Would you want Vanek back ??

[Skooby]

Well would you ??

[rbochan]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Perhaps on the 4th line. At league minimum salary.


Other than that, **** no.

[OpIv37]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

No. He's not a leader and he's inconsistent.

[The Jokeman]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Well would you ??

He's past his prime and not the goal scorer he used to be. He's still a top 6 forward but don't think he brings us what we need. As to me we need a winger with a little grit who can also get a goal when needed. Chris Stewart fits the mold but he never did that in his time here. Chris Kunitz be a nice guy to fit the spot and don't think it cost much to get him away from Pittsburgh. but at 35 he might be too old.

[JATMtheJATM]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Yes. Vanek isn't what he once was, but the sabres need wingers (vaneks natural position is LW) but he's also played stretches at RW and actually played well.

I'm talking about his stint in buffalo, nothing beyond that.

[coastal]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Yes. Vanek isn't what he once was, but the sabres need wingers (vaneks natural position is LW) but he's also played stretches at RW and actually played well.

I'm talking about his stint in buffalo, nothing beyond that.

Maybe we can put him on a line with Hodgson

[JATMtheJATM]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Maybe we can put him on a line with Hodgson

well, youd see hodgsons production hop back up to where it was.

[coastal]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

well, youd see hodgsons production hop back up to where it was.

Sure thing

[Shady25]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Shady would love Vanek back, he was a very poor gambler. Shady made quite a bit of money off of his poor bets.

[Downinfloflo]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

Vanek??

Why?, why?, What?

[Ingtar33]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

in a heartbeat. we need people who can put the puck in the net. Vanek can do that. We were hands down the worst offensive team in the league last year. adding vanek would be a nice boost to our power play, give us a solid goal scorer in front of the net, and add some talent on the wing (currently we have none). with all the center talent we have in the system, some goal scoring on the wings would be nice.

[mightysimi]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

in a heartbeat. we need people who can put the puck in the net. Vanek can do that. We were hands down the worst offensive team in the league last year. adding vanek would be a nice boost to our power play, give us a solid goal scorer in front of the net, and add some talent on the wing (currently we have none). with all the center talent we have in the system, some goal scoring on the wings would be nice.

At some point all of these prospects need to play in order to improve. Whose spot does he take in the line up?

[mightysimi]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

well, youd see hodgsons production hop back up to where it was.

You can only dream it hops back up to 45 points and -26. Lol. He might improve but he seems to be such a head case.

[JATMtheJATM]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

You can only dream it hops back up to 45 points and -26. Lol. He might improve but he seems to be such a head case.

hey, hed be back among the team leaders!

[OpIv37]

Re: Would you want Vanek back ??

in a heartbeat. we need people who can put the puck in the net. Vanek can do that. We were hands down the worst offensive team in the league last year. adding vanek would be a nice boost to our power play, give us a solid goal scorer in front of the net, and add some talent on the wing (currently we have none). with all the center talent we have in the system, some goal scoring on the wings would be nice.

No, Vanek can't put the puck in the back of the net. One of the reasons why we are in this situation is because Darcy thought he could and tried to build a team around him, Roy and Pominville.

Vanek's good on the PP- especially in front of the net. I'll give you that. But he is not a reliable goal scorer and is overpriced for his production.