Forked from: Ryan Kesler
This is EXACTLY why I don't get it when people defend the Sabres' FO. We pay Vanek $6.4 million a year and Pominville $4.5 million a year. They lock up Kesler for $4.9 a year. There are numerous teams around the NHL that manage to retain talent for a good price. Meanwhile, the Sabres either let their talent walk, or overpay them so we don't have cap space to put pieces around them.Originally Posted by DMBcrew36
Unfortunately, the Sabres got scammed into the Vanek deal by Edmonton. In hindsight, those draft picks look like Gold/Platinum compared to Vanek and his contract, but what can you do? Regier obviously, too, stated that he needed to sign the offer sheet in order to send a loud message to the league against poaching Sabres RFAs.
But yeah, the Kesler deal looks like an absolute steal.
Last edited by DMBcrew36; 03-19-2010 at 01:19 PM.
The Vanek deal is awful unless he all of a sudden starts turning in 40 goal seasons consistely, but I agree with DMB, Darcy was put in an awful situation with that one and hindsight is always 20/20.
I don't necessarily agree with the hindsight argument. First, if we could have kept either Briere OR Drury, then we could have let Vanek walk. Second, it should have been clear at the time that his salary isn't worth it even if he does score 40 goals a year.
I can kind of see the "sending a message" argument, but is a message worth hosing your cap for 7 years?
It's just my opinion that they were going to let Drury and Briere walk no matter what. They were both getting older and while the Sabres were very good, they weren't even good enough to get to the Cup with those guys. Looking back at it, we'd be killing the Sabres FO if they paid those guys for what they are doing with the Rangers and Flyers right now. They are awful and both teams would kill to get out of those deals.
At the time Vanek got his deal, it was still conceivable that he might live up to it. Knowing what we know now (which is what he is only a slightly above average player), Regier definitely would have agreed it wasn't worth screwing our cap for 7 yrs. He gambled and lost (unless Vanek tears it up in the remaining years). Maybe Vanek just needs a better centre?
Last edited by DMBcrew36; 03-19-2010 at 01:51 PM.
In the case of Briere, his only success has been in Buffalo. I wonder if he was perfect for Lindy's system and that's why he excelled here. At any rate, I don't buy the assumption that he would have declined at the same rate if he he had left.
More importantly, what's the point of a half-assed breakdown? If the FO was convinced that the current team couldn't win the Cup after '06-'07, why not just let Vanek walk too? $6.4 million a season is a steep price to keep perhaps the fifth or sixth most important component to the Sabres' success that year.
You mean like he was until this season?
If he has consecutive bad years then I agree with you but until then I am not going to freak out.
I of course agree his contract is bunk but doesn't it actually go down as the years progress? I know the first 2 were at like 10 mil and they gradually go down.
I would EASILY rather have Vanek and his bad contract over Drury or Briere's EVEN WORSE contracts.....
Unfortunately, Vanek has not been a 40 goal scorer until this season. Through 4 complete career seasons, Vanek has only scored 40 twice, which means he's at 50%. He's highly unlikely to hit 40 this season, so he's soon to be at 40%.
He shouldn't be counted as a 40 goal scorer if he can only do it 40% of the time.
The salary goes down but the cap hit remains the same throughout the duration of his contract.
It wasn't hindsight for all of us .....
"It is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error." -- Martin Luther
"Those who appease the crocodile will simply be eaten last." -- Winston Churchill
2003 BZ Pick Em Champion
2004 BZ Big Money League Champion
I would throw out his rookie Season( I suppose that is up to you)
With that said it is 2 out of 3, with the third being a 36 goal campaign.
I agree this year is Not acceptable but I don't hate Vanek.
we made it to game 7 of the conference finals with a injured and diminished line up with rookie D-men that haven't played a minute of Playoff hockey in teh NHL let alone conference finals.
as for the F.O. message, Edmonton is laughing now.
Well, sortof. They are certainly thanking God we matched their offer for Vanek, but they definitely can't be laughing too hard considering they're the worst team in the league and were the first team eliminated from playoff contention - by the Toronto Maple Leafs, LOL
Last edited by DMBcrew36; 03-19-2010 at 11:34 PM.
Time will tell on Vanek. I agree with Thurm, it's too soon to dismiss him after one 'down' year. And he still has plenty of time this year and during the playoffs to come up big so I'm not ready to be disappointed with him yet.
I think a lot of people look at Scott Gomez and say... how overrated... how overpaid... well...
Scott Gomez $51.5 mill/7 yr.... or $7.35 mill/yr
.... .76 points per game
67gp, 12g, 39a, 51pts,
-1
compared with Vanek @ $7 mill/yr
64gp, 23g, 22a, 45pts, 6
... .70 points per game
Quinn stated just after Drury signed with the Rangers that the Sabres will willing and wanted to sign him for whatever anybody else offered him. Drury is who Quinn singled out as our necessity and Drury didn't like how the Sabres front office conducted its business in some ways. After what Brier got in arbitration, there was no way we sign him.
Gomez is more of a playmaker and never been a scorer. Vanek has always been a scorer and not much of a playmaker. You need both, but most people will take a scorer over a playmaker.
Yeah - I just think they're both overpaid.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
