DONE..I disagree..not just a little, but a lot.
Moulson is effective within 3 feet of the crease. The rest of the rink he's utterly worthless. That's not to say his type is without value, but in a first line role, I don't need a guy who is so one dimensional that it starts dictating what type of players I have to put on the right wing in order to keep him from handicapping the line to the point of being a liability. The Isles were 4-7 prior to trade. It's widely agreed that our losses have had little to do with the offense and a lot to do with the defense, what precisely was Moulson going to do to help that.

Neither Moulson or Vanek are strong defensively, put I'd definitely take Vanek long before Moulson in an open draft. As for the picks, who cares? We're loaded with prospects that will have a positive effect on this team in the next couple of years, it's no use stocking gold if you never intend to spend a penny.

That top line has been the 2nd most productive line in the NHL over the last dozen games. I'm pretty certain that one of the reasons JT and KO have INCREASED their production since Moulson left is because Vanek forces the defense to play honest.
- keaner17

I agree with everything but the bold. This trade is going to be officially bad once Vanek doesn't resign. Giving up a first even in a weak draft(which we may not do under the circumstances which means we're losing one in a strong draft)is a loss. Tack on that second rounder in a deep draft like 2015 and it hurts a little more. Also factor in the fact that Moulson was a tradeable asset and it hurts further. Yeah, we can get a return for Vanek but it'll probably be a late pick in this years draft and although it's a recoup of the losses it's a small one as compared to what we gave up. This is all of course SPECULATION on my part . Now I liked the trade at the time bcs I thought there's no way Snow could stop there, boy was I wrong. I'll also say I'd take Vanek over Moulson any day of the week but Snow letting this team fall to pieces especially after the Vanek trade where the teams success is relevant to him resigning is one of the most incompetent things I've seen in a long time.

Glad to have someone on board with that point. This isn't saying we'd be the same team as last year with them, but on a team this thin at defense, no matter what you think of either, losing both was a death sentence on this season. Couple that with a coach incapable of adjusting his strategy based on attrition and we're doomed.
Notice how much better we've been on defense over the last two games. One of those two has returned. Give us the other and this team can win some games. Unfortunately it's probably too late to consider a miracle comeback.
- keaner17

Well that's most people's problem with this whole season at this point I'd think? Snow's inaction over the last couple of months has once again lead to the point of no return.

Downeaster, c'mon man that was a layup
- Vukota

My boy... that may have been before Capt. became a regular on these boards.

You guys are not looking at Vanek in the same terms I am, and frankly, it has nothing to do with Moulson.

How anyone can say Vanek is any better skating wise or defensively is high. There is not much of a difference. Granted, due to my hours at work, I don't get to see as much of the games as I would like, but he isn't a difference maker.

When you trade a 30-goal scorer (and let's cut the crap, nobody's claiming Moulsons a Selke candidate) and 2 high picks I expect a real difference maker. He's not a defender and he's not a goalie, so...I get it.

Deny it all you want, we were a mediocre team before the trade, since the trade were probably the worst team in the entire league. Is it all on Vanek? Of course not, but besides 2 forwards, this team has loafers, and Vanek, to me, hasn't once been a guy that should worry the opposing team. I just hope we can get that 1st round pick back, because you'd have to be friggin nuts to give this guy a max contract.

I agree with everything but the bold. This trade is going to be officially bad once Vanek doesn't resign. Giving up a first even in a weak draft(which we may not do under the circumstances which means we're losing one in a strong draft)is a loss. Tack on that second rounder in a deep draft like 2015 and it hurts a little more. Also factor in the fact that Moulson was a tradeable asset and it hurts further. Yeah, we can get a return for Vanek but it'll probably be a late pick in this years draft and although it's a recoup of the losses it's a small one as compared to what we gave up. This is all of course SPECULATION on my part
- Cptmjl

This is a great post which further exemplifies what I didn't like about the trade since day one.

My boy... that may have been before Capt. became a regular on these boards.
- niteislander

I'm aware of downeaster and his rants.

This is a great post which further exemplifies what I didn't like about the trade since day one.
- potvin05

I edited it. Maybe you won't like it now?

You guys are not looking at Vanek in the same terms I am, and frankly, it has nothing to do with Moulson.

How anyone can say Vanek is any better skating wise or defensively is high. There is not much of a difference. Granted, due to my hours at work, I don't get to see as much of the games as I would like, but he isn't a difference maker.

