Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
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.
Yes for something like 6x6
There's obviously a limit to what we should pay. But 7 mil per year I'd be fine with.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.
That's a whole other story. MT should be fired. Won't happen of course... but he's hurting us.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well... yeah, it's the Isles man.he turned down 7X7 from the isles
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.and you want to pay him that AFTER he did a houdini.
I'm not saying he's without risk. There's definitely risk there. I just think 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.
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.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.
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.and there is no way he takes 7X5 and there is no way anyone who saw him play matches the previous NYI offer.
Well, I thought Jeff Carter was finished... I was wrong.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'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.I liked kovalev when he was here, but I dont like him enough to see him reincarnated in Vanek.
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.
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.
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.