to fill all these holes. Even cup winners have holes. They just have enough things working all at once to win it.

We lack a respectable top line center as yet. Hodgson may step into that void, but if he tops out around 60 points and average defensively, I see that as a position of weakness. That outcome would not surprise me. Grigorenko has enough skill to get there, but I don't see the grit and his play away from the puck is sloppy. I'm doubtful that he's going to turn that all around, I see him as being a Derek-Roy like guy. Girgensons has the heart of a lion but lacks the high end skill. I see three guys who could, together, fight for the 2-3 C slots and make that a real strength. Larsson certainly could fill that shutdown role as well. But I don't know which of them I would trust to carry a contender's top line. And here's the rub: the more you lack a top scoring line, the more each other line feels pressure to play outside themselves to create that scoring.

We lack scoring wingers. Armia may make it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Armia turned into Stafford, basically. Behind him we have Ennis, who I suspect will eventually go back to wing and be a 60 point man throughout his prime. Moreover, by the time Armia is a threat, Vanek will likely be less of one. I'd love to be able to swing one top pick for a top line winger, which I think is a pretty reliable position to predict at age 18 - moreso than any other, at least. I thin we probably need two more top 6 wingers in the organization, and one for the top line.

Our D was a horrid mess last year. The potential guys are all there, we're just waiting to see if any of them can do it. We have two guys, Ehrhoff and Myers, who will be with the team for a good long time, but I wouldn't call either of them top pairing Dmen on a contender based on last year's performance. I'm hoping Myers turns it around. Someone needs to assume that role, and the best candidates I see right now are Z and R. They're a few years off. Generally, I think our D foundation is solid, though, just too young to assume they're that close. If one of Myers, R or Z turns into a fringe Norris candidate, that wouldn't surprise me. It's just a matter of how many of them turn out, and whether we can pencil in Myers, R, Z and Ehrhoff as an effective top 4. I wouldn't be scared to add more D prospects.

I think our goaltending will be fine if we build a good enough team in front of these guys. Decent goaltenders can be bought, even if none of our three big young guys shakes out into an Osgood - dependable in the big moments, if never stellar. I think Enroth has a better chance of getting there than many on this board.

In sum, I think our forward prospects lack high end skill. With no other big prospects on board, I see us perhaps as a top 10 team in the league defensively in a few years, but a merely average one offensively. A good foundation for a 5-6th seed.

I think that we should target the prime years of the kids we're developing now and try to load up on as many other pieces as we can that might turn into elite offense in that same window. Miller and Vanek don't hurt the team, but they don't help it very much in 5 years, especially when I suspect you're going to be able to get their equivalents for nothing via FA in 5 years. I would move Miller and Vanek for the best picks you can get and target a 1 year, 2 year tank tops, try to get a guy like Nylander with the 3rd-4th pick to shore up your wingers. McDavid isn't someone you target as a make or break, but I think a top 5 pick towards a C and another towards a RW in the next two years would set you up pretty well, with our D pool being pretty deep, to be a contender.

Of course, none of my hypothetical guys are guaranteed, so don't even try that line with me again. None of current our guys are guaranteed either.

 

[pigpen65]

Never wanted to trade them in the first place. Sabres are nowhere near as far away as most people think. This isn't a 4 or 5 year rebuild. It's a one or two year rebuild. And it's not even for sure that they can't make the playoffs this year. There are teams like Toronto and Montreal that want to discount Buffalo because it makes them feel better knowing that they are borderline teams. But Buffalo vs Leafs roster, I think Buffalo is better now.

 

[Jame]

We lack a respectable top line center as yet. Hodgson may step into that void, but if he tops out around 60 points and average defensively, I see that as a position of weakness. That outcome would not surprise me. Grigorenko has enough skill to get there, but I don't see the grit and his play away from the puck is sloppy. I'm doubtful that he's going to turn that all around, I see him as being a Derek-Roy like guy. Girgensons has the heart of a lion but lacks the high end skill. I see three guys who could, together, fight for the 2-3 C slots and make that a real strength. Larsson certainly could fill that shutdown role as well. But I don't know which of them I would trust to carry a contender's top line. And here's the rub: the more you lack a top scoring line, the more each other line feels pressure to play outside themselves to create that scoring.

so if we had 2 60 pt offensive centers... and 2 shutdown centers... our center position wouldn't be able to win a cup?

 

[jc17]

Because of his age and the state of the team I don't think we can resign Vanek.

Right now he's our only validated first line player. We will miss his skill and point production when he's gone, hopefully Armia can fill that role.

 

[Jame]

6 mo. ago, this was the post-2012-trade-deadline, pre-draft position I advocated, which you also endorsed. I believe that scenario was then and remains in the Sabres best interest.

And we agreed on the math at that time too, and with the only benefit to Vanek of the shorter-term deal is he gets more money sooner which is a greater career-ending-injury "insurance policy" (though I don't know how much more insurance he believes he truly needs given his career earnings to date).

be careful, agreeing with me too often might get you labeled "supercilious"

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Your scenario re: the defense is a possibility, but I think there are many more scenarios which require a deeper, more mature defense, either to increase the probability of BUF to be a Cup contender, or to trade for help at forward to make BUF a Cup contender.


I just don't see it. Other than personal hope/want, do you have anything to base this on? Regardless of whether a 4-5mil cap hit for 3-4 years is a negotiable contract, it would likely also mean fewer games for Miller as the contract plays out in successive years, as BUF would still need to groom/develop the current heirs apparent (Hackett, Makarov, Ullmark). IMO, we should NOT ignore those implications when discussing a Miller extension:
1. Miller extension for 3-4 years likely means 10 fewer Miller starts each successive year - would Miller accept that in BUF?
2. Miller extension for 3-4 years likely means 1 of Enroth (more likely, IMO) or Hackett (less likely, IMO) is dealt. The possible return on the traded backup vs. the value of retaining that backup and not resigning MIller needs to be determined.
3. Possibility that retaining Miller and/or not adequately/fully developing a backup means that BUF may exit a rebuild and either attempt to, or become, a solid Cup contender while employing a 50/50 platoon where neither goalie is at their peak. I grant that's a lotta coulda-woulda there, but even so, I don't see how a 3-4yr Miller extension is the best way to do a rebuild (which was Clock's point on previous page).

The d-corps looks to be decent now, and only getting better with current prospects. The FW group has some questions, like another top-two C, another pure scorer, and enough two-way players, but overall their game is going to be better under Rolston. If the team is a playoff contender this season (even if they miss), with as much promise as (likely) non-roster players like Girgs, Armia, and Zadorov have already shown, I would think many players - not just Miller - would consider taking less to stay with a team that looks like it will compete when it's their last contract and only a few years left to win a Cup.