(Poll pending) Vanek: wanted or not?

[Born in 1909]

Yes for something like 6x6

Perfect.

But V will get more elsewhere.

Also, MT is not 100% terrible... but he still can't be trusted to do the right thing with his assets.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

where do we draw the line? he stank on ice and then all the appologists were saying " just you wait, you are all going to look silly when its revealed he was playing through X". Well he wasnt injured and sleptwalked through the ECF.

I get that guys have dry spells, it can happen to players far better than Vanek. But he played like he didnt give a crap.

is he talented ? Sure . But if the opening bid is the same as before his abysmal performance, then thank him for the 8 weeks or so and wish him luck in his future endeavors. We are not going to leverage the 8 weeks into a hometown discount and its clear he is looking to get paid. It wont be clarkson bad but someone is going to dramatially overpay for him ( in term and money) and I hope to hell he ends up being someone else's enigmatic houdini.

There's obviously a limit to what we should pay. But 7 mil per year I'd be fine with.

As for him playing like he didn't give a crap... his style is to elude checkers and get open. He said that when he got here... if you're looking for a north south guy - that's not him. He plays more of a Brett Hull style. Looks like he's doing nothing but he gets open and does great things with the puck. Doesn't have Hull's shot of course but he's a hell of a passer.

I think he's a good addition. Cup teams usually have multiple scoring threats and depth up front. If one guy doesn't score you've got another who can cover him. Didn't happen this year but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen next year. Seriously, Max and Vanek on different lines on the left side? That's pretty freaking awesome man. We keep him and manage to trade for a strong RWer? We'd be in great shape.

I'm not suggesting for a second that he's all we need but he's a big piece. We'd still need another North South guy... preferably on the right side. Vanek plus a top right winger... man, we'd be a force to be reckoned with.

Perfect.

But V will get more elsewhere.

Also, MT is not 100% terrible... but he still can't be trusted to do the right thing with his assets.

That's a whole other story. MT should be fired. Won't happen of course... but he's hurting us.

And my guess is that Vanek won't re-sign with us and MT is a major reason why.

 

[TT1]

want, where the hell are we gonna find a 1st line RW replacement?

Pacioretty - DD - Vanek (basically the only UFA signing we do)
Galchenyuk - Eller - Gallagher
Bournival - Plekanec - Andrighetto
Prust - De La Rose - Weise

Trade the other vets/let them walk, integrate our young players like Ghetto and DLR by giving them sheltered minutes until they learn how things work in the NHL. Give more responsibilities to Chucky and Eller and have them play top 6 minutes, re-evaluate the team the following season.

as for our D-Core, i wouldn't mind seeing:

Markov - Subban
Beaulieu - Gorges
Emelin - Tinordi
Pateryn

 

[TT1]

oops i meant to say Weaver, not Pateryn

 

[sandysan]

There's obviously a limit to what we should pay. But 7 mil per year I'd be fine with.

As for him playing like he didn't give a crap... his style is to elude checkers and get open. He said that when he got here... if you're looking for a north south guy - that's not him. He plays more of a Brett Hull style. Looks like he's doing nothing but he gets open and does great things with the puck. Doesn't have Hull's shot of course but he's a hell of a passer.

I think he's a good addition. Cup teams usually have multiple scoring threats and depth up front. If one guy doesn't score you've got another who can cover him. Didn't happen this year but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen next year. Seriously, Max and Vanek on different lines on the left side? That's pretty freaking awesome man. We keep him and manage to trade for a strong RWer? We'd be in great shape.

I'm not suggesting for a second that he's all we need but he's a big piece. We'd still need another North South guy... preferably on the right side. Vanek plus a top right winger... man, we'd be a force to be reckoned with.

That's a whole other story. MT should be fired. Won't happen of course... but he's hurting us.

And my guess is that Vanek won't re-sign with us and MT is a major reason why.

I don't buy this rationalization at all. He looked like a corpse out there, the first line excuse (he's obviously injured) ended up not being true, now the excuse is that when he's looking disinterested and playing like crap that he's actually working hard in stealth mode that I just don't appreciate. Seriously where do we draw the line with accountability? He was awful.

7 mil for how long? I know that is often bandied about as a punchline but the gm says he wants guys with character, when ( not restricted to just the habs) has he shown that he fits this mold?

a one dimensional scorer who disappears when he is most needed is not what the habs need, and certainly not for the 6 or 7 years he's likely to be seeking. Let him be someone else's ageing kovalev. And if we do decide to sign him ( before the first or after) we better not even consider giving him a ntc, but we gave one to declining briere.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I don't buy this rationalization at all. He looked like a corpse out there, the first line excuse (he's obviously injured) ended up not being true, now the excuse is that when he's looking disinterested and playing like crap that he's actually working hard in stealth mode that I just don't appreciate. Seriously where do we draw the line with accountability? He was awful.

