Confirmed with Link: Vanek to the Wings, 1 year 3 million with a NTC

[Shaman464]

"A long-term sense?" He's signed for 1 year, how is that going to hurt the team long-term?

Because he could easily either block a kid who could use the ice time to progress at the NHL and/or push the team slightly higher in the standings meaning they miss out on a better player. Both of which are long term issues.

It does the exact opposite. He does mentor kids and that pays off in long-term.

People just won't understand.

If hes such a great mentor why is it he can't stay on a team longer than a season? And why is it, even with his decent offensive output, no team is willing to pay a premium for him? Because he's a player that only plays one side of the game, doesn't play defense at all, and has a lot of rumors that he's a locker room cancer. So we have a player that doesn't play a complete game and could be bad in the locker room? Sounds like a great mentor.

 

[jkutswings]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what he's going to help the younger players with.

"B-b-b-but AA played well with him once upon a time!"

And? Andreas Athanasiou is a one dimensional winger with mediocre point totals who thinks he's the bee's knees. (As in, I don't see any fruits from any previous mentoring efforts.) I didn't even want him re-signed, so why would I want to cater to him by bringing back Grandpa Vanek?

Who is this guy really going to help, and what pearls of wisdom is he going to impart? How to "poke and hope"? How to land a no-trade clause when you don't deserve it?

He's a player with no future in this town, with nothing to offer besides winning an extra regular season game or two, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see for at least one more year.

 

[HIFE]

Old dog, and still nothing but entertaining to watch.

Sorry to pick, but "nothing but entertaining"?

In the roughly 20 hours of Vanek we'll be subjected to this season there will be a lot more down moments than goals scored off of his strange, rigid half- slappers. I think he's over the hill and am not excited by his presence. Just my opinion.

 

[Henkka]

Sorry to pick, but "nothing but entertaining"?

In the roughly 20 hours of Vanek we'll be subjected to this season there will be a lot more down moments than goals scored off of his strange, rigid half- slappers. I think he's over the hill and am not excited by his presence. Just my opinion.

Feel free making your own highlights of his bad plays if you like them more.

 

[Claypool]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what he's going to help the younger players with.

"B-b-b-but AA played well with him once upon a time!"

And? Andreas Athanasiou is a one dimensional winger with mediocre point totals who thinks he's the bee's knees. (As in, I don't see any fruits from any previous mentoring efforts.) I didn't even want him re-signed, so why would I want to cater to him by bringing back Grandpa Vanek?

Who is this guy really going to help, and what pearls of wisdom is he going to impart? How to "poke and hope"? How to land a no-trade clause when you don't deserve it?

He's a player with no future in this town, with nothing to offer besides winning an extra regular season game or two, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see for at least one more year.

Thomas Vanek goes from cast-off to valuable Canucks trade chip, mentor - Sportsnet.ca

Vanek has contributed more than points, mentoring rookie linemate Brock Boeser and providing a layer of leadership in the dressing room. Like Henrik and Daniel Sedin, Vanek shows up every day, works hard, stays positive and does what he is asked.

Vanek has spent the last month playing on the Canucks’ top line with Boeser and Sam Gagner.

“If I have a question, I’ll always ask him,” Boeser says. “If he has a thought, he’s not afraid to tell me so I can I improve and be better. I think he’s a really good leader and, obviously, he’s a great player. He sees the ice well and is a really good playmaker. He always communicates. He’s always looking to help me.

“He’s been a big help to our team.”

 

[Pavels Dog]

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what he's going to help the younger players with.

"B-b-b-but AA played well with him once upon a time!"

And? Andreas Athanasiou is a one dimensional winger with mediocre point totals who thinks he's the bee's knees. (As in, I don't see any fruits from any previous mentoring efforts.) I didn't even want him re-signed, so why would I want to cater to him by bringing back Grandpa Vanek?

Who is this guy really going to help, and what pearls of wisdom is he going to impart? How to "poke and hope"? How to land a no-trade clause when you don't deserve it?

He's a player with no future in this town, with nothing to offer besides winning an extra regular season game or two, which is the opposite of what I'd like to see for at least one more year.

Don’t think he was signed as much for mentorship as just for being able to add 40+ points. But there are certainly things I think he could help Ras and Zadina with in terms of being effective around the offensive net. We have plenty of guys to take defensive cues from, not many with the skillset of Vanek.
I understand why fans don’t appreciate these things, because they don’t watch practices. But skills aren’t just magically improved, it takes practice. Having someone around that knows a thing or two can help that process go more smoothly.

