If Vanek's playstyle is enough to hinder the development of younger players..that to me sounds like a big problem with the younger players.
Player Discussion Thomas Vanek II
- Thread starter Minnesota
- Start date
- Status
If so, sounds like Fletcher is at fault for not doing his homework before he signed him. It's not like Vanek was an unknown quality in the league.
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Then I'm thankful that Parise's playstyle is there to balance things out, so their development remains under their own control.
It's one more year. I takes my chances.
IMO Vanek has taught the younger players how to think the game different in a helpful way. Many have said that its amazing to talk with him about what he was thinking/seeing when he made that play.
What is 5mil going to get us for one year?
We might get a decent player at a deal. Meaning years. Have we not learned from our other signings that deals are not deals in the last 2-3 years.
I cannot think of any 22-25 year old UFAs out there.
Backes 32
Staal 31
Okposo 28. Maybe but he is approaching the decline years and will want 3-5 years IMO
Plekanec 33
Ladd 30
Erickson 30
Boeddker 26. About the only i would want. Who would be right around 5 mil per. A guy that finished with a -30 though. Had 17 goals and 34 assists. Sound like familar numbers.
What is 5mil going to get us for one year?
We might get a decent player at a deal. Meaning years. Have we not learned from our other signings that deals are not deals in the last 2-3 years.
I cannot think of any 22-25 year old UFAs out there.
Backes 32
Staal 31
Okposo 28. Maybe but he is approaching the decline years and will want 3-5 years IMO
Plekanec 33
Ladd 30
Erickson 30
Boeddker 26. About the only i would want. Who would be right around 5 mil per. A guy that finished with a -30 though. Had 17 goals and 34 assists. Sound like familar numbers.
forthewild
Registered User
- Aug 17, 2009
- 4,115
- 0
I'd prefer we keep Vanek
A new coach can do wonders for a player. He is skilled so that's no the issue.
A new coach can do wonders for a player. He is skilled so that's no the issue.
Al Lagoon
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2012
- 3,512
- 668
Mentioned in the trade thread that I agree. He is playing for a contract next season as well. But a new coach might be the ticket for sure.
Wildfish
Registered User
Vanek was a healthy scratch by Montreal in the Playoffs the year before Fletcher signed him.
Can there possibly be more of a Red Flag?
Wildfish
Registered User
He has great hands, no doubt. The question is, will he actually put forth a decent effort in more than 10% of the games?
He's a classic example of skill without hard work being useless.
Guys like Vanek need consistency.
If i go here you go there, i ll hit you there and then i ll be here etc... With miss match line-mates it looks ugly.
Vanek was able to play perfectly well for Lindy Ruff who is a tough coach. Under Ruff he could play D and still have his creativity. Along with Pomms they had some really good years in D minded Buffalo.
Watching Buffalo highlights. Vanek has taken a beating in front of the net over the years.
He looks like a guy pacing himself which is not good in hockey.
I'd be happy with 16-18 TOI over 65 games. Time to play his game and time to rest.All we need to do is get into the playoffs.
The Wild knock out #1 COL, #1 STL now NASH KOs #1 Ducks and NYI KO the #1 Panthers. Just get in.
If i go here you go there, i ll hit you there and then i ll be here etc... With miss match line-mates it looks ugly.
Vanek was able to play perfectly well for Lindy Ruff who is a tough coach. Under Ruff he could play D and still have his creativity. Along with Pomms they had some really good years in D minded Buffalo.
Watching Buffalo highlights. Vanek has taken a beating in front of the net over the years.
He looks like a guy pacing himself which is not good in hockey.
I'd be happy with 16-18 TOI over 65 games. Time to play his game and time to rest.All we need to do is get into the playoffs.
The Wild knock out #1 COL, #1 STL now NASH KOs #1 Ducks and NYI KO the #1 Panthers. Just get in.
Said it at the time, but was shouted down by the " what a great Gopher " and " what skill!" contingent.
Everyone wants a skilled goal scorer, including myself, but there were some pretty obvious doubts about him. I was very impressed that Fletcher only got him for three years...imagine if we had him for 3 more years, as most expected a 5+ year contract at the time?
