Do you still want to trade Vanek/Miller?

[brian_griffin]

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

Shhhhh.... 2010-11 Bruins never happened...

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I've never wanted to lose either. It's always been a matter of it not being under out control. I'd rather sign them > trade Vanek for a Darcy deal > sign just Vanek > sign just Miller > trade Vanek for whatever I can get > lose both > trade Miller (he's not worth anything atm I'd rather have in net then trade him for a late round pick)

 

[brian_griffin]

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.

I appreciate the sentiment/argument, but that view doesn't maximize the probability to obtain either of the commodities the player seeks: 1) Cup, 2) $. (or reverse them - order is not important, not meant to be prioritized)

Moreover, a Buffalo-centric re-signing view assumes that compromise in both Cup-contention and salary is optimized in BUF and no other on-the-come NHL team.

If the player (Miller here, but insert any other NHL'er) wants a Cup, he'll sign lower on a team with greater probability than BUF to win asap. [Historically: Think Borque with COL, Hasek with DET, (now a hopeful Iginla with BOS), etc.]

In short, I guess I think that Cup vs. $ compromise decision dilemna to sign in BUF is still a couple off-seasons away for any NHL'er (current Sabre or not). Although I think we'd agree I'd gladly be proven wrong.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

No, Buffalo wouldn't necessarily be a favorite to be a Cup contender even if the team looks very promising, but Miller's choices would be narrowed down considerably if he weighed Cup potential for teams that would be looking to sign a starting G. Usually those on the verge of Cup contention don't need a 60+ game starter.

 

[Prospector74]

Resign if they are willing. Trade if they are not and take the first good value offer you get. My biggest fear is Vanek gets injured near the deadline, we can't move him, and he walks for nothing in the off season. I am still scarred from the Drury and Briere walks. A potential repeat (for different reasons) makes me gunshy of holding until the deadline. Deal as soon as you get value back. Best case in my mind is Vanek comes out hot with 10 goals in 10 games and we trade him in November for a good return. Bonus score for someone falling apart in goal and taking Miller off our hands for a decent return.

 

[start winnin]

Is Enroth ready to be a #1 goalie? We need stability in the net especially if we're going to be running with an incredibly youthful team in a couple years, especially if we trade Vanek.

I would like to re-sign both, and this is coming from someone who firmly wanted them both traded in the summer.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Yeah...if a team knocks Regier's socks off with a trade proposal before Vanek or Miller get close to signing an extension, then it has to happen regardless of how far into the season it is.

 

[Crazy Tasty]

Is Enroth ready to be a #1 goalie? We need stability in the net especially if we're going to be running with an incredibly youthful team in a couple years, especially if we trade Vanek.

I would like to re-sign both, and this is coming from someone who firmly wanted them both traded in the summer.

That's because the season is about to start and optimism is at an all time high.
Once we go 0-10, check back on how many bums need to be cut / waived / traded for a bag of pucks.

 

[start winnin]

That's because the season is about to start and optimism is at an all time high.
Once we go 0-10, check back on how many bums need to be cut / waived / traded for a bag of pucks.

I know, I'll probably be one of those people.

I'd like to think I'm thinking more clearly now than I will be if we're in the midst of a 10 game losing spree.

 

[jc17]

Do you guys think Vanek will still produce in 3-5 years when our prospects really get going?

 

[Myllz]

Do you guys think Vanek will still produce in 3-5 years when our prospects really get going?

Yes. He may not be the (roughly) PPG player he has been, but he'll still produce.

 

[Jame]

Yes. He may not be the (roughly) PPG player he has been, but he'll still produce.

That's generous

 

[Myllz]

That's generous

Maybe a tad. .9 over the last three years is still in the ballpark.

 

[thekenneth]

assuming vanek and cody play together, depending on their chemistry.

