|
Post by Cranky on May 31, 2014 13:55:04 GMT -5
No injury! So much for that excuse!
Apparently, mr. Vanish is blaming his piss poor performance on chemistry on the fourth line. Obviously he forgot to add why he was there.
Don't want him on the habs and will get really annoyed if MB offer him acontract. Let's face it, he isn't going to get any more heart snd he certainly not going to get younger.
Buh bye....
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 31, 2014 14:37:19 GMT -5
I would offer him 5 years and $30 million. I'm sure that won't be the best offer, although I might offer him a 6th year if that would win the deal.
The window is now. Subban, Price, Pacioretty, DD are all in their prime. Gallagher is probably about at his ceiling. The only guys upfront with upside are Galchenyuk and Elller and there are still serious questions about Eller.
We need production and Vanek gives us that. We were a weak offensive team all year before we got him and the ripple effect on the rest of the lineup was huge.
Sign him and then use some other trade chips to acquire another top 6 forward.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 31, 2014 15:24:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a sniper…..like we did with Ryder so many times.
We DID become a different team when Vanek came on board.
Many here were shouting at MT to put him back with DD and Max during the Rangers' series. But he didn't.
He's never been a grinding forward…..but he has a nose for the net, given the right line mates who can get him the puck.
Perhaps MT should be taking some of the heat for Vanek's Round 3 performance.
=====================================================
Then again….it's all about "character" with MB. If he determines that Vanek is lacking in the heart/desire department….then it's goodbye…and rightly so.
Look for more Weise-types. Chicago is thriving on guys like Bickell, Shaw, and Saad.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 31, 2014 16:48:39 GMT -5
Dont want him. He was supposed to be bruin killer. Weise was a bruin killer at 1/7th the cost.... you can't buy heart
buh bye...
|
|
|
Post by Disp on May 31, 2014 16:51:58 GMT -5
No injury? No thanks. He was a total dog until game 6 when he finally had some jump. Don't need that kind of mentality in the room.
|
|
|
Post by duster on May 31, 2014 17:39:08 GMT -5
I'd offer him $36 million over 6 years with a lot of the money paid out in the first three years or so and see what he says. Although he's not perfect, he's the Habs best shot at a true bonafide sniper. He's been pretty consistent throughout his career so he likely would have been the team's top scorer over a full season. The Habs have absolutely no one in the system that has his scoring ability and you need to draft in the top 5 to get a crack at someone of his talent level. Trying to trade later for someone of his attributes will probably cost a lot more than two second rounders. He's no bigger risk than PK at +$8 million, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 31, 2014 18:07:48 GMT -5
If PK is at 8/64 then Vanish is at 5/25.
It's about the cups....and if we need him to get to the playoffs, or make it easier, we are NOT cup contenders. Heck, no single player can make the difference between marginal playoff team and contender. Not even Bobby Orr.
Anywho...given MB slant for character, he's not going to offer the bank. More like 6/30 and a plane ticket. Choose.
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 31, 2014 18:12:49 GMT -5
If not Vanek, then it has to be someone else. Heck, they should be looking at a Vanek AND, not just a Vanek. Sign him, put him back with DMV, and play him.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 31, 2014 18:14:39 GMT -5
I would offer him 5 years and $30 million. I'm sure that won't be the best offer, although I might offer him a 6th year if that would win the deal. The window is now. Subban, Price, Pacioretty, DD are all in their prime. Gallagher is probably about at his ceiling. The only guys upfront with upside are Galchenyuk and Elller and there are still serious questions about Eller. We need production and Vanek gives us that. We were a weak offensive team all year before we got him and the ripple effect on the rest of the lineup was huge. Sign him and then use some other trade chips to acquire another top 6 forward. ^^^^ Pretty tough to acquire a guy who can score (at least in the regular season) without giving up anything. I think $6mm is max, though. He doesn't score enough to warrant elite forward pay, without raising his game in the playoffs, which he didn't do this year. But I don't think anything less than $6M, especially with Quebec's tax structure, will do it. Even that probably won't be enough, but it's a stab at him and maybe his performance turns other teams off too. We became a different team when he, Weaver and Weise joined us. Much more difficult to play against and I still don't think Vanek has found the right linemates, so there's still hope. Yeah, I'd make that offer, but really wouldn't want to go much higher. Gionta's contract alone almost covers that.
