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

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I also want to say this is a no win situation for Vanek with plenty of Wings fans.

He plays well, people ***** about making us "too good" for Jack Hughes
He plays poorly, SEE? Holland is an idiot for signing retreads all the time.

You can play both sides of the coin and still be able to be mad about something.

I like playing with coins. Quarter hockey is the best. or quarters. That is good too.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

And we would probably have drafted Zadina and Berggren regardless.

We could be dead last by 5+ points next season. Or we could finish 7th last and win the #1 pick. Feel free to try and keep track of exactly how many points, + or -, Vanek is responsible for in the standings.

5th worst team subtracts Zetterberg and Tatar, adds Vanek. Adds up to a higher position in the standings? Man, Vanek is scary good...

hell yeah, best player in the damn league. Prepare your rears, the Vanek train is here.

 

[Heaton]

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.

Right, which is fine, but that hasn't been the goal the past two seasons. Holland didn't set out to finish 5th-6th last, even though that's exactly what the team has needed for many years.

Whatever, we got to where we needed to be last year even if that wasn't the plan set out by management.

 

[vladdy16]

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?

I'm not sure how to answer this. You think the Red Wings have adopted a consistent approach over the last 20 years? the Red Wings approached the 2017 offseason, with the same philosophy as the 1997 or 2007 off season? I'm going to say you probably don't, so your point about how we've been developing centers and d's with this philosophy is irrelevant, because there isn't a database for it.

The answer to your first question is, "many". Check out the Oilers rebuild if you want to see the difference between veterans that are good for pace of play and overall development, and token veterans that can't use any level of 'character' to keep the team from going off the rails.

Every year, there are more than 224 new candidates for a league that has only 576 roster spots. Those are horrific odds if you're picking the field.

 

[vladdy16]

Teams rave publicly to pump his tires before a trade, but the fact that a guy who is a very good depth scorer seems to never be able to spend more than a year on a team and can't return jack **** at the TDL says there's something more to the story, and again these stories aren't that old, within the last few seasons.

Way to cherry pick what you're willing to reply to. And again, these stories are old, and just because you don't get along with one employer, doesn't mean you were in the wrong or can't get along with a different one.

I'll take the fact that you're harping on this personal conspiracy and unverifiable claim, as a concession to my other points.

 

[vladdy16]

What were their numbers before? Are their careers now on an upswing, as a result of playing with Vanek for those games? If their numbers are comparable, then the posted stats are meaningless noise. If they don't improve after playing with him, then who bloody cares if he made their numbers look better for a couple of weeks?

Because we didn't sign him to play for us for a couple weeks.

 

[RedMenace]

Vanek is on a 1-year deal.

He will either help, or he will not impact the team in any meaningful way.

Blocking younger players? Not being a trade chip at the deadline? Come on, now. Be serious. That's not what he was brought back to accomplish.

 

[lomekian]

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...

One - Vanek is still a highly productive player who remains excellent around the net


Also, a 4th rounder may or may not make a difference. The wings have a good record at making NHL players out oh 4th and 5th round picks. There are 4 on the roster now who would yield decent returns st the deadline, especially if we retain salary...

 

[lomekian]

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.

Not sure people are adding much long-term value. He's a good vet who will help a few of our younger players for a year, and may be able to accelerate the learning of a couple of others in areas that fit their skill sets.

He's fairly cheap, he puts up points, everyone on the team liked him last time abc he wants to be here. Plus he seems to make others play better.

The only argument against the signing that has any logic is that full on tank argument. It's not my position or the owners', management or coaches, but it is a stance

 

[lomekian]

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.

More then 1/4 of DRW's 4th & 5th round picks make the NHL with 50% of those being genuinely valuable players at some stage. Sure it's nothing to bank on, but extra picks are always useful. If we traded AA and Nike today, we'd probably get a nice return

 

[Claypool]

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.

Had teams like Buffalo, Montreal or "one goal away from the final" Ottawa not sucked so bad the Red Wings probably finish last. They only won 4 of their remaining 20 games and still couldn't out tank Buffalo.

The fact is, even without Vanek, the Red Wings are still likely finishing in the 6-10 spot next year baring a lottery win or a season-long injury to Larkin.

 

[lomekian]

Teams rave publicly to pump his tires before a trade, but the fact that a guy who is a very good depth scorer seems to never be able to spend more than a year on a team and can't return jack **** at the TDL says there's something more to the story, and again these stories aren't that old, within the last few seasons.