Anyway,this is all Monday morning QB'ing. I would prefer the Wild keep him for the next year. Broken ribs are not something that hang around. They heal, and you are good to go. Not like bad backs( yikes)concussions, or groins. Wild need to be developing young talent. If we happen to squeeze in the playoffs next year, great. I don't think we will be good enough to contend for a Cup.
If Vanek has a decent year but we don't look like world beaters he would be a decent TDL acquisition for a contender.
I suspect that Fletcher is thinking of buying out Vanek ( with the owner's approval) in order to sign an aging FA like Okposo. If he does, I'll be pretty unhappy. That will be indicative to me of a GM who has no confidence in his ability to draft and develop talent, and also indicative of a Management who has run out of ideas and is simply throwing money at the problem.
Last edited:
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
The problem was, we were on such a high after the 2014 playoffs after nearly taking down the Blackhawks that a lot of us thought Vanek would just be a bonus to an already loaded team. Hey, if we can take Chicago to 6 and nearly win that game, adding a perennial 30 goal scorer to play PP specialist, etc seemed like a safe and good idea especially only getting him for three.
I'm fine with keeping him, but I would hope to see his Games Played drop a bit. He was electric at the start of the year and then he fizzled. If that is because he got out of his work out routine and conditioning, then play him 20 games (figure nets you 8 goals in that first 20). Scratch him for 10 and bring up Tuch/Lucia/etc to play and let them get a feel for playing and then bring back Vanek for another 20 games (8 goals again) and sit him 5 games and play him the 20 games (8 goals again) and then rest him until closer to playoff time.
He can still play, but maybe he just needs some time away from the ice and work on his skating and other abilities while the team is out there playing. Not only that, but the issue I think the Wild had this playoffs is they had no idea who the hell to call up once Parise and Vanek were both out. You get a lot of the kids up to play 3-4 games, they may get a decent idea on who they should have up on the roster come playoffs.
IDK. I don't wanna see him gone, but the contract certainly isn't helping the team any.
He can still play, but maybe he just needs some time away from the ice and work on his skating and other abilities while the team is out there playing. Not only that, but the issue I think the Wild had this playoffs is they had no idea who the hell to call up once Parise and Vanek were both out. You get a lot of the kids up to play 3-4 games, they may get a decent idea on who they should have up on the roster come playoffs.
IDK. I don't wanna see him gone, but the contract certainly isn't helping the team any.
Yeah, the signing was a great idea at the time, especially for only three years.
I previously said I thought we should buy him out, but I say just play it out now. Not sure who the cap space would go to next year anyway unless there are further trades, so might as well save the space for the following year.
I didn't have a big problem with getting him in for a three year contract. It's not like you have great choices in the FA market. I am not surprised at how it has turned out, and am surprised that others are. Players decline in their 30's. Forward sooner than Defenseman.
Let's not continue to go down this road and sign someone like a Backes, or if we do, make sure it is for a small amount / term, and NO NMC's !
Let's not continue to go down this road and sign someone like a Backes, or if we do, make sure it is for a small amount / term, and NO NMC's !
Wildfish
Registered User
Good point! If they would have had Vanek they would have excelled even more!
Funny in retrospect; I was very happy to see it was only a three year contract, too! Who would have thought a three year contract was too long?!
FredfromAustria
Registered User
District 5
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2014
- 296
- 145
Vanek played all 17 games that postseason, posting 5g and 5a. He also had 15 pts in 18 games for the Habs in the regular season. Not really a red flag imo
District 5
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2014
- 296
- 145
Hockey reference. His toi dropped from 18 to 15 minutes from regular season to playoffs. If I remember he did get demoted to 3rd/4th line but still had significant PP time in the playoffs (3pp goals)
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Super dumb.
Our best P/60 player by far, puts dead money on the books for 2017-18, helps nothing regarding expansion.
Our best P/60 player by far, puts dead money on the books for 2017-18, helps nothing regarding expansion.
Fremitus Borealis
Flügelstürmer
Unbelievable. He is a whipping boy on here, but in the real world, he was one of the best forwards on the team this year. This better be the precursor to the deal of the century, if true.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
F Eli McKamey - Shawnigan Lake School Prep, CSSHL U15 (2027 Draft)- Latest: landy92mack29
-
-
