Speculation: The Roster Building Thread: Titles May Not Reflect Actual Discussion

[TheBarnIsElectric]

Vanek is gone in 13 months. He's not re-signing here. He's never tested Free Agency in his career.

Vanek is GONE.... people need to get on with looking at things through that reality.

In 13 months, they will get 0.00 cents on the Dollar when Vanek walks, like Miro, Zhitnik, Briere, Drury, etc

Anyone want to point to a high end player re-signing in Buffalo when they had the chance to leave? Sure, there are financial / ownership excuses for those guys leaving, but the Sabres are rebuilding, and that'll be the excuse this time.

Trading Vanek to upgrade our draft slot is a smart move... Unless, you prefer just continuing to fill the cupboard with good prospects, instead of putting ourselves into a position to land a superstar

You don't know that and acting like you do doesn't make it smart asset management. I've already said if Vanek won't re-sign then that changes things.

I for one am sick of the woah is me, no one will sign in Buffalo, attitude. I hate acting on the assumption that good things can't happen because we're inferior.

 

[Jame]

Except this new ownership has money and the previous did not. They can give Vanek as much as he wants (We have cap space) If they truly think he will be valuable in a playoff run in 2-3 years. Which he would be.

and if Vanek is truly worth that money, he'll be able to get it from another team.

The guy flat out said he doesn't want to be around for a long rebuild. Unless Hodgson, Ennis, and Myers take monumental leaps in their development... then the Sabres are in for a multi year/long rebuild

It's like the fan base is putting on the thickest homer glasses, and drinking the strongest kool aid ever poured to think Vanek can be re-signed

 

[Jame]

You don't know that and acting like you do doesn't make it smart asset management. I've already said if Vanek won't re-sign then that changes things.

I for one am sick of the woah is me, no one will sign in Buffalo, attitude. I hate acting on the assumption that good things can't happen because we're inferior.

Yes, I do know that... Vanek said it. This stuff isn't complicated.

"Let's be honest," Vanek said. "I'm not stupid. I know I have a year left and they can probably deal me for prospects, young guys, whatever else is out there. Yeah, I've thought about it. If it looks like it's a long rebuild, then it probably makes sense for both parties to move on."

It's gonna be a long rebuild, Vanek is not re-signing

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Gordon, Bickell... rinse, repeat.

Seriously, I don't think people realize the profound effects two "Summer 09 Grier" models would have on this forward group.

I know I'm beating a dead horse about this, but one person in the bottom six, THE WHOLE SEASON, had better possession numbers than Hodgson/Vanek/Ennis/Stafford. That was Brian Flynn. That was inexcusable for a coach like Ruff, and worse for the GM who worked with him for a jillion years and couldn't outfit the roster with adequate depth despite limitless monetary resources.

 

[Jame]

Except this new ownership has money and the previous did not. They can give Vanek as much as he wants (We have cap space) If they truly think he will be valuable in a playoff run in 2-3 years. Which he would be.

Tthe previous ownership didn't want to spend... but at least they had a contender....

The new ownership wants to spend... but they don't have the contender as a selling point.

at the end of the day, the players walk

 

[Deevo]

You don't know that and acting like you do doesn't make it smart asset management. I've already said if Vanek won't re-sign then that changes things.

I for one am sick of the woah is me, no one will sign in Buffalo, attitude. I hate acting on the assumption that good things can't happen because we're inferior.

Hasn't Vanek stated that he will move on if we're in full-on rebuild mode?

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

Yes, I do know that... Vanek said it. This stuff isn't complicated.



It's gonna be a long rebuild, Vanek is not re-signing

You don't know that he will leave.

You trade Vanek, then the rebuild gets much longer. You keep him and. Miller this could be a playoff team this year or next with a lot of young talent a la The Senators who kept Spezza/alfie and turned around quickly.

We already are stocked with good prospectsand we have a ton more high picks over the next couple of years. Why add years onto the rebuild if we don't have to?

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

Hasn't Vanek stated that he will move on if we're in full-on rebuild mode?

If we don't sell everybody for cheap then we're not in full rebuild mode. I don't think he was demanding a trade right there, I think he was saying don't sell anyone else for cheap and i'll take a look at the team and see how long this is going to take.

Next years team under contract isn't that different than last years. Minus a couple of aging vets and one good player in pominville. Who's to say we aren't about to turn the corner with the current players and upcoming prospects?

 

[Jame]

You don't know that he will leave.

You trade Vanek, then the rebuild gets much longer. You keep him and. Miller this could be a playoff team this year or next with a lot of young talent a la The Senators who kept Spezza/alfie and turned around quickly.