Or it could reflect the fact that he has always been a player that only flourishes in certain environments and has a risk attached accordingly, and his post TDL record when traded is poor.

As for whatever is speculated in 'these stories', frankly I want my hockey team to look beyond the usual NHL tittle tattle nonsense. If there is a guy who doesn't produce or is clearly lazy or who regularly falls out with teammates, then yes we should avoid them, but a couple of lingering half rumours from a few years ago that are vague as hell and appear to have only surfaced when output lagged behind salary (and let's face it, on some poorly run organisations or with rosters incompatible with Vanek's strengths) are best ignored given the NHL's propensity for fishwife gossip.

Lest we forget there were times when there were rumours (or clear evidence!) about that characters of Cleary, Shanahan, Murphy, Chelios, Hasek, Fedorov and even Yzerman.

People love making up accusations of character flaws when a player or team underachieved. And in the NHL a bad rep can follow a player for years after any hint of justification.

All we have to go on with Vanek is that everyone seeems happy to talk him up the last couple of years and he was popular with players and management here 18 months ago.

Why should we care if he pissed off some people in Montreal 6 years ago, particularly given the insanity underpinning the way they run things...

 

[njx9]

Alex Wennberg and Boone Jenner? I would say their careers are on the upswing, but we will have to see this season.

Perhaps, but both took a step back, production-wise, last year. Jenner has gone backwards for two years, now.

Their other line mate numbers are right there on the chart.....

Boone Jenner
13% of the season with can Atkinson and Dubinski
3 points

14% with Vanek and Wennberg
11 points

And so on. Those are Boone Jenner and Alex Wennbergs ES line frequency and line production splits from the entire 17-18 regular season.

Ah, my fault. I assumed that was from the point that Vanek was added, for some reason.

I'm not sure how to answer this. You think the Red Wings have adopted a consistent approach over the last 20 years? the Red Wings approached the 2017 offseason, with the same philosophy as the 1997 or 2007 off season? I'm going to say you probably don't, so your point about how we've been developing centers and d's with this philosophy is irrelevant, because there isn't a database for it.

You think the Wings have altered their development approach since 2000?

The answer to your first question is, "many". Check out the Oilers rebuild if you want to see the difference between veterans that are good for pace of play and overall development, and token veterans that can't use any level of 'character' to keep the team from going off the rails.

So you think the only thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild was not having enough Vaneks and Nielsens, and not that guys like Yakupov were poor picks? Is RNH a McDavid clone if they'd given him some mediocre, replacement-level guys to play with?

Every year, there are more than 224 new candidates for a league that has only 576 roster spots. Those are horrific odds if you're picking the field.

Sure. And yet teams find elite players just about every year. Well, most teams do. We haven't since the 90s.

Because we didn't sign him to play for us for a couple weeks.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my question, which had more to do with the effects of playing with him.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Perhaps, but both took a step back, production-wise, last year. Jenner has gone backwards for two years, now.



Ah, my fault. I assumed that was from the point that Vanek was added, for some reason.



You think the Wings have altered their development approach since 2000?



So you think the only thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild was not having enough Vaneks and Nielsens, and not that guys like Yakupov were poor picks? Is RNH a McDavid clone if they'd given him some mediocre, replacement-level guys to play with?



Sure. And yet teams find elite players just about every year. Well, most teams do. We haven't since the 90s.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to my question, which had more to do with the effects of playing with him.

I don't understand. Your reply to my quote cuts your argument to shreds more than it helps.

If Wennberg and Jenner have been falling off and declining... wouldn't the fact that both perked up right at the time that Vanek showed up mean that he's a real plus player? And if they keep it up going into this year that he was a help to their overall play beyond his time on the ice?

And the thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild is that they made god-awful picks (Yakupov), they gave their young players absolutely no support in their development and put all the failings on them and traded fantastic pieces for terrible returns. (Eberle for Strome, Hall for Larsson, etc.), and they got basically nothing out of the draft beyond their high 1sts. They made bad signings and bad trades and bad draft picks.

 

[njx9]

I don't understand. Your reply to my quote cuts your argument to shreds more than it helps.

If Wennberg and Jenner have been falling off and declining... wouldn't the fact that both perked up right at the time that Vanek showed up mean that he's a real plus player? And if they keep it up going into this year that he was a help to their overall play beyond his time on the ice?