Vanek + good player maker =

at least get someone for him though if they cant reach a deal, he'd be a good borrow player to trade they could get a lot for him.

as for miller, if another good goalie comes along why not. he's just going to get injured again.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

Do you guys think Vanek will still produce in 3-5 years when our prospects really get going?

Yes but probably a second liner by his 5th year

 

[Moskau]

What's the point of signing players to low cap hit contracts if you aren't going to use the cap space to sign players or lock up the good players you have with the cap space? Getting Hodgson at a lower cap hit, Ehrhoff on contract that was borderline cheating, Myers on a contract that could end up working out and being amazing... it's all wasted if you don't do anything with it.

Buffalo isn't the only team locking up RFAs for 5+ years. That means the UFA market gets worse and worse every year. I can almost guarantee that a player like Vanek will not hit the free agency market in the next 3-5 years.

I feel like some posters would rather have a middle of the pack mediocre team with a great cap structure over a team that wins and has to do some creative asset management during the off season. "Hey we may not be a good team but at least our GM signs some bargain contracts!" If that is your mentality then why not follow the New York Islanders?

Signing Vanek for $7.5+ Million right now is going to do absolutely nothing to the teams cap for at least the next 3 maybe even 5 years. As it stands right now at the end of this season we will have by far the lowest salary in the league with only a few spots to fill. And that's before Stafford's contract comes off the book in 2015 or sooner.

Basically it comes down to this. The team has terrible wingers even with Vanek. The team has terrible organizational depth on wing. Even if Buffalo drafts top 2 next year one draft will not fix our winger situation, especially if Vanek walks. We have no where else to spend the cap hit for the next few years especially with how bad the UFA market has become. Anybody who wants to trade Vanek hasn't really thought it over and just wants to add a late 1st round pick. Unless Regier somehow lands a blue chip prospect for him which he wont then trading Vanek will actually hurt the rebuild more than it will help it.

 

[BUCKSHOT]

trade them both

 

[Djp]

Do you guys think Vanek will still produce in 3-5 years when our prospects really get going?

He is the type of player who could last longer....injury dependent......he specialized in passing which you don't lose with age and standing in front of the net on the PP which is also something you don't lose with age.

Speed is something you do lose with age.

 

[Djp]

What's the point of signing players to low cap hit contracts if you aren't going to use the cap space to sign players or lock up the good players you have with the cap space? Getting Hodgson at a lower cap hit, Ehrhoff on contract that was borderline cheating, Myers on a contract that could end up working out and being amazing... it's all wasted if you don't do anything with it.

I agree.....but buffalo also has to plan ahead with contracts......2014 Ennis and Foligno, 2015 Larsson and Grigs are up, in 2016 Girgs, Armia, and Risto could be up. If all these player turn out then alot f that available space now could be gone

Buffalo isn't the only team locking up RFAs for 5+ years. That means the UFA market gets worse and worse every year. I can almost guarantee that a player like Vanek will not hit the free agency market in the next 3-5 years.

Buffalo, unlike other teams, in 2015 will have oodles of depth that they could use to actually target players and trade for them. If grigs shows signs of potential, but is inconsistent I have no problem seeking a trade of 3 or 4 for 1 players to get a true #1 center

I feel like some posters would rather have a middle of the pack mediocre team with a great cap structure over a team that wins and has to do some creative asset management during the off season. "Hey we may not be a good team but at least our GM signs some bargain contracts!" If that is your mentality then why not follow the New York Islanders?

Signing Vanek for $7.5+ Million right now is going to do absolutely nothing to the teams cap for at least the next 3 maybe even 5 years. As it stands right now at the end of this season we will have by far the lowest salary in the league with only a few spots to fill. And that's before Stafford's contract comes off the book in 2015 or sooner.

I don't have issue paying him $9M the next 3 years.....I'm just concerned about having that chunk in year 7 or 8. I'd rather sign Vanek for a high and short contract like 4yrs than an 8 yr contract.

