Thomas Vanek Part II

[borisbadenough]

i really think people need to stop looking into Vanek's every mannerism and shift as if it will tell us if he wants to stay or go.

There's a lot of games left. I predict he'll have games where he looks great and people will proclaim "he loves it here and playing with JT"

He'll also have bad games where people will say "he doesn't want to be here, he looks sluggish and he wasn't smiling on the bench when the camera showed him." I'm sure he's leaning one way, but trying to get inside his head is pointless.

You mean like every player? lol

 

[bigd]

Thats honestly how Vanek plays. A lot of Buffalo fans said that was his playing style when he was traded to us. When he was on BUF I remember that he has tremendous skill but was a bit slow getting back into the D zone. Don't think you could be disinterested and almost average a PPG and be plus 7 on an Isles team thats -23 overall.

And he knew he wasn't going back to Buffalo.

 

[Isles Fan]

Ill chalk this up to the fact that they were in FLA for a week in 80 degree sunny weather after escaping a polar vortex of brutal chill.

Really????

 

[NYI365]

And he knew he wasn't going back to Buffalo.

Im talking about every time i've seen Vanek play over the last few seasons. You can't possibly tell me that he knew he wasn't gonna stay in BUF 3 years ago so he played like he was disinterested for the rest of his time there. The numbers clearly state otherwise.

 

[GTislanders]

Vanek is not the fleet of foot. He's also not going to rush back to the D zone. It's not his game. He wants the puck on his stick and he'll dangle for days.

He's playing the best hockey of his career.

You sign him to the max contract.

IDC.

 

[Macch]

You mean like every player? lol

Bingo!!!!

People are going to see what they want to see to support their belief on what Vanek will do.

 

[stranger34]

, to a lesser extent,

A first (below five and probably below 14 if things turn out well) and a 2nd are a pimple on an elephants a-- when placed within the context of the last ten years of Islander rebuild or within the context of the Vanek for Moulson trade. Vanek is the elephant for so many hockey related reasons.The same holds true,to a lesser extent, if we are talking a strait up MM trade for picks. Mouslon is the only real asset. It is never bad asset management to use or lose picks to acquire or trade for established 30 goal NHL players especially ones that can take your center to 100pts and have score 270 goals in seven seasons

We gave up two picks and a player for a better player. Those are the facts of the case. Beyond that it pure speculation that Vanek walks. How many times should one yell the sky may fall? Lets wait until it hits us in the head before we start again.

Most of us do not care if we lose picks should he walk. We care because we lose the player.Snow will not lose his job because he lost two picks.

Nice to see you moved off the three assets thing and we are now down to two.



Good news. We both agree, I think, he does not resign. More speculation.

I never moved of the position of three assets position.

1. Moulson / Vanek
2. 1st rounder
3. 2nd rounder

If Vanek is not traded or resigned, we are minus 3.

 

[bigd]

Im talking about every time i've seen Vanek play over the last few seasons. You can't possibly tell me that he knew he wasn't gonna stay in BUF 3 years ago so he played like he was disinterested for the rest of his time there. The numbers clearly state otherwise.

He won't be back so it doesn't really matter.

 

[RMimagery]

I never moved of the position of three assets position.

1. Moulson / Vanek
2. 1st rounder
3. 2nd rounder

If Vanek is not traded or resigned, we are minus 3.

sigh.

Moulson is an UFA too. Moulson wasn't going to be resigned for what he's asking. I rarely talk in absolutes, but I'd back up that statement with a large sum of $.

They cancel each other out in this equation, basic math.

So it's only two assets potentially lost IF Vanek doesn't re-sign, with the added benefit of a stronger season from Vanek this year which is undebatable at this point.

 

[Dutch Frost]

Really????

yes really, Its been well known that coaches try even harder to keep there players focused when they travel to FLA to play Bolts/Panthers. It's a winter sport.. So when you travel down south for a 4 day 2 game trip in the dead of winter you do your business and you go out and enjoy the warmer climate afterwards.

Is it hard to believe after practice, Vanek went out for a nice tan and got lunch an relaxed before the game?

Call me crazy, I believe that before I believe the "He isnt interested in being here crowd nonsense I read on this thread of Dumb"

 

[GTislanders]

Is he signed yet?

 

[stranger34]

sigh.

Moulson is an UFA too. Moulson wasn't going to be resigned for what he's asking. I rarely talk in absolutes, but I'd back up that statement with a large sum of $.

They cancel each other out in this equation, basic math.

So it's only two assets potentially lost IF Vanek doesn't re-sign, with the added benefit of a stronger season from Vanek this year which is undebatable at this point.

The ONLY way that Vanek and moulson cancel out is if Snow would have treated them exactly the same way.

If your argument is that snow would have held into moulson all year, not traded him at the deadline, and not signed him in the offseason then yes it is a 2 asset differential.

If Vanek walks and snow would have signed moulson otherwise it's 3 assets. If he would have traded moulson it could have been 3, 4, or 5 assets differential between potential paths that snow could have taken.

 

[24diving]

The ONLY way that Vanek and moulson cancel out is if Snow would have treated them exactly the same way.

If your argument is that snow would have held into moulson all year, not traded him at the deadline, and not signed him in the offseason then yes it is a 2 asset differential.

If Vanek walks and snow would have signed moulson otherwise it's 3 assets. If he would have traded moulson it could have been 3, 4, or 5 assets differential between potential paths that snow could have taken.

And if he trades vanek for a 1st, second and prospect, and would have let moulson walk we end up ahead. Point is, we don't know what the end result would have been with Moulson or will be with vanek, so why do you keep making the deal into 3 or more assets based on what you think could have been -- it is what it is, 2 assets and a swap of UFA's, with us retaining the more valuable UFA.