This was my post:

What were their numbers before? Are their careers now on an upswing, as a result of playing with Vanek for those games? If their numbers are comparable, then the posted stats are meaningless noise. If they don't improve after playing with him, then who bloody cares if he made their numbers look better for a couple of weeks?

So yes - if they both flip back to those 50+ point seasons (and away from 2 30ish point seasons for Jenner especially), then I'd see an argument for Vanek really being a developmental help.

If Jenner struggles along to another 30-40 point outing, then whatever bump he got from playing with Vanek, clearly had no real affect on his actual ability as a player, in which case Vanek is a great add for a team trying to contend (bump your players' production up), but isn't useful for the development of young players (the effects disappear as soon as he does).

And the thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild is that they made god-awful picks (Yakupov), they gave their young players absolutely no support in their development and put all the failings on them and traded fantastic pieces for terrible returns. (Eberle for Strome, Hall for Larsson, etc.), and they got basically nothing out of the draft beyond their high 1sts. They made bad signings and bad trades and bad draft picks.

Absolutely agree. I think it's disingenuous when people point at the Oilers as "this is why we need XX vets on the team!!!" because that's not really why they failed, or at least, it's certainly not the *only* reason they failed.

I'm surprised more people don't point to the positive example of Toronto, on both sides of the argument, other than that they did some of what everyone wants, rather than all of what one side wants.

 

[lomekian]

Some posters could do with remembering that not all options are binary choices. Something they doesn't cure all ills isn't necessarily negative. Most things are positive in some ways and negative in others.

Although the above isn't aimed at njx9, in responding to the post above, it is clear the Wings policy and development has changed since 2000. To imply it isn't cannot be taken seriously. Would we have a potential top line of Larkin, Mantha, Bertizzi/Zadina in 2000? Would we giving games to 2-4 rookies every year? Would we be looking st maybe 4 players from the last 3 drafts pushing for high end roster places? Would we be playing kids on the top 2 lines in the NHL before they have been dominant in the AHL? Would we be trading away roster players for picks? Were we even remotely as interested and active in the day to day of our AHL affiliate? Did we have specialised development staff in place?

Many of these changes may just be a reflection of the new realities of our situation but there are still changes....

 

[lomekian]

This was my post:



So yes - if they both flip back to those 50+ point seasons (and away from 2 30ish point seasons for Jenner especially), then I'd see an argument for Vanek really being a developmental help.

If Jenner struggles along to another 30-40 point outing, then whatever bump he got from playing with Vanek, clearly had no real affect on his actual ability as a player, in which case Vanek is a great add for a team trying to contend (bump your players' production up), but isn't useful for the development of young players (the effects disappear as soon as he does).



Absolutely agree. I think it's disingenuous when people point at the Oilers as "this is why we need XX vets on the team!!!" because that's not really why they failed, or at least, it's certainly not the *only* reason they failed.

I'm surprised more people don't point to the positive example of Toronto, on both sides of the argument, other than that they did some of what everyone wants, rather than all of what one side wants.

Ultimately what it comes down to is that there are a variety of approaches, but their success or failure is dependent on how they are implemented.

The Oilers made bad picks, traded badly and retained vets who were the essence of mediocrity. Toronto have drafted better, traded better and made better choices about who to keep when rebuilding.

Likewise, the 'rebuild on the fly' was harder to do well, but management made crucial mistakes between 2009 & 2015 that prevented a process strategically wasn't a million miles off from being successful.

Of course, with hindsight, every franchise would do things differently.

 

[njx9]

S
Although the above isn't aimed at njx9, in responding to the post above, it is clear the Wings policy and development has changed since 2000. To imply it isn't cannot be taken seriously. Would we have a potential top line of Larkin, Mantha, Bertizzi/Zadina in 2000? Would we giving games to 2-4 rookies every year?

Last year, Larkin and Mantha were the only young players to get significant minutes, surrounded by Z, Nyquist, Abbie, Nielsen, Helm, etc. In 2000, the last Red Wings top 20 pick, Martin LaPointe, was getting the 5th most minutes on the team.

In 2000, 5 players under 24 played games.3 of them played more than 25 games. So... Yes. We would/were.

Would we be looking st maybe 4 players from the last 3 drafts pushing for high end roster places?

Like Dandenault, Fischer the following year (along with Datsyuk), and Bykov and Z the year after?

Would we be playing kids on the top 2 lines in the NHL before they have been dominant in the AHL?

Are we doing that now?

