You cherry picked one post out of several I made.

I never put it "all" on Vanek, not once. I can't stand when posters take one comment out of 29 and write a diatribe like you did.

Is it wrong of me to expect more from a guy we gave up a decent haul for? Take Moulson's name out of it and rename him Joe Schmo. It doesn't matter. We gave up a player of a slightly lower caliber for him and 2 high picks and he plays on a line with one of the best centers in the league. He doesn't scare me, I reckon he doesn't scare many in the league.

This team is a mess and, as has been pointed out, if more moves were made we wouldn't be having this back and forth today. But, I hated the trade the day it was made and I certainly like it less now. He never scared me as a Sabre, and we gave up pieces we could have sat on until closer to the deadline and saw who was available. We tried to strengthen a position that didnt need it, when the 2 other departments on this team are subpar.

There is no question the loss of Viznovsky is where the season turned. Not the trade. Saying that, Vanek has been a huge disappointment and I'll be ecstatic if we can even get the 1st back at this point.
- potvin05

If Vanek re-signs, I don't think it was a "bad trade". I'd give up Moulson, a guy who was going to jet as a UFA anyway, a first and a second for a guy like Vanek. Garth hasn't exactly hit home runs at the draft and draft picks are crap shoots anyways. If Vanek doesn't re-sign, the deal is a terrible one, even if Garth can recoup a 1st for Vanek at the deadline (which I think he can).

I think the trade, whether Vanek re-signs or not, was an unnecessary one. It was a move that so obviously didn't address areas of need that you had to assume that Snow was going to make other moves. The fact that he hasn't is frightening. It's frightening to think Snow looked at this debacle he assembled, saw how woefully deficient the "D" and goaltending were, and decided that the Vanek trade would cure all ills by itself. It makes you realize how either out of touch with reality Snow is or how impossible it must be for him to make moves to address needs.

Unbelievable to think he can be earning more than JT. I think he's about worth what he's making currently, maybe a slight raise, but the market will dictate otherwise. All that said, there's no way Vanek is worth 8 a year. He should be in that 6 range that Moulson will be in, but I'm sure someone will offer him what he'll want.
- Charlie21

It is unbelievable, but he reality of the NHL. Teams low-ball players while they can until UFA status hits. That's when guys get paid. And get paid they do. When (if, hopefully) JT becomes a UFA, he too will get paid royally, likely to the tune of $9M or more per year.

Based on what the other guys with comparable numbers have been signing for, I see Moulson getting around $6M per and I think Vanek is looking at about what he makes now, $7.1M per, maybe slightly more. I dont think any team would pay Vanek more than what the isles would offer per year and the isles can offer an extra year. It's just a question if Vanek wants to sign on with this career-suicide circus for the rest of his career or go somewhere else for a bit less money and lesser term that's not a circus.

If Vanek re-signs, I don't think it was a "bad trade". I'd give up Moulson, a guy who was going to jet as a UFA anyway, a first and a second for a guy like Vanek. Garth hasn't exactly hit home runs at the draft and draft picks are crap shoots anyways. If Vanek doesn't re-sign, the deal is a terrible one, even if Garth can recoup a 1st for Vanek at the deadline (which I think he can).

I think the trade, whether Vanek re-signs or not, was an unnecessary one. It was a move that so obviously didn't address areas of need that you had to assume that Snow was going to make other moves. The fact that he hasn't is frightening. It's frightening to think Snow looked at this debacle he assembled, saw how woefully deficient the "D" and goaltending were, and decided that the Vanek trade would cure all ills by itself. It makes you realize how either out of touch with reality Snow is or how impossible it must be for him to make moves to address needs.
- Jethro09

I completely agree and maybe that's why my attitude toward Vanek is borderline hostile, haha. I'm sticking to my guns about my feelings towards the trade though.

If you see what guys like David Clarkson got and don't think guys like Moulson and Vanek aren't gonna want major contracts, I want to remind those that its almost 2014, not 1988.

Funny how now with the losses everyone thinks Capuano is terrible. Was he terrible last year with almost the same roster making the playoffs? Are the injuries his fault? Again, he is clearly not a great coach but he managed to get this team to the playoffs last year. Is it really his fault that Grabner isn't scoring or Bailey isn't even showing up most nights? Or that Bouchard was a waste of space or we traded Moulson and 1st & 2nd Rounders for a guy who doesn't seem to fit in this sytem? One of my points was that this also falls on the players. Yes, Cappy will be gone soon, but will it really change? Hopefully yes, but realistically probably NOT.
- aaronfeigin

yes!!! and as mentioned last year, i wanted him gone and they were winning despite him being the coach...

If you see what guys like David Clarkson got and don't think guys like Moulson and Vanek aren't gonna want major contracts, I want to remind those that its almost 2014, not 1988.
- potvin05

Don't tell us tell Wang. He is still using the 80's pay scale

Moulson to me is a better Mark Parrish. That's about it. Vanek is obviously more talented, a better shooter and has slightly better hands, but it terms of skating its basically the same and his defensive liabilities are also similar. If you want my actual comparison.
- potvin05

I think one dimension people miss is that Vanek is a true power forward. He's a guy who is very good at coming out of the corner with the puck and putting it in areas where linemates can get a scoring chance. Moulson lacked a decent first stride like Vanek and never seemed to be physically strong enough to battle through muscle. What Moulson did better than Vanek was deflections. Otherwise, Vanek is better in every facet of the game.