 

[RMimagery]

The ONLY way that Vanek and moulson cancel out is if Snow would have treated them exactly the same way.

If your argument is that snow would have held into moulson all year, not traded him at the deadline, and not signed him in the offseason then yes it is a 2 asset differential.

If Vanek walks and snow would have signed moulson otherwise it's 3 assets. If he would have traded moulson it could have been 3, 4, or 5 assets differential between potential paths that snow could have taken.

As the post above this says...it's all speculation until we see how it shakes out.

I had to look - you have literally 50 posts in the past 12 days alone in this thread, mostly saying the same exact thing. That's a lot of time and energy, and you're not alone, I don't mean to single you out. Your heart is probably in the right place as I would think that you want what's best for the team.

But we all know how you feel. Let the season play out. The team is on a very strong run and he's one of the biggest reasons.

 

[borisbadenough]

interesting article..

worth the read

http://www.lighthousehockey.com/201...-diner-humor-fake-not-real-you-cant-eat-there

 

[A Pointed Stick]

^^^
All Vanek needs to know:

"Cheezeburger, Cheezeburger, Cheezeburger, Cheezeburger!"

 

[BMOK33]

sigh.

Moulson is an UFA too. Moulson wasn't going to be resigned for what he's asking. I rarely talk in absolutes, but I'd back up that statement with a large sum of $.

They cancel each other out in this equation, basic math.

So it's only two assets potentially lost IF Vanek doesn't re-sign, with the added benefit of a stronger season from Vanek this year which is undebatable at this point.

Moulson may be signable now though, a good agent will probably try and blame what will be his worst full season goal wise on the fact he's on a poor team but I think it will expose to many teams that he's more one dimensional than many thought (outside of those who closely followed the Islanders who very much knew his production would decline in Buffalo) and that he really needs an elite guy on his line. It may be somewhat comical but if Vanek leaves and we do manage to resign Moulson it may be for the very fact we traded him in the first place, he stays here and posts another 35-35 season he probably leaves.

 

[stranger34]

And if he trades vanek for a 1st, second and prospect, and would have let moulson walk we end up ahead. Point is, we don't know what the end result would have been with Moulson or will be with vanek, so why do you keep making the deal into 3 or more assets based on what you think could have been -- it is what it is, 2 assets and a swap of UFA's, with us retaining the more valuable UFA.

Because we have posters here saying holding Vanek and losing him is an acceptable cost of doing business.

I'm explaining why I think it's not.

Almost everytime I've posted this it's in response to that line of thinking.

I agree if they flip him, it's not nearly as bad. But my posts weren't in response to the Vanek gets traded scenario. The Vanek gets traded scenario is about as relevant to my posts as AROD takes steroids is.

My point is if you let him walk the cost is pretty egregious, especially for a budget team that won't throw money at players to attempt to cover their losses.

 

[stranger34]

As the post above this says...it's all speculation until we see how it shakes out.

I had to look - you have literally 50 posts in the past 12 days alone in this thread, mostly saying the same exact thing. That's a lot of time and energy, and you're not alone, I don't mean to single you out. Your heart is probably in the right place as I would think that you want what's best for the team.

But we all know how you feel. Let the season play out. The team is on a very strong run and he's one of the biggest reasons.

Yes, explaining this is inexplicably like Sisyphus rolling a rock up a mountain. But as Camus taught us, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

 

[borisbadenough]

Yes, explaining this is inexplicably like Sisyphus rolling a rock up a mountain. But as Camus taught us, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

or on zoloft

 

[stranger34]

or on zoloft

Lol! Never thought of that

 

[RMimagery]

Yes, explaining this is inexplicably like Sisyphus rolling a rock up a mountain. But as Camus taught us, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Yes, Sisyphus was punished for chronic deceitfulness. We shouldn't be punished as well.

All your posts keep rolling back down the mountain lol.

Wasn't that familiar with Camus but after looking, his contributions in philosophy towards Absurdism are apt in this case.

 

[blinkman360]

Because we have posters here saying holding Vanek and losing him is an acceptable cost of doing business.

I'm explaining why I think it's not.

Almost everytime I've posted this it's in response to that line of thinking.

I agree if they flip him, it's not nearly as bad. But my posts weren't in response to the Vanek gets traded scenario. The Vanek gets traded scenario is about as relevant to my posts as AROD takes steroids is.

My point is if you let him walk the cost is pretty egregious, especially for a budget team that won't throw money at players to attempt to cover their losses.

Best case scenario is we keep Vanek. Snow will choose a signed Vanek over a future 1st, future 2nd, and a prospect. Trading Vanek all but eliminates any chance of signing him. I'm assuming that if Snow knows that Vanek won't sign until post-deadline, but feels he has a real shot at retaining him anyway, he'll roll the dice. It's a gamble, for sure, but IMO you have to take it IF re-signing the player is a strong possibility.

Who knows. Maybe Snow will get Vanek locked up, keep his top-10 pick this year and make the playoffs next year. IMO there is a better chance of that happening than losing Vanek for nothing and watching Buffalo take McDavid with our pick.

Snow can either end up looking like a genius or an idiot. The fact that this is the first 'risky' trade he's made in 7 years gives me confidence that he is at least open to giving Vanek the contract he wants. IMO that is half the battle right there.

 

[Jester9881]

If Thomas Vanek doesn't like Greek food, I don't want him on this team.

 

[luki here]

Vanek is not the fleet of foot. He's also not going to rush back to the D zone. It's not his game. He wants the puck on his stick and he'll dangle for days.

He's playing the best hockey of his career.

You sign him to the max contract.

IDC.

He actually isn't playing the best hockey of his career. He hasn't dominated a single game the way he often did in buffalo. Used to watch him a lot in buffalo.