He was bad... I don't think I've rationalized or excused that. The question is whether or not he'd be better next time. If we're judging it based only on this playoff run, then sure he wasn't good. But that's not the only thing we should consider.

7 mil for how long? I know that is often bandied about as a punchline but the gm says he wants guys with character, when ( not restricted to just the habs) has he shown that he fits this mold?

No he hasn't. Again, he's not a heart and soul type player who your offense will be built around. He's a highly skilled winger who will go missing for much of the game and then when you look at the scoresheet he'll have a goal and an assist on it.

Personally, 7 x 5 would be ideal. If we have to do 7 x 7... do it.

a one dimensional scorer who disappears when he is most needed is not what the habs need, and certainly not for the 6 or 7 years he's likely to be seeking. Let him be someone else's ageing kovalev. And if we do decide to sign him ( before the first or after) we better not even consider giving him a ntc, but we gave one to declining briere.

Gaborik hadn't done much in the playoffs lately either and he's a one dimensional scorer. Now he's leading the Kings in goals.

And up until this season, Vanek's actually been pretty good in the playoffs for the most part man. So you're basically labelling him a playoff choker based on this run and he STILL managed ten points in 17 games.

 

[S Bah]

I'd like to have Vanek back. But it always depends on the price tag and length of course, and what we intend to do with our free cap space if we don't sign him. There are a lot of variables at play here.

But then again I was not in the locker room and I have no idea how he was as a teammate. That said, Pacioretty and Briere both said they would like to have him back so two guys who were in the room with him who think he was a great asset.

Our record before and after he joined speak for itself.

I just think Vanek shouldn't have played with Briere/Plekanec. He was a poor fit with them and looked better with DD/Eller.

I'm all for having Malkin, Toews, Tavares at 7M over Vanek but only one of those 4 players is available and it's Vanek. We need some star power up front. We simply do not have enough talent up front if Vanek leaves.

The Vanek signing is a must IMO, when McCarron makes the NHL as a Centerman, the Habs will have size and depth with Eller, McCarron, DD, Plekanec and Briere all being able to play throughout the lineup. Wingers are a priority, ones that can provide the goalscoring for these centers. Pacioretty, Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Bourque, Gionta, Bournival and Vanek make seven the amount of goalscoring players the Habs have.

I think Vanek's "excuse" of not finding chemistry after moving off the DD line is a legit reason for him having trouble in the playoffs.

I have no issues with us re-signing him to 7x7 contract as long as there isn't a full NMC.

We have cap space and there are few UFAs this year that I see as good as Vanek. I guarantee that he would be better in the playoffs if it wasn't a year in which he played with no less than 5 different sets of players on 3 different teams.

Vanek can be that top scorer/gamebreaking talent, all he needs is the time to build chemistry, that takes time. In the playoffs he did well considering the circumstances, a summer training in their system, pre-season Camp and games will certainly give the coaches time to evaluate where he fits best.

Yes, we should take him back. Our biggest need is a big scoring winger. He and Max would be arguably the best 1,2 LW combo in the league. We'd have two lines with a legit top scoring threat on it.

Vanek had a crappy 2nd half to the playoffs but he was still one of our highest scoring forwards. He'd be a big piece for us going forward. I don't think he likes MT though and I don't think he'll re-sign. And that will suck for us because for all the reactionary "he sucks" posts coming out now, he's still a good hockey player and we could use him.

My feeling is Bergevin & Dudley know precisely how important Thomas Vanek can be to our Stanley Cup aspirations. I for one have no doubt that all three of Subban, Eller & Vanek will sign after getting this close in the playoffs to winning it all!

 

[sandysan]

He was bad... I don't think I've rationalized or excused that. The question is whether or not he'd be better next time. If we're judging it based only on this playoff run, then sure he wasn't good. But that's not the only thing we should consider.

No he hasn't. Again, he's not a heart and soul type player who your offense will be built around. He's a highly skilled winger who will go missing for much of the game and then when you look at the scoresheet he'll have a goal and an assist on it.

Personally, 7 x 5 would be ideal. If we have to do 7 x 7... do it.

Gaborik hadn't done much in the playoffs lately either and he's a one dimensional scorer. Now he's leading the Kings in goals.

