You're doing a pretty bad job being 89
- theblueandgold

Every player has an agent. Therefore, there should never be a discussion about blaming a contract on a player.
- theblueandgold

Darcy called the agent in January of that year, the agent said we're not interested.


Darcy should've called the agent on July 1st, a deal might have gotten done.


By January Vanek had 41 points, would you have told you client to negotiate at that point?

You're doing a pretty bad job being 89
- theblueandgold

Yes I am.


Back to the real me.

Darcy called the agent in January of that year, the agent said we're not interested.


Darcy should've called the agent on July 1st, a deal might have gotten done.


By January Vanek had 41 points, would you have told you client to negotiate at that point?
- dadeadhead

I think Miller is dealt for sure but I think the organization wants to extend Vanek but the key is will he want to stay. I think Vanek's camp is waiting to see if Darcy does anything bold.

I think Miller is dealt for sure but I think the organization wants to extend Vanek but the key is will he want to stay. I think Vanek's camp is waiting to see if Darcy does anything bold.
- sabresfandan

agreed on both. Whats the word if any on the coach?

Explain to me why we shouldnt count Vanek's contract?

Is this not the guy who wouldnt negotiate with our team, turned down any offers, held out until he received an offer sheet from another team for the money he was seeking? He was on the next train out of town for the money and didnt give a poop what Buffalo made him in the first 2 years of NHL.

Yeah, Darcy might not have been the one to offer him that contract, but Vanek had everything to do with Vanek's contract.
- theblueandgold

7M a year for a guy with Vanek's numbers isn't a bad deal so what's the point?

I think Miller is dealt for sure but I think the organization wants to extend Vanek but the key is will he want to stay. I think Vanek's camp is waiting to see if Darcy does anything bold.
- sabresfandan

Vanek's "camp" doesnt have a choice if he is dealt or not and i dont think its a sure thing Miller is traded.

7M a year for a guy with Vanek's numbers isn't a bad deal so what's the point?
- Homer

Yet many say Brad Richards is a bad deal

Richards puts up better numbers

Go figure

I think Miller is dealt for sure but I think the organization wants to extend Vanek but the key is will he want to stay. I think Vanek's camp is waiting to see if Darcy does anything bold.
- sabresfandan

I will be very sad to see Vanek go. I think its not wise for him to have make the comments about long term vs. short term rebuild since he has so little control over where he goes anyway.

7M a year for a guy with Vanek's numbers isn't a bad deal so what's the point?
- Homer

Vaneks #s this year? Or the last 6 years?

Yet many say Brad Richards is a bad deal

Richards puts up better numbers

Go figure
- homiedclown

not this year Richards didnt....plus Van signed his deal when he was what, 23-24?

Richards when he was 30-31.

I dont think either deal is really "bad" honestly.

Vaneks #s this year? Or the last 6 years?
- sbroads24

what he has done during the life of the deal.

Yet many say Brad Richards is a bad deal

Richards puts up better numbers

Go figure
- homiedclown

Richards deal is far far worse. Vanek's deal is up while he is in his prime. Richards is signed til age 40

what he has done during the life of the deal.
- Homer

Vanek's deal was horrible. He has been in the top 50 in scoring 1 time since his contract and as low as 80th in the league. If your paid like a top 10 forward for 5 straight years, you need to have a few years where you are in the top 10 IMO

Vanek's deal was horrible. He has been in the top 50 in scoring 1 time since his contract and as low as 80th in the league. If your paid like a top 10 forward for 5 straight years, you need to have a few years where you are in the top 10 IMO
- sbroads24

Agreed

Vanek's deal was horrible. He has been in the top 50 in scoring 1 time since his contract and as low as 80th in the league. If your paid like a top 10 forward for 5 straight years, you need to have a few years where you are in the top 10 IMO
- sbroads24

Thats why I said 5m would have been ideal.

what he has done during the life of the deal.
- Homer

7+ mil per year should equal a ppg player every year.

Thus far it's happened once of 6.

Thats why I said 5m would have been ideal.
- cabin

Phil Kessel 5.4
Jeff Carter 5.2

Vanek should have been in this range. And both of those guys have been at or above Vaneks level the last few years

Vanek's deal was horrible. He has been in the top 50 in scoring 1 time since his contract and as low as 80th in the league. If your paid like a top 10 forward for 5 straight years, you need to have a few years where you are in the top 10 IMO
- sbroads24

funny cause you've said Nash is way better then Vanek.....Is Nash worth 7 million a year in your opinion?

This year when Nash was actually on a good team for once.

Nash 21G 21A in 44 GP
Van 20G 21A in 38 GP

Career.

Nash .43 Goals per game and .82 Points per game
Van .43 Goals per game and .83 Points per game

In other words almost identical career stats production wise but for some reason I bet you say Nash is worth 7M but Van isn't.

Vanek's deal was horrible. He has been in the top 50 in scoring 1 time since his contract and as low as 80th in the league. If your paid like a top 10 forward for 5 straight years, you need to have a few years where you are in the top 10 IMO
- sbroads24

Jesus I didnt realize it was that bad. I always tought when I went to cap geek that other teams had such better deals and such better teams. We need to be one of those team. The blinders have been taken off my eyes.

7M a year for a guy with Vanek's numbers isn't a bad deal so what's the point?
- Homer

64, 64, 53, 73, 61, 41. 2 of 6 years have been a "success" and I'm not even convinced he wouldve hit 70 points had we played another 30 games.

He went scoreless on average 42% of games played through 6 seasons. Players who make 7M or more (that are not named Scott Gomez) are between 20-30% games scoreless.

7M a year for a guy with those numbers are awful. He was routinely outscored by Pominville and Derek Roy, and even by (frank)ing TIM CONNOLLY in one season.

Vanek's "camp" doesnt have a choice if he is dealt or not and i dont think its a sure thing Miller is traded.
- Homer

I have to disagree there, I think Miller will indeed be moved. I hope we find a way to keep Vanek though.

Phil Kessel 5.4
Jeff Carter 5.2

Vanek should have been in this range. And both of those guys have been at or above Vaneks level the last few years
- sbroads24

If both of them were FA's right now they would be making 8mil +. Also Carters deal has five more years on it than Vanek, probably why he is making 5.2 mil. I don't think Vanek's contract is ideal but there are plenty worse out there.

7+ mil per year should equal a ppg player every year.

Thus far it's happened once of 6.
- dadeadhead

perhaps, but that's what you pay a guy who was 23 coming off a 43 goal, plus 47 season.

funny cause you've said Nash is way better then Vanek.....Is Nash worth 7 million a year in your opinion?

This year when Nash was actually on a good team for once.

Nash 21G 21A in 44 GP
Van 20G 21A in 38 GP

Career.

Nash .43 Goals per game and .82 Points per game
Van .43 Goals per game and .83 Points per game

In other words almost identical career stats production wise but for some reason I bet you say Nash is worth 7M but Van isn't.
- Homer

Havent you made the argument that its not all about points?

Because Nash has the same scoring as Vanek, but he brings so much more to the table in other areas of the ice. 20 career SH points. He almost had more hits in 2009-10 as Thomas Vanek has had in the last 4 years combined!