When you trade a 30-goal scorer (and let's cut the crap, nobody's claiming Moulsons a Selke candidate) and 2 high picks I expect a real difference maker. He's not a defender and he's not a goalie, so...I get it.

Deny it all you want, we were a mediocre team before the trade, since the trade were probably the worst team in the entire league. Is it all on Vanek? Of course not, but besides 2 forwards, this team has loafers, and Vanek, to me, hasn't once been a guy that should worry the opposing team. I just hope we can get that 1st round pick back, because you'd have to be friggin nuts to give this guy a max contract.
- potvin05

He hasn't been but he's still a much better player than Moulson. You may disagree but his play opens up a lot more space for that line and his neutral zone play and play along the boards are vastly better. Much stronger on the puck. I see your point don't get me wrong it was an overpayment that should have been used in other areas but to me there is no debate on who is a better player.

I agree with everything but the bold. This trade is going to be officially bad once Vanek doesn't resign. Giving up a first even in a weak draft(which we may not do under the circumstances which means we're losing one in a strong draft)is a loss. Tack on that second rounder in a deep draft like 2015 and it hurts a little more. Also factor in the fact that Moulson was a tradeable asset and it hurts further. Yeah, we can get a return for Vanek but it'll probably be a late pick in this years draft and although it's a recoup of the losses it's a small one as compared to what we gave up. This is all of course SPECULATION on my part . Now I liked the trade at the time bcs I though there's no way Snow could stop there, boy I was wrong. I'll also say I'd take Vanek over Moulson any day of the week but Snow letting this team fall to pieces especially after the Vanek trade where the teams success is relevant to him resigning is one of the most incompetent things I've seen in a long time.
- Cptmjl

I won't judge how good or bad the asset loss was until we see whatever return Vanek brings. It's quite possible we could get a 2nd and say an established prospect. In that case, I'd say we did fine. I'll reserve judgement on that one once the season is over. Point is, we've had tons of decent picks over the last 20 years and it hasn't done us a whole lot of good. I take no regret in bringing in an elite player at the expense of a pending UFA and more picks. I think in the end, this will essentially amount to allowing Moulson to walk. It's a loss in potential return, but not a huge deal to the health of the organization.

I'm sick of this Vanek poop.

We traded a perennial 30-goal scorer for him AND a 1st and 2nd round pick for him. God, enough of this poop. He's supposed to be a franchise type player, and he's clearly not. He is DEFINITELY part of the problem. A big part of it, actually.

You guys don't expect much from a 30-goal scorer, a 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick? Especially one that's an UFA after this year?
- potvin05

Sing it Sister!!! I just want to hear all the Moulson haters admit they might have possibly gotten this wrong. We could not have done any worse since a trade. .. we gave up a first and a second and got worse.

I edited it. Maybe you won't like it now?
- Cptmjl

No, it's still good.

I don't think Vanek is a bad player, he's just not what this team needed or needs.

To the guy who thinks we loved Crappy last year....are you crazy? I've never liked him. It's sad that this no talent ass clown is the 2nd winningest coach in our history. Sad.

Holy poop...none (NONE) of my posts are a player comparison between the two 26s. Can I not emphasize that enough?

I think Vanek is a better player than Moulson.

Your Wrong!!

I don't think Moulson is worth what he's expected to be paid after this season, Wrong again.. if you score 30 a year in the NHL consistently you deserve to get paid.

nor do I think Vanek will be worth what he wants.

We'll see what he wants.. he is a very good player but not a Franchise guy worth over 7 mill a year.

I think if they move Vanek around the deadline, they'll at least get a first rounder back.

I hope u are right..

I don't think the Islanders stink because they have Vanek and not Moulson.

Well you might be right but they certainly are not BETTER as a result of this trade.

It's easy to remember the perennial 30 goal scorer part of Moulson, but we tend to quickly forget just how bad he is defensively.

Just like you forget how bad Vanek is defensively.. he gives the puck away constantly and doesn't do sht in his own end.. AND he doesn't get in front of the net for JT.

The Islanders stink because they are the Islanders. I'm starting to think they could have Crosby, Ovie, a healthy Stamkos and Malkin on this team and they'd still stink.
- Charlie21

Probably right b/c they still would have no defense and sub par goalie.