And up until this season, Vanek's actually been pretty good in the playoffs for the most part man. So you're basically labelling him a playoff choker based on this run and he STILL managed ten points in 17 games.

he turned down 7X7 from the isles and you want to pay him that AFTER he did a houdini. There's a resaon guys at the end of the contracts play like hell, he played like crap. once he signs, which is likely to be his last hurrah, what's to get him to show up on long road trips in november ? And it sends precisely the wrong message to his teamates, that you can be acquired for a very specific and well defined role, fail at this miserably while putting in minimal effort and still make bank.

And gaborik is on a STACKED team, Vanek is not. And there is no way in hell that a guy who " will go missing for much of the game" is worth that much.

and there is no way he takes 7X5 and there is no way anyone who saw him play matches the previous NYI offer.

His ten points are akin to the goalie with a fair save percentage who lets in back breaking softies and wont stop the puck when the team needs it. No heart, no leadership and a complete ghost in the ECF. pass 10 times out or 10 at the dough he is looking for.

I liked kovalev when he was here, but I dont like him enough to see him reincarnated in Vanek.

 

[Sorinth]

he turned down 7X7 from the isles and you want to pay him that AFTER he did a houdini.

He wants to go to a team that can go all the way. That's why he said no to Buffalo and the Islanders.

There's a resaon guys at the end of the contracts play like hell, he played like crap. once he signs, which is likely to be his last hurrah, what's to get him to show up on long road trips in november ? And it sends precisely the wrong message to his teamates, that you can be acquired for a very specific and well defined role, fail at this miserably while putting in minimal effort and still make bank.

There will be times that he dissapears no doubt. That will happen whether he has a long term deal or not. If we don't replace him what message does it send to the team?

And gaborik is on a STACKED team, Vanek is not. And there is no way in hell that a guy who " will go missing for much of the game" is worth that much.

So stacked that they only had 2 players hit 50pts during the regular season.

and there is no way he takes 7X5 and there is no way anyone who saw him play matches the previous NYI offer.

Every GM in the NHL saw Vanek play, some will be willing to overlook it others won't. It's about risk vs reward. The reward far outweighs the risk for us.

His ten points are akin to the goalie with a fair save percentage who lets in back breaking softies and wont stop the puck when the team needs it. No heart, no leadership and a complete ghost in the ECF. pass 10 times out or 10 at the dough he is looking for.

I liked kovalev when he was here, but I dont like him enough to see him reincarnated in Vanek.

Whether you worked hard for 10pts or not doesn't change much. At the end you still had 10pts.

 

[Runner77]

When's the poll going to be up, July 1st?

 

[habsfanatics*]

I wouldn't sign him for more than 3 or 4 years tops, I'd prefer for this experiment to end now.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

he turned down 7X7 from the isles

Well... yeah, it's the Isles man.

and you want to pay him that AFTER he did a houdini.

I think the important thing to think about is how we think he'll play in the future. Based on past performance he's been great in the regular season and mostly good in the playoffs. So yeah, he's worth the risk.

There's a resaon guys at the end of the contracts play like hell, he played like crap. once he signs, which is likely to be his last hurrah, what's to get him to show up on long road trips in november ? And it sends precisely the wrong message to his teamates, that you can be acquired for a very specific and well defined role, fail at this miserably while putting in minimal effort and still make bank.

I'm not saying he's without risk. There's definitely risk there. I just think he's worth the risk.

And gaborik is on a STACKED team, Vanek is not. And there is no way in hell that a guy who " will go missing for much of the game" is worth that much.

Gaborik is on a team that paid out guys who were coming off bad years and were salary dumps. Carter, Richards, Gaborik... They invested in talent and gambled that it would pay off.

In a way the Kings are similar to us. Drafted a good core and then they took the next step by getting good vets. To me that's what we should do. Is it a gamble? Absolutely. But the biggest gamble is not taking one. At some point you have to go for it. Vanek is the best available player out there.... we should go for it.

and there is no way he takes 7X5 and there is no way anyone who saw him play matches the previous NYI offer.

I agree. It will take 7 x 7 to get him year and we might have to throw in another year too... Not ideal, but look at Hossa in Chicago.

His ten points are akin to the goalie with a fair save percentage who lets in back breaking softies and wont stop the puck when the team needs it. No heart, no leadership and a complete ghost in the ECF. pass 10 times out or 10 at the dough he is looking for.

Well, I thought Jeff Carter was finished... I was wrong.

I liked kovalev when he was here, but I dont like him enough to see him reincarnated in Vanek.

I'd love to get Corey Perry... that's what we really need. But he's not available. Vanek is. And he's the best winger out there. He costs us nothing but cap space... I don't see how you let talent like that just walk out the door if you can keep it.

 

[19VJ17]

There's obviously a limit to what we should pay. But 7 mil per year I'd be fine with.