We already are stocked with good prospectsand we have a ton more high picks over the next couple of years. Why add years onto the rebuild if we don't have to?

I do know that he will leave. I know it, because it makes sense. I know it because he basically said so. I know it because the GM already started moving players for futures to go FULL rebuild

I know it, because I look at things rationally, and not with Kool Aid soaked hope.

trading Vanek to move into the top of this draft, doesn't prolong the rebuild... it makes it quicker, by getting a franchise player (Barkov)

 

[Jame]

If we don't sell everybody for cheap then we're not in full rebuild mode. I don't think he was demanding a trade right there, I think he was saying don't sell anyone else for cheap and i'll take a look at the team and see how long this is going to take.

No... that's not what he was saying.

Next years team under contract isn't that different than last years. Minus a couple of aging vets and one good player in pominville. Who's to say we aren't about to turn the corner with the current players and upcoming prospects?

not me

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

I do know that he will leave. I know it, because it makes sense. I know it because he basically said so. I know it because the GM already started moving players for futures to go FULL rebuild

I know it, because I look at things rationally, and not with Kool Aid soaked hope.

trading Vanek to move into the top of this draft, doesn't prolong the rebuild... it makes it quicker, by getting a franchise player (Barkov)

You may be right, but you are far from rational. Not worth continuing this discussion.

 

[Jame]

You may be right, but you are far from rational. Not worth continuing this discussion.

I'm not sure you know what rational means. It means to use "reason".

Here's my reasons

1. The Sabres have committed to a full on rebuild
2. The GM has said it will be a few years

"You want to make the painful period as short as possible," said Regier. "It's really difficult to put an exact timeline on it. It's difficult standing here to say it's going to be a year or two."

3. Vanek has said he doesn't want to be around for a long rebuild

"Let's be honest," Vanek said. "I'm not stupid. I know I have a year left and they can probably deal me for prospects, young guys, whatever else is out there. Yeah, I've thought about it. If it looks like it's a long rebuild, then it probably makes sense for both parties to move on."

My viewpoint, is what being rational about Vanek's future looks like...

 

[OkimLom]

I'm on board with Vanek and #8 for #4

(I previously proposed Vanek and #8 for #4 and Ryan Ellis)

Getting Barkov would be a franchise changing move... Trading 1 year of Vanek to move up from "very good prospect" to "franchise defining prospect" is a steal in our favor.... regardless of whether the VTVTs comprehend the limited value 1 year of Vanek presents

I wouldn't be opposed to trading that package

I would like to see what Miller + 8th would get you before I try Vanek.

Heck, If Miller + 8th can get 2nd/3rd overall and Vanek + 16th get you 6th/7th overall I would consider that a great Franchise Changing Draft:

2nd/3rd Overall - Mackinnon or Drouin
6th/7th Overall - RR or Monahan

I would love to see that happen but I know it won't happen. I can dream right?

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Who's to say we aren't about to turn the corner with the current players and upcoming prospects?

Within two years, which is what Vanek would need to be convinced of? Uhhh...everyone's to say that. There is no corner being turned within two years.

Add me to the chorus of folks saying Vanek is gone. Using him to get #4 would be a steal at this point. Let's start thinking longer term - we can't rebuild without a star player again.

On a slightly different note, is it worth discussing what it would take to get the #7 pick, which seems like it might be the easiest to pry away? Is there a player besides Myers that would be attractive to them? Sekera +?

 

[1972]

I see shiny new toy syndrome is in full effect.

I am fully convinced that you can get as good of a prospect at #16 this year as you can at #8-9. You don't add vanek to 16 unless that gets you Barkov

 

[Jame]

I see shiny new toy syndrome is in full effect.

I am fully convinced that you can get as good of a prospect at #16 this year as you can at #8-9. You don't add vanek to 16 unless that gets you Barkov

be more specific?

You could get Monahan at 8, and Mantha at 16.... there is a significant difference in value / potential IMO.

The higher you draft, the better you are able to apply your beliefs (who you think is a significantly better prospect...

 

[1972]

be more specific?

You could get Monahan at 8, and Mantha at 16.... there is a significant difference in value / potential IMO.

The higher you draft, the better you are able to apply your beliefs (who you think is a significantly better prospect...

You could also get Nurse at 8 and Pulock at 16, or Shinkaruk at 8 and Wennberg at 16

Well I dont expect Monahan or Lindholm to be there at #8, could they be? I guess anything is possible.