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 31, 2014 18:30:00 GMT -5
When the cameras focused on him during a game he never once looked like a sulking player. He may not have copped to an injury, but he looked like he was laboring for much of the Boston series and the first 4 games of the Rangers. IMO, he never looked like he was dogging it. He looked like he was laboring. There are lots of people, even after it's over, who won't admit to an injury because they don't want to use it as an excuse.
If he was completely healthy, I blame Therrien for not once putting him back with DMV after the start of the Bruins series. From game one of the second round, Vanek was moved off that line. For 13 games, MT juggled other lines, but not once - for a shift, period, etc - did he put his best line since the trade deadline back together. IMO, that's a huge tactical error worthy of as much scorn as the 10 points in 17 games Vanek got.
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on May 31, 2014 18:54:09 GMT -5
Habs won't get him for less than 7 per, even if they wanted too. He turned down 7 years, 49 million from the Isles prior to being dealt again, and you can bet bottom dollar that offer is still on the table for him. Imagine the face saving move it would be for Garth Snow if he can get Vanek back for free after dealing him for Collberg and a 2nd entry.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 31, 2014 20:47:38 GMT -5
Briere. a playoff man who played less than 10 minutes a game.
Vanek. a sniper who played on the fourth line.
I'm back to coach-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 31, 2014 21:12:21 GMT -5
I said yes, even at 7 million.
I couldn't stand the guy in the playoffs, but fact is, we need offense.
He'll still be a topline player for at least half of that contract, and a serviceable top 9 for the rest.
I hate it, but we can't let that kind of talent go.
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 31, 2014 21:26:49 GMT -5
Vanek-DD-Pacioretty UFA/trade-Galchenyuk-Gallagher
We need to balance off that top 6. It will make it harder to check Vanek and co in the regular season and the playoffs. Vanek goes a long way to stabilizing offense, but he can't be the only one. Whether it's simply moving Gionta's money, or that AND trading Plekanec, there needs to be additions going forward.
DLR might have a good camp, but he's not touted as an offensive dynamo. IMO, he's a guy who slots in, eventually, on a third line with Eller. Speed, checking, turnovers, some offense, but not a go-to line. IMO, he needs to play a year or more in Hamilton.
If the goal is truly to get to 240 goals (or as close as possible), Vanek is a key part of that.
30-20-35/40=85-90 25/30-20-20=65-70
That needs to come from the top 6.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 1, 2014 0:38:25 GMT -5
The combo I really want to see is Vanek with Galchenyuk at C... with one line with Pacioretty and the other Vanek, we're a tough team to check, especially in the regular season. In the playoffs, when guys go hot and cold all the time, it's a while new ball game...
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 1, 2014 7:11:37 GMT -5
Have we forgotten about Gomezitis disease?
Those who advocate for him, how much damage can he do if he turns out to be very expensive 6 year dud? Sure, he has a decent track record, but he is also looking at his last contract....and who cares afterward.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 1, 2014 7:31:56 GMT -5
Have we forgotten about Gomezitis disease? Those who advocate for him, how much damage can he do if he turns out to be very expensive 6 year dud? Sure, he has a decent track record, but he is also looking at his last contract....and who cares afterward. a risk you take with every FA signing. Question 1: do we want to get better? Question 2: will he make us better? Question 3: if not him, then who? Gainey and Mad Mike are no longer GMs; it's a lot harder to fleece someone. I'm not advocating for him; I'm advocating for improvement. show me the Cup.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 1, 2014 8:31:42 GMT -5
I said yes but at a lower number - more like 5. Problem is that, as someone posted, he already turned down a huge offer from the Isles.
The last time he scored 40 was 2009. Since then he's in the 28-32 range with the anomaly being the lockout year where he scored 20. I find it difficult to project that he would have scored at the same pace for an entire season after watching him with the Habs. Seven million is a lot of money for that kind of production. The one thing I can say about him is that he is durable. His GP total is always in the seventies or above. That's another reason I don't think he was hurt in the playoffs.