Basically it comes down to this. The team has terrible wingers even with Vanek. The team has terrible organizational depth on wing. Even if Buffalo drafts top 2 next year one draft will not fix our winger situation, especially if Vanek walks. We have no where else to spend the cap hit for the next few years especially with how bad the UFA market has become. Anybody who wants to trade Vanek hasn't really thought it over and just wants to add a late 1st round pick. Unless Regier somehow lands a blue chip prospect for him which he wont then trading Vanek will actually hurt the rebuild more than it will help it.

My first priority is to resign him. But if that isn't happening, then I'm tradng hm and get a 1st Lu's whatever else I can.

As I said above, I'm not as worried about that potential lack of a UFA winger. If buffalo has Vanek traded you realize Kane is going to be very well aware of this. Buffalo would have a serious inside track on signing him or even trading for him. Ryan could be out there n 2015.

If its not Kane or Ryan, there will be other wingers out there to trade for...buffalo has the assets to pull it off.

 

[Ruckus007]

Age alone is enough to prevent me from wanting to see Miller extended. Though I completely agree that there is not a need for a star level, star-paid goalie in the current NHL, I'm concerned that we're projecting a "great defense, decent goalie" model in which most of that great defense aren't NHLers yet. I'm also concerned that the goalies currently in the organization are capable of being even the "decent goalie" in that model. However, I am much more concerned about Miller's age and wear. Hopefully they can get something for him but either way, I don't think the investment is worth it.

The Vanek situation is such a challenge. Even if they max him out, it seems like the cap increases in subsequent years will mean he's not going to be a major cap impediment. I'm concerned about how effective he might be in the mid to later years of a long-term deal but I also think he raised all aspects of his game last year and, on a very young team, there's a lot of value in having your best talent be one of your best leaders as well. If we really are buying into the current crop of talent, then they don't necessarily need to trade Vanek for young assets as they are already well stocked, but if he's not willing to extend then he needs to be traded. I lean towards moving him at the deadline, but I'll probably be okay with whatever move they decide to make.

 

[TehDoak]

I would have zero issues signing both to reasonable long term deals. I'd probably be cautious going out more than 4 years with Miller. If we could do:

Miller: 4 years, 22 million
Vanek: 7 years, 42 million

I'd be pretty happy.

 

[Moskau]

I agree.....but buffalo also has to plan ahead with contracts......2014 Ennis and Foligno, 2015 Larsson and Grigs are up, in 2016 Girgs, Armia, and Risto could be up. If all these player turn out then alot f that available space now could be gone

Sure but if Chicago had that mentality then they probably don't win their 1st cup. Depending on how you feel about Hossa and Bolland they may not win either cup. If all of those players on ELC you listed pan out and need huge raises then it's a great problem to have.

 

[Dahlin 2 Eichel]

Not really a legit reason to keep someone, but if we get rid of Vanek how depressing is our pp going to be? You hear about how PP makes or breaks a team. With our "amazing" 23 pp goals last year and Vanek almost having 50% of that stat, do you think that plays a weighing factor to a reason to resign him?

 

[ZZamboni]

Not really a legit reason to keep someone, but if we get rid of Vanek how depressing is our pp going to be? You hear about how PP makes or breaks a team. With our "amazing" 23 pp goals last year and Vanek almost having 50% of that stat, do you think that plays a weighing factor to a reason to resign him?

well, compared to other teams, how does our PP rate in the past few years? And that's with Vanek on it.

 

[Dahlin 2 Eichel]

well, compared to other teams, how does our PP rate in the past few years? And that's with Vanek on it.

2012-2013 Buffalo Sabres 14.1% - Ranked #16 in conference
2011-2012 Buffalo Sabres 17.1% - Ranked #9 in conference
2010-2011 Buffalo Sabres 19.4% - Ranked #4 in conference
2009-2010 Buffalo Sabres 17.6% - Ranked #9 in conference