 

[Henkka]

Vanek is definitely the guy who I want to mentor Rasmussen and others to become goal-area beasts. That's where he has been at his best on his career and I want our future kids learn everything from him.

 

[Shaman464]

Thomas Vanek goes from cast-off to valuable Canucks trade chip, mentor - Sportsnet.ca

Except they got spare parts for him... literally a broken down center who likely won't play in the NHL this year and a kid who is barely an NHLer.

Slaps Vanek

Holds many trade value.

 

[Shaman464]

Vanek is definitely the guy who I want to mentor Rasmussen and others to become goal-area beasts. That's where he has been at his best on his career and I want our future kids learn everything from him.

Again, why do you want him to mentor anyone? There is a lot of smoke around the locker room cancer story. And given the fact that no team seems to want to keep him for even a partial season at this point, even though he's still an effective depth scorer, seems to add more evidence to that.

 

[Claypool]

Except they got spare parts for him... literally a broken down center who likely won't play in the NHL this year and a kid who is barely an NHLer.

Slaps Vanek

Holds many trade value.

ok cool

 

[lomekian]

Because he could easily either block a kid who could use the ice time to progress at the NHL and/or push the team slightly higher in the standings meaning they miss out on a better player. Both of which are long term issues.



If hes such a great mentor why is it he can't stay on a team longer than a season? And why is it, even with his decent offensive output, no team is willing to pay a premium for him? Because he's a player that only plays one side of the game, doesn't play defense at all, and has a lot of rumors that he's a locker room cancer. So we have a player that doesn't play a complete game and could be bad in the locker room? Sounds like a great mentor.

If Vanek is a locker room Cancer, how come Det & Van (two teams obsessed with character to their own detriment), had nothing but positive words to day for him, his practice habits, his atttitide and influence on younger players?

Of course his value has been diminished by his skating, his lack of defensive ability and his age, but there is no doubt that he's a player who needs to feel he's in the right environment to flourish, and he's been labelled a cancer purely on the basis of underperforming when on his largest contracts.

Hockey is totally backward when it comes to dealing with different personalities. Also lots of players have been labelled 'cancers' in one place only to be loved in others.

Shanahan being a prime example

 

[vladdy16]

Again, why do you want him to mentor anyone? There is a lot of smoke around the locker room cancer story. And given the fact that no team seems to want to keep him for even a partial season at this point, even though he's still an effective depth scorer, seems to add more evidence to that.

Yeah... lots of smoke that dissipated years ago. Since then every team he's been on has raved about his professionalism. Why should we take your account even close to as seriously as theirs? There was lots of legitimate smoke around Dan Cleary early in his career. That experience was probably valuable for him turning into a character player and mentor later in his career.

The NHL being a 24/7 job, where kids in their early 20's are going to be tasked with being emotionally and physically consistent and diligent in their approach, an older player who is well acquainted with the trials and tribulations associated with that process, can accelerate a younger players maturity off the ice to a large degree.

But beyond that, and most importantly, mature and savvy veterans are an absolutely necessary component to generating the kinds of puck possession and the amount of scoring chances absolutely necessary for the experiential development of young players. It is a complete waste of everybodys time to just throw out 3 under-experienced players and watch them chase the puck and get carved up all night long.

It's baffling to me the way that the quality of on ice experience is dismissed here, when it is a primary contributing factor to player development. There's a reason prospects flame out or go stale. Playing in the right types of situations, around the right types of teammates, at the right times in your career are of the utmost importance.

 

[njx9]

How many veterans does a team need to provide "leadership" and "development" for it's prospects?

Is this method for development why the Wings have so many recent success stories, and have done such a fantastic job of developing Cs and Ds over the last 20 years?

 

[Heaton]

How many veterans does a team need to provide "leadership" and "development" for it's prospects?

Is this method for development why the Wings have so many recent success stories, and have done such a fantastic job of developing Cs and Ds over the last 20 years?

Here's what I find interesting, the Wings haven't been able to draft and develop Centers and Defense because they have drafted so late, yet in recent years the thought is they need to draft high to fix the team, yet they do things that go against the ability to draft high... It's an interesting balance, where drafting in the top 5 isn't the goal, but it's absolutely needed. Without the Wings getting 6th overall last year the outlook for this team wouldn't be nearly as bright.

That's why I think the Vanek signing is a little silly, Vanek himself doesn't make the team better, but the philosophy behind is a little funny to me. All in all, I don't think he'll really help or hurt anything, so it's a neutral addition.