His playoff numbers are 30 pts. in 53 games - about .56 points per game. And he can blame chemistry all he wants but for about the last 6 games of the playoffs he was barely averaging one shot per game.
I understand the need for regular season scoring. These guys can win games and push a team up in the standings but IMO, what's the use if they disappear in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 1, 2014 8:45:07 GMT -5
Habs won't get him for less than 7 per, even if they wanted too. He turned down 7 years, 49 million from the Isles prior to being dealt again, and you can bet bottom dollar that offer is still on the table for him. Imagine the face saving move it would be for Garth Snow if he can get Vanek back for free after dealing him for Collberg and a 2nd entry. Gidday Roggy ... this is a tough call ... BH pointed out that our offense was anemic before Vanek came along ... but he showed up sporadically in the playoffs and blamed it on his 4th-line duty ... my question is, why provide a lame excuse for his spotty play ... is the excuse a one-time thing or is he just not used to the playoffs ... #toughcallCheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 1, 2014 8:58:36 GMT -5
Briere. a playoff man who played less than 10 minutes a game. Vanek. a sniper who played on the fourth line. I'm back to coach-bashing. That's what MB has to weigh, IMO. Was Vanek, first and foremost, used properly in the playoffs? Or does he, in fact, lack the heart/desire/character MB wants? IMO, Vanek is ticked at the confidence shown in him. VANEK VIDEOWhen I first got moved here….I played a few games, struggled….then I got moved to Davey and Patch, I really found myself. I think I was put in a position to do well. Then once I got moved, I struggled to find chemistry. This game is all about chemistry and confidence…and I slowly lost it….Seeing as players temper their true feelings on-camera, I think he more than tipped his hand. He may not want to play for Therrien going forward….or Therrien may not like a player more or less saying it was a coaching error to move him to the fourth line. I'd really like to be know how these players feel about MT and his decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 1, 2014 9:38:49 GMT -5
Briere. a playoff man who played less than 10 minutes a game. Vanek. a sniper who played on the fourth line. I'm back to coach-bashing. That's what MB has to weigh, IMO. Was Vanek, first and foremost, used properly in the playoffs? Or does he, in fact, lack the heart/desire/character MB wants? IMO, Vanek is ticked at the confidence shown in him. VANEK VIDEOWhen I first got moved here….I played a few games, struggled….then I got moved to Davey and Patch, I really found myself. I think I was put in a position to do well. Then once I got moved, I struggled to find chemistry. This game is all about chemistry and confidence…and I slowly lost it….Seeing as players temper their true feelings on-camera, I think he more than tipped his hand. He may not want to play for Therrien going forward….or Therrien may not like a player more or less saying it was a coaching error to move him to the fourth line. I'd really like to be know how these players feel about MT and his decisions. I think it's tough to play Vanek and Briere types 5 on 5. Unless you can insulate them with more well rounded players, or match lines, you're flirting with disaster every time they're on the ice. During the playoffs this gets magnified. You're playing against the top of the league. If we want to go anywhere we have to move past these one dimensional types. I think we have enough already. There is better ways to use the Vanek money.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Jun 1, 2014 10:28:08 GMT -5
The smartest move would probably be to trade for a high end prospect whose development has stalled (like Nino Niederreiter last year, or Turris the year before). We don't absolutely need a natural sniper. Pacioretty was a passer when he was a prospect but he has learned to become a shooter. I like the idea of developing a shooter rather than buying one. My target right now would be Emerson Etem from Anaheim.
With a player like Vanek, if you sign him for 6 years he may only give you 3 good ones. If there are no other options, I would reluctantly sign him to a contract and trade him at the deadline in one of his good years, when his value is high. We just need some scoring to bridge the gap until we have some developed talent ready to jump up.