I completely agree and maybe that's why my attitude toward Vanek is borderline hostile, haha. I'm sticking to my guns about my feelings towards the trade though.
- potvin05

I liked the trade so I'm not going to rip it now. I did think this would only be the start of more moves and a new direction from Garth. I cannot understand how Charles and co can remain quite with the team going in the tank?

If Vanek re-signs, I don't think it was a "bad trade". I'd give up Moulson, a guy who was going to jet as a UFA anyway, a first and a second for a guy like Vanek. Garth hasn't exactly hit home runs at the draft and draft picks are crap shoots anyways. If Vanek doesn't re-sign, the deal is a terrible one, even if Garth can recoup a 1st for Vanek at the deadline (which I think he can).

I think the trade, whether Vanek re-signs or not, was an unnecessary one. It was a move that so obviously didn't address areas of need that you had to assume that Snow was going to make other moves. The fact that he hasn't is frightening. It's frightening to think Snow looked at this debacle he assembled, saw how woefully deficient the "D" and goaltending were, and decided that the Vanek trade would cure all ills by itself. It makes you realize how either out of touch with reality Snow is or how impossible it must be for him to make moves to address needs.
- Jethro09

I don't think he ever thought that. As I've mentioned on numerous occasions, I don't think this trade was done as a result of the teams performance, regardless of Snow's comments at the presser. He admitted that he had been working on this trade during the offseason and they had been speaking off and on up to the point. Vanek was clearly a player Snow had wanted for a long while and he spent big to make it happen.
It was the big risk that most had been begging him to take, but predictably once it started to go wrong the heat would be turned up.

I don't think the vision changes from their standpoint. Develop the prospects, don't give up major assets unless it makes the team better. In their eyes, this made the team better and did so without dealing any of our developing prospects.

So it wasn't about righting the ship in 2013. It was about giving JT his elite winger for 2013 and beyond. Unfortunately the debacle that is the 2013 Isles will likely keep that from being a reality.

Just watch Vanek play. If you can't see the difference between the two players then we'll agree to disagree. My opinion will never change. Not trying to come off like a douche but I have a hard time understanding how people even debate this?
- Cptmjl

what I want to know is why is it we rip a player while he's an Islander, then when he's gone everyone forgets his faults and he comes some goddamn superstar we gave away.

Ridiculous.

what I want to know is why is it we rip a player while he's an Islander, then when he's gone everyone forgets his faults and he comes some goddamn superstar we gave away.

Ridiculous.
- Isles_since_6

True, but it doesn't happen with every player. As bad as the Islander's D is no one asking for Mark Streit back.

what I want to know is why is it we rip a player while he's an Islander, then when he's gone everyone forgets his faults and he comes some goddamn superstar we gave away.

Ridiculous.
- Isles_since_6

because its so easy to complain!!

what I want to know is why is it we rip a player while he's an Islander, then when he's gone everyone forgets his faults and he comes some goddamn superstar we gave away.

Ridiculous.
- Isles_since_6

Are you referring to St. PA?

True, but it doesn't happen with every player. As bad as the Islander's D is no one asking for Mark Streit back.
- JimmyP

I know plenty of Flyers fans who've asked if we'd take him!

I know plenty of Flyers fans who've asked if we'd take him!
- keaner17

Yeah, that's funny especially when we warned them up front. Remember how many of them were on here saying we got suckered?

True, but it doesn't happen with every player. As bad as the Islander's D is no one asking for Mark Streit back.
- JimmyP

not entirely true, I saw a post last week from someone saying we should have kept him. Just stupid.

Yeah, that's funny especially when we warned them up front. Remember how many of them were on here saying we got suckered?

- JimmyP

Yep...I live 30 minutes from Philly so I'm surrounded by Flyers fans. Always fun asking how Streit's doing!

not entirely true, I saw a post last week from someone saying we should have kept him. Just stupid.
- Isles_since_6

Was it a Flyer fan?

Are you referring to St. PA?
- keaner17

PA, Boyes, Streit, Moulson.

none of these would have helped us, none of these were players we needed to hold onto, and all of them were sh!t defensively.

not entirely true, I saw a post last week from someone saying we should have kept him. Just stupid.
- Isles_since_6

Mark Streit 33gp 3g 10a -8 1ppg 7ppa

DYNAMIC!

AMAC 35GP 3g 9A -8 2ppg

So Amac is equal with Streit in virtually everything!

what I want to know is why is it we rip a player while he's an Islander, then when he's gone everyone forgets his faults and he comes some goddamn superstar we gave away.

Ridiculous.
- Isles_since_6

It's just an easy inaccurate answer to this teams woes. I've said it before a thousand times if this team is faltering due to Vanek being here instead of Moulson than we have bigger problems and they should trade the entire team and start from scratch.

Mark Streit 33gp 3g 10a -8 1ppg 7ppa

DYNAMIC!

AMAC 35GP 3g 9A -8 2ppg

So Amac is equal with Streit in virtually everything!
- keaner17

Well there goes that excuse!

PA, Boyes, Streit, Moulson.

none of these would have helped us, none of these were players we needed to hold onto, and all of them were sh!t defensively.
- Isles_since_6

Well as I pointed out, neither PA or Moulson are exactly having tremendous seasons.

Was it a Flyer fan?
- JimmyP

Well there goes that excuse!
- Cptmjl

I know he's only been here for a few games, but I'd really like to see the Isles start working de Haan into the number one power play unit.