Would we be trading away roster players for picks?

This has absolutely nothing to do with development.

Were we even remotely as interested and active in the day to day of our AHL affiliate?

I have no idea what you think this means.

Did we have specialised development staff in place?

Do we have one now? Is it even vaguely effective?

Many of these changes may just be a reflection of the new realities of our situation but there are still changes....

I don't buy it. Most of these are things that were happening in the past, though as a consequence of having no top 20 picks, they were probably happening less frequently. That has nothing to do with whether or not we're developing lower round players/defensemen in an effective way.

 

[Pavels Dog]

So you think the only thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild was not having enough Vaneks and Nielsens, and not that guys like Yakupov were poor picks? Is RNH a McDavid clone if they'd given him some mediocre, replacement-level guys to play with?

You can't teach young players too many good habits. Nothing matters if you don't make good draft picks, that doesn't mean good draft picks leads to automatic great team and perennial contention.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Ultimately what it comes down to is that there are a variety of approaches, but their success or failure is dependent on how they are implemented.

The Oilers made bad picks, traded badly and retained vets who were the essence of mediocrity. Toronto have drafted better, traded better and made better choices about who to keep when rebuilding.

Likewise, the 'rebuild on the fly' was harder to do well, but management made crucial mistakes between 2009 & 2015 that prevented a process strategically wasn't a million miles off from being successful.

Of course, with hindsight, every franchise would do things differently.

Yep. If Stephen Weiss's groin didn't explode and bomb him out of the league at 30 (which is actually crazy) they don't sign Nielsen because they don't need a replacement for Datsyuk.
If Jiri Fischer's heart doesn't almost explode during the game, he'd have been a top pairing D with Kronner when Lidstrom was retiring, so it wouldn't have been Suter or bust.
If the Wings don't waste money and buyouts on Jordin Tootoo and Carlo Colaiacovo and Mikael Samuelsson, they don't dive so hard.

Hell, if those two unexpected injuries don't happen... maybe we aren't riding old Z and old Kronner so hard so they're not complete shells of their former selves/retirement ready yet. Hell, with Fisch in tow, the Wings don't feel a need to deal their 2012 1st rounder for Quincey. Maybe we get Vasilevsky or Maatta or similar and we have another really strong piece of our team.

Now, don't get me wrong. Wings management made awful pick after awful pick up high. Roman Josi over Tom McCollum would have gone a long long way, for instance. Ryan O'Reilly over Landon Ferraro. The only reason they puttered around the middle of the league for so long is they did so well in getting okay hockey players in the mid rounds (Franzen, Fil, Hudler, Tatar, Nyquist, Mrazek, etc.)

 

[vladdy16]

You think the Wings have altered their development approach since 2000?

Drastically of course. 2000 was pre-cap era, and pre-dated the notorious "overripe" philosophy that itself is in the rear view.

Pre-cap/golden age Red Wings took a pretty hands off approach to development. They weren't going to have high picks, but they had all the time in the world to reload elsewhere if needed, so they could afford to spend all their picks on less than NHL ready talents, and over the course of time wait for a few of them to develop completely and emerge as elite players.

These days the Red Wings are swinging to the opposite pole, and are relying on strict in house development, with guys like Horcoff, Fischer, Cleary, Draper etc, littered through the ranks, curating players that have been targeted for specific roles on specific timelines. They have 3 extremely young centers that have top of the draft pedigrees, that they have to make sure complete the transition from blue chip young forward, to complete NHL center. The entire future of the organization will be determined by the effectiveness of the Red Wings development approach in the post-Babcock era.

So you think the only thing that foiled the Oilers rebuild was not having enough Vaneks and Nielsens, and ntot that guys like Yakupov were poor picks? Is RNH a McDavid clone if they'd given him some mediocre, replacement-level guys to play with?

That's a false dichotomy, so no I don't think that specifically. Obviously the failures that lead to that level of ineptitude are various.

Could RNH potentially be a little more potent on offense and more of a gamebreaking force, if he had spent his early years on the wing of someone like Zetterberg, finding his offense, and playing an otherwise limited role, instead of spearheading a broken team as a teenager, fighting an uphill battle to keep the other team off the scoreboard, playing 20 minutes a game, and probably spending more time in ice baths than the gym? Yeah, I feel like RNH is a great example, whether it actually applies to him or not, of how scouts may be right on a guy, he might have what it takes internally, but still situationally/environmentally things don't go right.

