Player Discussion Thomas Vanek II
- Thread starter Minnesota
- Start date
- Status
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
Vanek started the season off looking faster and better than last year, but his production has dwindled significantly compared to last year's. Since last year was considered a disappointment, with injuries given as a reason for his poor play, what are we to think of this year?
2014-15. 80gp. 21goals, 31a. 171 shots
2015-16. 74gp. 18goals, 23a. 146 Shots
I think there is zero chance he is bought out, but also zero chance he is resigned. I am extremely thankful that Fletcher didn't sign him to a longer term deal...most were shocked that he signed for only three years at the time. Most were speculating at least 5 yr./ 30+?
2014-15. 80gp. 21goals, 31a. 171 shots
2015-16. 74gp. 18goals, 23a. 146 Shots
I think there is zero chance he is bought out, but also zero chance he is resigned. I am extremely thankful that Fletcher didn't sign him to a longer term deal...most were shocked that he signed for only three years at the time. Most were speculating at least 5 yr./ 30+?
Last edited:
BusQuets
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2010
- 11,945
- 2,865
DANOZ28
Registered User
see if hes open to a trade but i say no to buying vanek out. suffer one more year like we should have done with johnsson. (not traded for leddy) save buyout for pommer if untradable
Unless there is something going on behind the scenes, I don't see how you don't keep Vanek around for next year rather than pay 4M for him not to play.
I also think he is tradable, but we would have to take salary back. Maybe a Dman plus Vanek for a good, but highly paid forward? Plus, there is that pesky NMC.
I also think he is tradable, but we would have to take salary back. Maybe a Dman plus Vanek for a good, but highly paid forward? Plus, there is that pesky NMC.
Unless there is some great FA out there wanting to come here for less money i do not see the reason to buy Vanek out. We get 2 mil of his salary back to use? Thats a crap shoot of a player. We get a bargain player for 2-3 years and its another Cooke. The buyout circle begins because we rushed it.
Haula, Granny, Brodin, Coyle, Nino all signed next year.
I am fine seeing what a new coach can do.
Haula, Granny, Brodin, Coyle, Nino all signed next year.
I am fine seeing what a new coach can do.
Last edited:
nickschultzfan
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2009
- 11,558
- 908
Pominville's buyout is actually manageable. Just the 2nd year is extra high. But if there isn't any RW competition for the 3rd line spot, the Wild may keep him for 1 more year, and then buy him out.
However, the risk with that is that there easily could be a Backstrom-like scenario, where Pominville is "injured" during the off-season, and then you are just stuck with him and his contract.
Reading between the lines, Vanek must be less of a fit in the dressing room than Poms.
I was all in favor of buying out Pominville, but the resurgence he had after being put with Haula changed my mind. If he can be a good, but overpaid, third liner/2nd PP unit guy for another year then it's better to keep him at least a year before buying him out. A Poms buyout after next year is more reasonable.
Can't be a fun thing for a GM to explain to an owner why he needs to give away millions of $'s for nothing.
I was all in favor of buying out Pominville, but the resurgence he had after being put with Haula changed my mind. If he can be a good, but overpaid, third liner/2nd PP unit guy for another year then it's better to keep him at least a year before buying him out. A Poms buyout after next year is more reasonable.
Can't be a fun thing for a GM to explain to an owner why he needs to give away millions of $'s for nothing.
Vanek is someone who still has a lot of offensive skill to offer but management and coaching continue to be stuck in their ways where everyone has to play a defensively sound game too instead of just letting the players play to their strengths. We were never the right team for him to succeed on, would have been far better if Fletcher had realized that and just used the money on Niskanen instead. Yet another classic Fletcher fail.
Agree, though doesn't really have anything to do with Pominville's length. Jason Pominville plays as we need him to, while not the player he was that earned that contract is still a quality top-9 player who young players can learn from. Thomas Vanek's game is not something that our young players can learn from aside from what not to do. Hasn't worked out under 2 different coaches and hasn't gel'd with the majority of our line-up.
Trade him with 50% retention, buy him out, do whatever we can to eliminate Thomas Vanek from our roster next seson.
Wildfish
Registered User
Huh? The WIld wasn't "suffering" with Kim Johansson. He was clearly the Wild's best Dman at the time. They traded him because his contract was expiring and they knew he wanted to go home to Sweden very soon.
Zero similarity between the Johnasson and the Pominville situations.
Wildfish
Registered User
I think the Wild would actually have to add value to get rid of him. Is he tradable? Well, if Clarkson can be traded with his contract, Vanek could be, too. But it's silly to think you'd get anything of value in return IMO. Retaining Salary is a given.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
No reason to be rid of him unless it's a legit personnel/expansion draft thing. Highly unlikely that a better player takes his spot.
Do the guy a favor and buy him out. Let him go play with any number of teams who will pursue him in the 3-4 mil range with performence incentives. Just another failed Wild experiment . My guess is he ends up on a playoff team elsewhere and probably puts up 30 given our luck. Then the new coach gets to make his own selection for the fall guy position next year. LOL My guess is there are a few other guys praying to depart too.
Last edited:
Bruce Granville
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2014
- 5,062
- 3,552
Wow, you really know to make smart moves...
This is the Wild, lest you forgot. The team press officier,(Russo) has already printed / tweeted the rumor a couple of times i think.
His hit is what 6.5 ? You have to move him one way or another imo if you can .Too much damage at a persoanl level.Plus the system is a really bad fit, abscence of a skilled offensive centers , and other factors dictate it. Pretty easy to move him with his approval for one year between 3-5 .(Wild eat the balance in cash no cap hit on the 6.5) Or he plays hardball and will not waive .You are left with the buyout option and a 1.5 cap hit afterward. 5 mil in room
My guess is the damage is done. Why would he want to stay here after the scape goat and twenty goal thing. . He is 31-32 and probably wants a shot at a cup. Thats not in Minn for a while yet.
It will be interesting to see who they can attract in the free agency market if they make a run at somebody.
Last edited:
What if his playstyle is rubbing off on our younger players, stagnating their development? How does a coach justify playing him if he's not producing? What good is he in the press-box in said scenario, eating up a large portion of the salary cap?
- Status