 

[njx9]

Here's what I find interesting, the Wings haven't been able to draft and develop Centers and Defense because they have drafted so late, yet in recent years the thought is they need to draft high to fix the team, yet they do things that go against the ability to draft high...

And worse, we're abject failures at developing key players anyway (guys like Sheahan, Kindl and Smith), making the need to draft high even more apparent, and the "but we need all these vets to develop players we already can't develop!" ring even more hollow.

That's why I think the Vanek signing is a little silly, Vanek himself doesn't make the team better, but the philosophy behind is a little funny to me. All in all, I don't think he'll really help or hurt anything, so it's a neutral addition.

I'm just tired of the team doing things that won't help it contend. Vanek has no trade value. He has, at best, vague and ephemeral development value (value that should be massively overshadowed by the coaching staff's development work). He has no entertainment value. That said, he's only going to add a few points, and cost us a draft slot or two, so whatever. If that's what some fans need, then meh. I can at least root for a C or D to drop next year, so we don't BPA another winger.

 

[Henkka]

It's more of a bonus that those vets will mentor. It not just having a certain amount of ets, I think as for now it's more to have certain style of vets. It depends of the kids. Like Vanek is great at net-area and we have now kids who should learn exactly that game.

But main thing what Holland has been speaking about getting some UFAs around kids, and not icing a full-kid team is PLAYING MEANINGFUL GAMES. He wanted to make the team a bit better than just a lottery team losing with many goals every night. Playing meaningful games, close games, that's what makes every kid competitive kid. You don't give up when you play 1-goal games. Play for win every night, even tough you migth not win so ofter than a contender. But it creates an "everydayer" culture, never give up, contender culture.

I understand that plan totally. I don't want so see games ending 1-5 and being game over 0-4 after 1st period. I want them to be close, then there's something to watch.

I'm just wondering why I have to repeat this god damn message in every f***ing thread in here, about what Holland is repeating in every freaking article. Aren't you people reading them at all? Just post in here what first comes to your mind? Or WTF ?

Clear and simple message, what is their plan. And it sounds reasonable. Then people here are yelling against it. NOT GONNA WORK! Should be Shanaplan etc...

 

[Pavels Dog]

How many veterans does a team need to provide "leadership" and "development" for it's prospects?

Is this method for development why the Wings have so many recent success stories, and have done such a fantastic job of developing Cs and Ds over the last 20 years?

To be realistic, no method of development consistently takes 3rd and 5th and 7th rounders to superstardom. However that doesn't mean we have been doing everything wrong. The general idea of surrounding kids with older players that can support and mentor them is sound. When it comes to Vanek, he has abilities that are very well suited for working in practices with Zadina and Rasmussen. Would they have no chance of becoming good players without Vanek? Of course not. But if there is even a 1% chance Vanek can help them reach their potential, why not take it?

Here's what I find interesting, the Wings haven't been able to draft and develop Centers and Defense because they have drafted so late, yet in recent years the thought is they need to draft high to fix the team, yet they do things that go against the ability to draft high..

There's no need to construct a roster that from day 1 of the season has zero% chance of playing any meaningful hockey, and that gets blown out in every other game.
Finishing 5th-6th last (which is what we've done the last 2 years) is a solid position for rebuilding. Most people predict us to finish even worse this season so it's not like we've done moves that objectively mean a lower chance of drafting high.

 

[SirloinUB]

How many veterans does a team need to provide "leadership" and "development" for it's prospects?

Is this method for development why the Wings have so many recent success stories, and have done such a fantastic job of developing Cs and Ds over the last 20 years?

There is no specific number that answers your question but you guys complaining about this signing can’t see the forest for the trees.

For starters how does the Vanek signing even hurt? With It sounding increasingly likely that Z is not playing there is at least 1 open forward spot (likely Rasmussen wins it) with Witkowski taking 13th forward duty. If Zadina looks legitimately ready for NHL playing time one of Frk/Witkowski can be waived. Hell, both can be be scratched/waived if necessary. It’s would seem clear the Vanek signing does not impact our two best prospect getting a spot.

Further, injuries happen every year so there will be ample opportunity for both Zadina and Ras to carve out a larger role. And no, playing 13 minutes a night vs being spoon fed 17 minutes a night does not hurt the development of 19 years olds.

So now that we got the myth of playing time out of the way let’s talk about the “mentor” aspect. Personally I think this element of the Vanek signing is misunderstood. When we hear mentor we think of something along the lines of “advise or train younger colleagues.” While I’m sure Vanek can pass on wisdom and experience to our younger kids I think he can do more than that.