Other times scouts simply overrate players, or players fail themselves somehow. I don't follow Yakupov or RNH closely enough to have a theory as to which one of those 3 categories they fall in mainly. I do know that the difficulties that Edmonton had with their rebuild resulted in an environment that couldn't possibly be ideal for player development.

Reducing established NHL talent to "mediocre" or "replacement level", is misleading and counter productive imo. The skillset and actual aptitude of replacement level players varies to a huge degree, and the implication of the term is much different in the NHL than it is in MLB. To me, this highlights one of my main points, which is how truly risky it gets in hockey, once you take to rooting around in a pool of literally hundreds and hundreds of potential candidates.

The skillset an established NHL veteran presents, vs a semi-pro journeymen or teenager... it takes time to develop either way. Guys that can have a positive impact on your team out of the box are extremely few and far between and are almost exclusively NHL vets. It's way harder to translate performance in europe, juniors, college or semi-pro, into sustained performance in the NHL, than it is to translate the performance of a player in AAA with a WAR of 4.3 or whatever.

Sure. And yet teams find elite players just about every year. Well, most teams do. We haven't since the 90s.

I don't think you could back up the claim that most teams find elite players just about every year. The league would be teeming with elite players if that were the case.

And even more rare is it that an unheralded prospect or journeymen accidentally finds his way to a roster spot and blows everyone mind, which is more to the point of this specific discussion.

And I don't think the Red Wings draft record in the 90's or any era is all that impressive. They drafted more elite players in 1989 than any other combined decade. Which again, I think really drives home the point how fruitless the landscape gets once you leave the top few hundred players in the world, whose ages range from 18-42

 

[ShelbyZ]

If Jiri Fischer's heart doesn't almost explode during the game, he'd have been a top pairing D with Kronner when Lidstrom was retiring, so it wouldn't have been Suter or bust.

Hell, with Fisch in tow, the Wings don't feel a need to deal their 2012 1st rounder for Quincey. Maybe we get Vasilevsky or Maatta or similar and we have another really strong piece of our team.

An interesting take, but I don't think a healthy Fischer really would've had any effect on the Lidstrom/Suter debacle. Considering they still would've lost Rafalski and then Lidstrom, they probably still would've gone after a top pairing Dman when Suter hit the UFA market.

IMO, A healthy Fischer probably means no Markov in 06-07 and then no Stuart trade in 07-08, which obviously would've given them back a 2nd in 08 and a 4th in 09.

The Quincey deal would be a toss up.

IIRC, at the time of the Quincey deal, the Red Wings already seemed pretty confident that they had Suter in the bag to replace Lidstrom. The factors in acquiring Quincey were them already anticipating the loss of Stuart to free agency due to his family situation (which obviously would've been negated if a healthy Fischer meant no Stuart trade), and there was also them wanting immediate depth because Babcock didn't want to use Kindl or Commodore on the 3rd pairing. Given the 3rd pairing depth issue, maybe they instead go with a rental since Fischer would be in tow and they may not have the cap flexibility to re-sign Quincey as an RFA. Then again, Holland wasted little time giving the cap space from the departing Stuart and then some to the combination of Samuelsson, Colaiacovo, Tootoo and Gustavsson, and re-signing Quincey, so maybe they do still make the Quincey trade...

 

[ShelbyZ]

I have a feeling Vanek is going to end up not moving at the deadline and spends more time in Detroit than just this season. Look at it this way:

>Aging forward who used to be elite, but can still provide some secondary scoring
>Some past baggage or whatever keeps him from getting interest or long term deals from other teams in the league
>Was bought out after under performing in what was looked at as a favorable situation/destination
>Played for the Red Wings and then returned due to mutual interest

Sound familiar? It should...

I see Vanek becoming Todd Bertuzzi 2.0.

As long as he wants to stay here and provides some offense, the Red Wings probably extend him on 1 or 2 year deals as an insurance policy to provide some offense while they lose productive guys (IE Zetterberg, Nyquist, Kronwall) and their young guys grow to fill those vacated roles and/or become core players.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I don't think you could back up the claim that most teams find elite players just about every year. The league would be teeming with elite players if that were the case.

It's the classic case of taking the other 30 teams combined and judging them against us. Of course the field wins most of the time.

 

[njx9]

It's the classic case of taking the other 30 teams combined and judging them against us. Of course the field wins most of the time.

It really, really isn't, but I'm not surprised that you want to pretend that it is.