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jun 1, 2014 11:36:30 GMT -5
If PK is at 8/64 then Vanish is at 5/25. It's about the cups....and if we need him to get to the playoffs, or make it easier, we are NOT cup contenders. Heck, no single player can make the difference between marginal playoff team and contender. Not even Bobby Orr. Anywho...given MB slant for character, he's not going to offer the bank. More like 6/30 and a plane ticket. Choose. So you agree that at the right price you would keep him? While I wasn't a great fan of his work in the playoffs, his production in the regular season was great enough for some of us to contemplate breaking the bank. I can't argue that he was put in a position to fail. Game 6, empty net, we need ONE goal to lift the team and go to overtime, so MT leaves the one guy who consistently got us that BIG goal, the one MB went out and paid $4M a year for two years to do this EXACT job, on the bench. Yet Pleky, a guy who hard a horrible playoff, was on the ice. A guy who couldn't buy a face-off win.
|
|
|
Post by del on Jun 1, 2014 11:48:58 GMT -5
I would put an offer of 6 yrs @ 5 million - this won't do it, but it's not going to make much difference anyways.
IF we really want to keep Vanek, we would have to offer the moon and the man in it , an offer so great that both he and his wife would agree that to refuse would be stupid. But I think there are two obstacles in the way no matter what the offer:
1 - Minnesota connection with wife and family - Vanek seems convinced he wants Minny, at least to me, so any offer of term and money is a moot point.
2 - Therrien - now that Vanek has had a taste of Therrien's stupidity and witnessed his lack of coaching acumen, I highly doubt Vanek wants to return to a scenario featuring Therrien's abuse that can now be easily avoided by walking away. Which is exactly what he'll do. There are better coaches he can play for.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 1, 2014 12:02:59 GMT -5
2 - Therrien - now that Vanek has had a taste of Therrien's stupidity and witnessed his lack of coaching acumen, I highly doubt Vanek wants to return to a scenario featuring Therrien's abuse that can now be easily avoided by walking away. Which is exactly what he'll do. There are better coaches he can play for. This is the big question for me, too, Del. If being turfed to the 4th line during a playoff run where scoring was at a premium isn't a clear indication of future treatment, I don't know what is. It's obvious from his remarks that it's not sitting well. Add on the Montreal Media Microscope and he may think he's in for a whole bunch of hassle with the Habs. He's not a Gallagher/Weise type of player. He never has been. If we want his goals and assists, then MB and MT are going to have to buffer him with the right people. He may ask for the moon in Montreal….then settle for a meteorite in Minny. That would make it crystal clear he wasn't happy with MT.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 1, 2014 13:11:43 GMT -5
This is the big question for me, too, Del. If being turfed to the 4th line during a playoff run where scoring was at a premium isn't a clear indication of future treatment, I don't know what is. It's obvious from his remarks that it's not sitting well. He may ask for the moon in Montreal….then settle for a meteorite in Minny. That would make it crystal clear he wasn't happy with MT. I'm not usually a Therrien supporter, but if you were in his shoes and your highest regarded offensive player was playing like Vanek was, was not contributing in ways other than scoring, and looked as disinterested as he did some times, what are your options? Do you keep him on the top 2 lines and possibly incur the wrath of the players for rewarding a guy who deserves some consequences? Now, in MT's shoes, I'd probably have had several heart to hearts with the guy ---"We need your scoring, Thomas, and we're not getting it. The team needs what you can bring, in order to win the cup, so if you're not giving it everything you've got, you're hurting DD and Max and PK, etc etc. You have to work on the damage to the team, because that's who players play for. Then you hope it turns him around. If not, then reduction of ice time is all you have left. Did MT have discussions? I'd guess yes. What form did they take? That's where you want to be a fly on the wall. If MT regressed to his past intimidation form, that could easily explain a player falling even further off the map. But I don't know what was discussed or how. So this doesn't add anything to the question of whether or not an effort should be made to sign Vanek. MT will know, of course. But Berg may not, unless he sat in on the talk.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 1, 2014 13:42:12 GMT -5
You can sense the frustration in Vanek's comments that he struggled to find chemistry once he was taken off the line with DD and Patches. Makes you think he might just feel that Montreal isn't the perfect fit for him, even if we do offer him the best deal.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 1, 2014 14:03:35 GMT -5