Have you ever played hockey with low-skilled players? It’s frustrating and difficult to succeed. Having a skilled guy like Vanek playing with AA/Zadina/Ras will make the game easier and more enjoyable for these young players. Hell for a guy like AA who gets knocked for not using his teammates enough, having a skilled line mate who can make plays and get the puck to AA should help AA develop confidence in his teammates.

These are just a few examples of how Vanek can help this team in a “mentorship” role. The truth is you want a variety of mentors surrounding the kids. Guys like Abby or Helm can lead by example with their approach, training and work ethic. A guy like Vanek can lead by showing the kids what you can do with skill and help them build creative confidence with the puck.

The bottom line is that Mentorship is an intangible concept and comes in a variety of forms.


People complain about him hurting the draft odds. I guess in theory yea that’s possible but hockey is the sport most impacted by luck. First there is the lottery, the luck factor here is obvious. Second there is other teams making different decisions. We landed Zadina at 6 because of shifting priorities.

Third and most significantly, the luck factor in games is higher in hockey than any other sport. Puck luck, shooting percentages, injuries and goaltending will have a far larger impact on standings than Vanek. In a league so significantly oriented around luck the 3 or 4 extra points Vanek may help us earn will be inconsequential. Hell I’d go so far to say Ras/Zadina/Mantha/Larkin/Bert etc. Will do more to hurt our draft odds than Vanek.

I like the signing. He will make games more watchable and help the kids develop. His roll has only gotten more important if we don’t have Zetterberg this season.

 

[jkutswings]

The Detroit Red Wings had the 6th worst goal differential in the league, the 5th worst record, and the 4th worst offense (in terms of goals for).

I have no idea how the front office thinks that this team is significantly more "competitive" than any other bottom feeder, or how 10-12 veterans guiding a team to pick outside the top 5 will somehow produce a better future core than 6-8 veterans doing so with picks in the top 3-5.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I don't particularly think this signing is the worst thing in the world, but the reasons to argue why it was a "good" signing are absolutely asinine.

Mentoring the kids? Teaching prospects very specific things that he isn't even all that good at anymore? To keep the team more competitive? So we can maybe get a late draft pick possibly?

 

[jkutswings]

I don't particularly think this signing is the worst thing in the world, but the reasons to argue why it was a "good" signing are absolutely asinine.

Mentoring the kids? Teaching prospects very specific things that he isn't even all that good at anymore? To keep the team more competitive? So we can maybe get a late draft pick possibly?

They say those that can't do, teach. This roster should be conferring PhD's left and right.

And that sweet sweet 4th rounder for Vanek will make all the difference...

 

[SirloinUB]

A 4th rounder will impact our rebuild as much as Vanek will “hurt our draft odds”

 

[ArGarBarGar]

A 4th rounder will impact our rebuild as much as Vanek will “hurt our draft odds”

Even a single goal which puts Vanek above his replacement could theoretically impact our rebuild based on lottery draft odds alone.

If you want to argue he is just a filler player that we need because we have kids who aren't ready yet and he was a safe pick to inject into the roster? Fine. But People are assigning way too much long-term value in Vanek and his "intangible" qualities as a player.

 

[jkutswings]

A 4th rounder will impact our rebuild as much as Vanek will “hurt our draft odds”

The last 5 years, Vanek has scored 1, 1, 2, 5, and 2 game winning goals. So when factoring in other contributions on offense, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he could help Detroit win at least 2-3 more games.

Had the Wings won 3 fewer games last year, they would've dropped 3 spots in the standings. Personally, I value those 3 draft slots (in every round) more than a 4th rounder that likely won't even play in the NHL.

 

[Frk It]

I don't particularly think this signing is the worst thing in the world, but the reasons to argue why it was a "good" signing are absolutely asinine.

Mentoring the kids? Teaching prospects very specific things that he isn't even all that good at anymore? To keep the team more competitive? So we can maybe get a late draft pick possibly?

He's still pretty good at tipping pucks. You don't really lose hand-eye coordination.

But it's also a stretch for me. This guy was healthy scratched in Minnesota and has always been a 1 dimensional winger. He is not some quality mentor, sorry I don't buy that. Green also makes a lot of sketchy plays and can be real hit or miss with his compete level in his end. Those signings feel more to me as low key hopes for a playoff run than as valuable mentors, because those are pretty piss-poor mentors. I'd rather have Kronwall mentoring on 1 knee or Z mentoring from the sidelines.

You can bring in specialists for a specific skill training. Hell, Horcoff and Cleary are heading player development, they were both pretty much swiss army knife kind of guys who did some of everything.