I view picks 8-20 as a tier of interchangable players who can go at any spot. You may see it differently

I am all for moving Vanek because I think he isn't going to want to stick around, but I would rather not use him to move up in the draft unless its for #4

 

[Jame]

You could also get Nurse at 8 and Pulock at 16, or Shinkaruk at 8 and Wennberg at 16

Well I dont expect Monahan or Lindholm to be there at #8, could they be? I guess anything is possible.

I view picks 8-20 as a tier of interchangable players who can go at any spot. You may see it differently

I am all for moving Vanek because I think he isn't going to want to stick around, but I would rather not use him to move up in the draft unless its for #4

Do you have a top 20 list you could provide in support of that belief?

I agree that it will be difficult to project the picks in order #8-#20... but that doesn't mean I don't see value separation in that range... I certainly do.

As far as using Vanek to move up... I'm all for it. I'd prefer to see management take the proactive route.

If you don't see a lot of difference at #8 thru whatever... wouldn't moving up just one or 2 spots still make a difference (Monahan)?

 

[1972]

Do you have a top 20 list you could provide in support of that belief?

I agree that it will be difficult to project the picks in order #8-#20... but that doesn't mean I don't see value separation in that range... I certainly do.

As far as using Vanek to move up... I'm all for it. I'd prefer to see management take the proactive route.

If you don't see a lot of difference at #8 thru whatever... wouldn't moving up just one or 2 spots still make a difference (Monahan)?

Don't really have a list but I would have guys like Wennberg/Nurse/Lazar/Zadarov/Horvat/Shinkaruk/Pulock/Morrissey/Domi all in a very close grouping from 8-16

If I had to guess it would look something like this for me

8) Ristolainen
9) Nurse
10) Zadarov
11) Wennberg
12) Horvat
13) Shinkaruk
14) Domi
15) Lazar
16) Pulock
17) Morrissey

Yes I would move up to get Monahan/Lindholm/Nichushkin if the price were right, I view our #8 at being right on the drop off from elite prospects (you believe Ristolainen is elite so you may see their being 8 elite guys which is fair)

 

[Chainshot]

I wonder if their ability to move up to land someone in the top 4 influences Vanek's thoughts on the length of the rebuild. I doubt it shifts him much, but it's a consideration. That's if they're using assets to get up there other than him that is.

 

[Jame]

Don't really have a list but I would have guys like Wennberg/Nurse/Lazar/Zadarov/Horvat/Shinkaruk/Pulock/Morrissey/Domi all in a very close grouping from 8-16

If I had to guess it would look something like this for me

8) Ristolainen
9) Nurse
10) Zadarov
11) Wennberg
12) Horvat
13) Shinkaruk
14) Domi
15) Lazar
16) Pulock
17) Morrissey

Yes I would move up to get Monahan/Lindholm/Nichushkin if the price were right, I view our #8 at being right on the drop off from elite prospects (you believe Ristolainen is elite so you may see their being 8 elite guys which is fair)

Yes, I have the cutoff at 8.... but Nichu scares me (the risk on the investment)

And I don't like the idea of having the last choice of the litter.

Yes, I would do anything to get to #4 to land Barkov. And yes, I have Risto #5, and he could easily be there at 8....

But I'd still try to move to 5-7, to target MY guy (And even if Regier has a completely different opinion on players, I'd like to see this them target and go for "their" guy, rather then sit and take last of the litter)

 

[Jame]

For anyone interested.... here's the way my board stands today... I don't really see much changing in the top 8. And it becomes a total crapshoot in after the 20s.

I'll indicate where I think there are tier changes in the first round...