Two tidbits from Elliotte Friedman's blog: 15. Pretty interesting hearing David Desharnais and Max Pacioretty talk about how much they had to adjust their games to play with Thomas Vanek. Desharnais said that when he played with Brendan Gallagher, you had to go support him when the winger got the puck in the corner. Vanek wants the opposite. "The farther we can spread teams out," he said, "The more success we will have." Desharnais also had to get used to carrying the puck less and driving to the net more, because Vanek likes to carry it, too. 16. "I've never seen anyone make the decisions [Vanek] makes," Pacioretty added. "He's basically thinking, 'What do guys think I'm going to do with the puck right now?' and he does the opposite of it." Pacioretty said Vanek is making him re-think how he plays the game. "One thing that really sticks out is he said to never have your stick on the ice in front of the net, because the d-man can tie it up. He's always hanging around with his stick in the air, and instead of putting it on the ice and waiting for a tip, he kind of slaps at it when the puck comes...You get more speed on it." www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2014/04/30-thoughts-players-cant-be-boss-of-nhl-teams.html
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 1, 2014 14:10:23 GMT -5
I would put an offer of 6 yrs @ 5 million - this won't do it, but it's not going to make much difference anyways. IF we really want to keep Vanek, we would have to offer the moon and the man in it , an offer so great that both he and his wife would agree that to refuse would be stupid. But I think there are two obstacles in the way no matter what the offer: 1 - Minnesota connection with wife and family - Vanek seems convinced he wants Minny, at least to me, so any offer of term and money is a moot point. 2 - Therrien - now that Vanek has had a taste of Therrien's stupidity and witnessed his lack of coaching acumen, I highly doubt Vanek wants to return to a scenario featuring Therrien's abuse that can now be easily avoided by walking away. Which is exactly what he'll do. There are better coaches he can play for. This pretty well sums it up from Vanek's perspective. Go to a place where he can be happy with his family and get away from MT. Say bye-bye. My hope when we first got him was that he would enjoy the Mtl experience and it could play into his European roots so he would sign as a FA. He seemed to be impressed a the outset. A great playoff run would want him to return to finish the work and be part of Mtl insanity with a Cup. But that all backfired, whether due to MT or Vanek's play. The last month has no doubt been an awful experience for Vanek - relegated to the 4th line with less than 10 minutes a game. He doesn't need that. He's got pride. He is gone unless we offer way more than others and MB won't as that would be foolish Vanek has little experience in the playoffs (Buff) and historically has not performed close to his regular season pace. So don't think anyone can say he under performed. He is what he is; another good regular season player who can't ramp it up in the playoffs when most others do. We don't need him and he doesn't want us! Time to move on!
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Jun 1, 2014 14:19:45 GMT -5
This is the big question for me, too, Del. If being turfed to the 4th line during a playoff run where scoring was at a premium isn't a clear indication of future treatment, I don't know what is. It's obvious from his remarks that it's not sitting well. He may ask for the moon in Montreal….then settle for a meteorite in Minny. That would make it crystal clear he wasn't happy with MT. I'm not usually a Therrien supporter, but if you were in his shoes and your highest regarded offensive player was playing like Vanek was, was not contributing in ways other than scoring, and looked as disinterested as he did some times, what are your options? Do you keep him on the top 2 lines and possibly incur the wrath of the players for rewarding a guy who deserves some consequences? Now, in MT's shoes, I'd probably have had several heart to hearts with the guy ---"We need your scoring, Thomas, and we're not getting it. The team needs what you can bring, in order to win the cup, so if you're not giving it everything you've got, you're hurting DD and Max and PK, etc etc. You have to work on the damage to the team, because that's who players play for. Then you hope it turns him around. If not, then reduction of ice time is all you have left. Did MT have discussions? I'd guess yes. What form did they take? That's where you want to be a fly on the wall. If MT regressed to his past intimidation form, that could easily explain a player falling even further off the map. But I don't know what was discussed or how. So this doesn't add anything to the question of whether or not an effort should be made to sign Vanek. MT will know, of course. But Berg may not, unless he sat in on the talk. This sums it up. He was a total dog. I don't know if he was trying to not get hurt, sulking, thinking about this summers $, probably a bit of everything. Sign him to a big money deal and we'll all regret it. It probably wont take long either.
|
|