As for him playing like he didn't give a crap... his style is to elude checkers and get open. He said that when he got here... if you're looking for a north south guy - that's not him. He plays more of a Brett Hull style. Looks like he's doing nothing but he gets open and does great things with the puck. Doesn't have Hull's shot of course but he's a hell of a passer.

I think he's a good addition. Cup teams usually have multiple scoring threats and depth up front. If one guy doesn't score you've got another who can cover him. Didn't happen this year but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen next year. Seriously, Max and Vanek on different lines on the left side? That's pretty freaking awesome man. We keep him and manage to trade for a strong RWer? We'd be in great shape.

I'm not suggesting for a second that he's all we need but he's a big piece. We'd still need another North South guy... preferably on the right side. Vanek plus a top right winger... man, we'd be a force to be reckoned with.

That's a whole other story. MT should be fired. Won't happen of course... but he's hurting us.

And my guess is that Vanek won't re-sign with us and MT is a major reason why.

Good post on Vanek .....(which brings me to this)
I don't understand you...you can be bang on about Vanek but see nothing, nada, zilch in MT....
Tell me the truth....are you Pierre McGuire

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

watching that whole interview with him it sounded to me like he wanted to stay. Almost seemed like he was gonna cry to
over his performance and the end result.

I don't think he was too happy about being shuttled around but it didn't seem to really anger him so much.

He liked the chemistry that he worked up with Patches and DD. You can tell by how much he talked to them on the bench and that.

If he really didn't like MT that much it would've shown more. When he said that he was interested to stay, I believed him.

I do think he will be Kovalev like in that he will disappear from time to time but he'll be better surrounded than Kovalev and that
will be a huge difference.

I'll actually be surprised if we don't sign him.

Like Lafleur's Guy said, he can be better. Galchenyuk will probably be centering him sooner than later. As hard as DD works, Galchenyuk will be so much better in his prime.

 

[JAVO16]

Alright, we've established that Vanek is an easy minute producer and has been his whole career. But, he's an excellent easy minute producer and somebody has to take these minutes. The consensus here is that they should go to talented players who can produce at least ~70 points per season. Not a lot of guys who can do that. Vanek is one of them and he's available. We should therefore try to keep him IMO.

I'd be perfectly comfortable to give 6X7M. I'd be uneasy to give him any more, but I'd probably try to find an agreement if it means 1 more year.

 

[teh doors]

No way, sad excuse for top end talent, no heart, get out

 

[Runner77]

Can someone start a new thread that includes a poll?

 

[Lshap]

Gaborik is on a team that paid out guys who were coming off bad years and were salary dumps. Carter, Richards, Gaborik... They invested in talent and gambled that it would pay off.

In a way the Kings are similar to us. Drafted a good core and then they took the next step by getting good vets. To me that's what we should do. Is it a gamble? Absolutely. But the biggest gamble is not taking one. At some point you have to go for it. Vanek is the best available player out there.... we should go for it.

This, to me, is the core of the argument for signing Vanek. We're investing in a player with one of the highest offensive upsides in the league. The risk is he won't repeat his elite production, which I prefer over the risk a player will never have elite production in the first place. It's always smarter to aim for the best-player-available. Vanek is that guy.

As to the playoff thing, yeah, of course Vanek was disappointing. But people said the same about Price not showing up in the playoffs, until he did.

 

[29dryden29]

NO to Casper Vanish

 

[hototogisu]

As to the playoff thing, yeah, of course Vanek was disappointing. But people said the same about Price not showing up in the playoffs, until he did.

Bit of a different situation, comparing the playoff performance of a goalie just entering his prime to that of a player in the middle or just starting to leave his.

If I was Bergevin, I would make him an offer. A reasonably competitive one, but I wouldn't break the bank and I wouldn't cry myself to sleep if he rebuffs it.

 

[Ginu]

He's not used to playing those big games. You don't get scorers like him. Try to re-sign him and hope next year the experience helps him.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

Mark me down as uncertain. Is there an explanation for his mediocre performance in the playoffs? (Mediocre is giving him the benefit of doubt because it means "middling.")

 

[Lshap]

Bit of a different situation, comparing the playoff performance of a goalie just entering his prime to that of a player in the middle or just starting to leave his.

If I was Bergevin, I would make him an offer. A reasonably competitive one, but I wouldn't break the bank and I wouldn't cry myself to sleep if he rebuffs it.

Yeah, Vanek's older than Price, but he has less playoff experience. I know there's no guarantee this year's experience will transform him into a playoff warrior next season, but his upside is too high to ignore, and worth the risk. The one sure thing is that no one else on the Habs is capable of doing what Vanek can do, if he's on his game.

 

[Yep]

5 years @ 7,7 million.

 

[Uber Coca]

I'd sign him.