I won't judge how good or bad the asset loss was until we see whatever return Vanek brings. It's quite possible we could get a 2nd and say an established prospect. In that case, I'd say we did fine. I'll reserve judgement on that one once the season is over. Point is, we've had tons of decent picks over the last 20 years and it hasn't done us a whole lot of good. I take no regret in bringing in an elite player at the expense of a pending UFA and more picks. I think in the end, this will essentially amount to allowing Moulson to walk. It's a loss in potential return, but not a huge deal to the health of the organization.
- keaner17

I understand that but IMO there was a much more logical and much more healthy way to get rid of Moulson and maximize the return. Not to pile on an already beaten and dead horse but to me there is no reasoning Snow out of this one if Vanek doesn't resign. It'll be thought of as a bad trade and rightfully so. Of course like you said we could get a prospect that turns into the next McDonaugh for Vanek but I won't hold my breath.

You guys are not looking at Vanek in the same terms I am, and frankly, it has nothing to do with Moulson.

How anyone can say Vanek is any better skating wise or defensively is high. There is not much of a difference. Granted, due to my hours at work, I don't get to see as much of the games as I would like, but he isn't a difference maker.

When you trade a 30-goal scorer (and let's cut the crap, nobody's claiming Moulsons a Selke candidate) and 2 high picks I expect a real difference maker. He's not a defender and he's not a goalie, so...I get it.

Deny it all you want, we were a mediocre team before the trade, since the trade were probably the worst team in the entire league. Is it all on Vanek? Of course not, but besides 2 forwards, this team has loafers, and Vanek, to me, hasn't once been a guy that should worry the opposing team. I just hope we can get that 1st round pick back, because you'd have to be friggin nuts to give this guy a max contract.
- potvin05

I think the biggest problem for the Vanek naysayers is that this terrible stretch for the Isles allows them to support an otherwise flawed argument based on the collective teams performance. If Vanek were producing at this same rate and the team had been winning, I don't think there'd be many people complaining. Meanwhile, that trade had absolutely NOTHING to do with why the Isles are struggling.

So the teams overall results perhaps are changing the perception of that trade for some (I know you were against it from the get-go), but lets face it, at the time of that trade, NO ONE envisioned our 1st round pick being a top 10 let alone top 5 pick.

So the results based on the teams defensive woes are appearing more negative now, yet ironically it has very little to do with Vanek himself.

Holy poop...none (NONE) of my posts are a player comparison between the two 26s. Can I not emphasize that enough?
- potvin05

Well that's all I got to debate

He is a much better player than Moulson. Much better in the neutral zone(where Moulson was deplorable), defensively(which says a lot about Moulson), along the boards, he is a much better overall player. I'm not saying Vanek is some great two way player but he is a MUCH better player than Matt Moulson.
- Cptmjl

This is laughable... come on! you are the first to call everyon out on B.S. Vanek has stunk in the nuetral zone and gives the puck away constantly.

I understand that but IMO there was a much more logical and much more healthy way to get rid of Moulson and maximize the return. Not to pile on an already beaten and dead horse to me there is no reasoning Snow out of this one if Vanek doesn't resign. It'll be thought of as a bad trade and rightfully so. Of course like you said we could get a prospect that turns into the next McDonaugh but I won't hold my breath.
- Cptmjl

It will be a bad 'result' for the trade. I still would maintain the trade itself wasn't bad. I see that as two different things.

I agree it likely wouldn't have been my focal point for a need at the time, but I certainly have no regret that they did it. They took a chance, which is what 3/4 of this board were complaining that our GM wouldn't do.

If we get a 1st back, I'd say we did okay because in the end we traded for nearly a full seasons service from Vanek at the expense of Moulson and a 2nd. It's a risk worth taking. It's still to early to draw a conclusion.

15 games with the Isles, 5 goals, 11 pts. Not bad. Besides, my recollection of Moulson away from the puck is that he was pretty miserable.
- Jethro09

Feel free to pull up the Penguins game we were winning at home. check the highlights.. u know the game where Vanek took a stupid Penalty that gave the pens the game tieing goal and then the OT Crosby stripping him of the puck for the game winner.

I think the biggest problem for the Vanek naysayers is that this terrible stretch for the Isles allows them to support an otherwise flawed argument based on the collective teams performance. If Vanek were producing at this same rate and the team had been winning, I don't think there'd be many people complaining. Meanwhile, that trade had absolutely NOTHING to do with why the Isles are struggling.