# Name Position League
1 Seth Jones D WHL
2 Nathan Mackinnon C QMJHL
3 Aleksander Barkov C SML
4 Jonathan Drouin LW QMJHL
------------
5 Rasmus Ristolainen D SML
6 Elias Lindholm C SEL
7 Sean Monahan C OHL
------------
8 Valeri Nichushkin RW KHL
------------
9 Nikitak Zadarov D OHL
10 Frederik Gauthier C QMJHL
11 Adam Erne RW QMJHL
12 Ryan Pulock D WHL
13 Darnell Nurse D OHL
-----------
14 Kerby Rychel LW OHL
15 Valentin Zykov LW QMJHL
16 Hunter Shinkaruk LW WHL
17 Max Domi C OHL
18 Shea Theodore D WHL
----------
19 Alexander Wennberg C ALS
20 Bo Horvat C OHL
21 Andre Burakovsky LW ALS
22 Mirco Mueller D WHL
23 Curtis Lazar RW WHL
24 Joshua Morrissey D WHL
-----------
25 Chris Bigras D OHL
26 Jacob de la Rose C ALS
27 JT Compher C USHL
28 Anthony Mantha LW QMJHL
29 Zach Natasiuk RW OHL
----------
30 Robert Hagg D SEL
31 Arturri Lehkonen LW SML
32 William Carrier LW QMJHL
33 Samuel Morin D QMJHL
34 Jimmy Lodge C OHL
35 Zachary Fucale G QMJHL
36 Ryan Hartman RW OHL
37 Ian McCoshen D OHL
---------
38 Emile Poirier LW QMJHL
39 Connor Hurley C HIGH
40 Morgan Klimchuk LW WHL
41 Steve Santini D USHL
42 Ryan Fitzgerald C EJHL
43 Madison Bowey D WHL
44 Jason Dickinson C OHL
-----------
45 Anthony Duclair RW QMJHL
46 Nicholas Baptiste RW OHL
47 Jordan Subban D OHL
48 Justin Bailey C OHL
49 Llinus Arnesson D ALS
50 Bogdan Yakimov C VHL
51 Hudson Fasching LW USHL
52 Nic Petan D OHL
53 Keaton Thompson D USHL
54 Eric Comrie G QMJHL
55 David Pope LW BCHL
56 Nick Hutchinson C HIGH
57 Jusso Ikonen LW FIN
58 Victor Ohman RW SWE
59 Laurent Dauphin C QMJHL
60 Myles Bell D WHL

 

[TheBarnIsElectric]

Within two years, which is what Vanek would need to be convinced of? Uhhh...everyone's to say that. There is no corner being turned within two years.

Add me to the chorus of folks saying Vanek is gone. Using him to get #4 would be a steal at this point. Let's start thinking longer term - we can't rebuild without a star player again.

On a slightly different note, is it worth discussing what it would take to get the #7 pick, which seems like it might be the easiest to pry away? Is there a player besides Myers that would be attractive to them? Sekera +?

My problem isn't trading Vanek or moving up in the draft or using Vanekto move up in the draft,
Just that Vanek +8 is too much to give up for a guy that may or may not turn out to be as good as Vanek. You're trying to add top players, why get rid of one unless you know he's gone anyway? And regardless of anything anyone has posted in this thread, we don't know that.

I think Sabres fans want Vanek and Miller gone because they feel like they've been personally wronged because the team hasn't won. That's not rational. Both are very good players and losing them makes us worse in the short term and potentially long term as well, if what we get in return for them doesn't work out.

I'm not saying don't rebuild, just lets not push these guys out the door for nothing because we're upset. let me put it in different terms: you're potentionally advocating trading Vanek and Couture for Kyle Turris (2007). lots of people who know everything thought Turris was can't miss. He was ranked as the best NA skater before the draft. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=ec6853fe-77a2-40df-8762-1bcbfcc773a9&p=2

 

[Jame]

My problem isn't trading Vanek or moving up in the draft or using Vanekto move up in the draft,
Just that Vanek +8 is too much to give up for a guy that may or may not turn out to be as good as Vanek. You're trying to add top players, why get rid of one unless you know he's gone anyway? And regardless of anything anyone has posted in this thread, we don't know that.

you seem to contradict yourself... You say you dont have a problem using Vanek to trade up in the draft.... and then immediately say "why should we get rid of a player as good as Vanek"

Everyone knows Vanek is LIEKLY gone, you choose to hold on to hope, and call it being rational

a rational person, might learn a bit about the prospects in this draft... because comparing Barkov to Turris is pretty daft.

I think Sabres fans want Vanek and Miller gone because they feel like they've been personally wronged because the team hasn't won. That's not rational. Both are very good players and losing them makes us worse in the short term and potentially long term as well, if what we get in return for them doesn't work out.

I want them traded because that's the only value they present to the future of this franchise that is YEARS away from contending.

I'm not saying don't rebuild, just lets not push these guys out the door for nothing because we're upset. let me put it in different terms: you're potentionally advocating trading Vanek and Coutu. Kyle Turris (2007). lots of people who know everything thought Turris was can't miss. He was ranked as the best NA skater before the draft. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=ec6853fe-77a2-40df-8762-1bcbfcc773a9&p=2

You might want to freshen up on the quality in this years draft vs 2007....

Arbitrarily comparing to a singular player doesn't mean much... why not make the same comparison and use Petriangelo at #4 as the example?

 

[Duddy]

I can only see Vanek getting a top 5 pick, if the team who trades for him thinks he puts em back in the playoffs, making him re-sign there.