So the teams overall results perhaps are changing the perception of that trade for some (I know you were against it from the get-go), but lets face it, at the time of that trade, NO ONE envisioned our 1st round pick being a top 10 let alone top 5 pick.

So the results based on the teams defensive woes are appearing more negative now, yet ironically it has very little to do with Vanek himself.
- keaner17

I know this has been argued ad nauseum on these boards, and I have to much crap to do to keep arguing about it, but anyone can put up 5g and 6a on Tavares' wing.

Keaner, anyone actually, tell me One (frank)ing Time this season Vanek has made you say wow. Once.

Reports by TSN say that Wang is in a closed door meeting with Snow and Capuano right now... So take that for what it's worth
- Dan Petriw

Ahh, dont get to excited. The cleaning lady hung some holiday mistletoe in the office. Wang called in Snow Flake and Pizzaman for their traditional Holiday A$$ kissing Fest!

Wang: You pucker up dose Cheeks big boy. Pizzaboy, u next.

open letter to Snow and Wang




I live in Canada I'm 41 years old and been "DIE HARD" Islander fan since the first time Mike Bossy put the Islander Jersey on. . I drive about 3 times a year 4-6 hours to watch them in paly Toronto and Buffalo. $700 to $1000 dollars a trip. I breath orange and blue. It's been very difficult in the last 25 years to be an Islander however. I've been loyal and passionate throughout the years as I was during cup years. We got a little taste of success last year......wow did that feel good. I was proud once again be an Islander fan. Now here we are 2013-2014. Today I canceled my NHL package that was paying 30 dollars a month...I can't continue to watch this team. The fact that you haven't made changes to address the situation is beyond my belief. I respect the fact that the organization is loyal to its employees however; you have to draw the line. It's business just like it was trading Moulson away. I'm sure Capuano is a good person maybe even a good coach but, the metldowns this team is having is unacceptable. Winning 2 out 18-19 games is mindboggling. If I came to work and performed 2 out 19 days let me tell you something there would be changes. The players are not responding to the coaching staff.You have done well in the drafting area however, that doesn't mean anything if these wonderful prospects are not developing well. To me that's the coaching responsibility...which he has failed. We need something from the organization to let us know that you care about the fans because it doesn't appear you do. I hope somehow you read this post so you understand the fans are gradually becoming more and more angry, frustrated and are giving up on this team....if they haven't already. I just watched the John Spanno documentary...I'm thinking to myself nothing has really changed in the organization. At least Spanno gave us a little hope eventhough he was fraud.
- dack1972

Spano had a tweet after the last game that essentially said the same thing..

This is laughable... come on! you are the first to call everyon out on B.S. Vanek has stunk in the nuetral zone and gives the puck away constantly.
- niteislander

I guess we're going to base this on one play where he dared to allow the best player since Mario Lemieux to steal the puck and score.

Let's wait until the end of the season to declare this the trade that doomed the Islanders forever.

This is laughable... come on! you are the first to call everyon out on B.S. Vanek has stunk in the nuetral zone and gives the puck away constantly.
- niteislander

I call it as I see it you're right there but that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm not saying he's the next Steve Yzerman but Vanek is much better than Moulson in all things I mentioned. It's not saying much due to Moulson being that bad in those areas but I'll stand by it. That line is a better line with Thomas Vanek on it. I know some disagree and I have no problem with it but Moulson is such an extreme one trick pony that I haven't wanted him on this team for two seasons now. I agree with Keaner when he says it's an easy thing to finger point at now but we are losing games due to defense not Thomas Vanek coughing up the puck at the blue line or in the neutral zone.

I know this has been argued ad nauseum on these boards, and I have to much crap to do to keep arguing about it, but anyone can put up 5g and 6a on Tavares' wing.

Keaner, anyone actually, tell me One (frank)ing Time this season Vanek has made you say wow. Once.
- potvin05

There have been several times he and JT have made some incredible passes to one another. SEVERAL.

But your comment to say 'anyone can put up 5g and 6a on Tavares wing' was precisely why Moulson is not a true 30 goal scorer in my eyes and why he was expendable. Management saw how much of a ghost he became in the playoffs last year when the tough got going and looked to deal him in the offseason.

Vanek has done plenty on his own and no one up until now has disputed that he's one of the best wingers in the league. The bad thing is this team has a way of making even the best players a bit more ordinary. If a team can't play capable defense, players like Vanek are going to look far less substantial. This is about a team failing to play responsible hockey.