Let's put it this way. I've ALWAYS felt that if Vanek received an offer from MN he'd go there. PERIOD. The only thing I ever said was that it was speculation to say if he left there'd be no way he'd return. I still believe that.
It's well known that Vanek has been looking forward to being a UFA. (didn't know that at the time of the trade though). The only question in my mind was if MN would have as much interest in Vanek as he has in them. It takes two to tango. I'd say if that interest doesn't exist, there's a distinct possibility he could consider the Isles.

I also have to consider the fact that there may be a tampering issue here, though it never gets prooven these days. I have a funny feeling that Vanek already knows MN will be making a pitch. It's been said that Pommenville may very well be a middle man in that transaction so Vanek may already know he'll be in a Wild Jersey come next season.
- keaner17

If it did happen then Vanek's agent may have initiated the contact. "Hey, I was talking to Thomas yesterday and he mentioned he would really like to be in a city near his family ..." Or something like that.

It's stating my overall stance on the job Garth has done and the fact that I think it's time for accountability. I think there are a lot of issues with this club that are out of his control, but he's had long enough to deal with the handicaps. However, I see plenty of small victories during his tenure as well. We wouldn't be able to female dog about losing guys like Moulson and PA had Snow not plucked them from complete obscurity. I think many of his picks who haven't even seen the NHL will be big time players for this team for years to come, but the sad fact in sports is as a GM, you're either winning or your not. We're not. Time to move on.
- keaner17

i think a lot rides on this vanek deal...if he blows it hell be held accountable.

assuming he doesnt get crushed in this deal & he replaces cappy with a legit coach, id give him another year

i think a lot rides on this vanek deal...if he blows it hell be held accountable.

assuming he doesnt get crushed in this deal & he replaces cappy with a legit coach, id give him another year
- LetsGoIsles

wow

It's stating my overall stance on the job Garth has done and the fact that I think it's time for accountability. I think there are a lot of issues with this club that are out of his control, but he's had long enough to deal with the handicaps. However, I see plenty of small victories during his tenure as well. We wouldn't be able to female dog about losing guys like Moulson and PA had Snow not plucked them from complete obscurity. I think many of his picks who haven't even seen the NHL will be big time players for this team for years to come, but the sad fact in sports is as a GM, you're either winning or your not. We're not. Time to move on.
- keaner17

It was a joke

If it did happen then Vanek's agent may have initiated the contact. "Hey, I was talking to Thomas yesterday and he mentioned he would really like to be in a city near his family ..." Or something like that.
- JimmyP

I really hope the Isles trade Vanek this week. Would not want to risk him getting hurt playing in Russia. Good thing Amac did not make the games.

I really hope the Isles trade Vanek this week. Would not want to risk him getting hurt playing in Russia. Good thing Amac did not make the games.
- ses111

Players like AMAC don't get hurt. That only happens to good players.

Players like AMAC don't get hurt. That only happens to good players.
- Cptmjl

Or only hurt their own team.

i think a lot rides on this vanek deal...if he blows it hell be held accountable.

assuming he doesnt get crushed in this deal & he replaces cappy with a legit coach, id give him another year
- LetsGoIsles

I think the overall perception of the Vanek deal can't be complete until he's been traded. If we get a first rounder and a high quality NHL prospect along with another pick, this deal is a win IMO, because you've gotten 3/4 of a season worth of service from an elite player and brought in a 'sure thing player' with a high pick. That ultimately makes the losses sustained in the Moulson deal as minimal.

Still, from the perspective of a GM, the overall body of work is a fail. Plenty of good things done, but no matter what we consider the reason (or excuse), systematic failures by inaction caused this team to regress. Ultimately the buck has to stop with Snow. His job is to build a team that wins games. We're now 6 years in this rebuild and in danger of giving away a top five pick. That can't be accepted or else this teams negative perception to UFA"s appears to be totally validated.

It's about accountability...fair or not.

It was a joke
- Cptmjl

I know, I was just concluding.....which around here is never concluded

I think the overall perception of the Vanek deal can't be complete until he's been traded. If we get a first rounder and a high quality NHL prospect along with another pick, this deal is a win IMO, because you've gotten 3/4 of a season worth of service from an elite player and brought in a 'sure thing player' with a high pick. That ultimately makes the losses sustained in the Moulson deal as minimal.

Still, from the perspective of a GM, the overall body of work is a fail. Plenty of good things done, but no matter what we consider the reason (or excuse), systematic failures by inaction caused this team to regress. Ultimately the buck has to stop with Snow. His job is to build a team that wins games. We're now 6 years in this rebuild and in danger of giving away a top five pick. That can't be accepted or else this teams negative perception to UFA"s appears to be totally validated.

It's about accountability...fair or not.
- keaner17

You can't say "we are done rebuilding" and say you're done needing picks to the extent as we did and then be happy with a return of picks from a trading partner. Well you could but you'd look pretty stupid. That would be Snow's stance after said trade.

You can't say "we are done rebuilding" and say you're done needing picks to the extent as we did and then be happy with a return of picks from a trading partner. Well you could but you'd look pretty stupid. That would be Snow's stance after said trade.
- Cptmjl

This! Whether he meant to or not, Garth rasied the bar with his comments and when you sit by and let the team fall apart for a month with action, it will not be taken well by many.

You can't say "we are done rebuilding" and say you're done needing picks to the extent as we did and then be happy with a return of picks from a trading partner. Well you could but you'd look pretty stupid. That would be Snow's stance after said trade.
- Cptmjl

Well, for the organiziations stance, he'll have to try to spin it positive any way he can, but he knows it's a disaster based on Vanek leaving. I want a 1st rounder, but more importantly, I want a decent B+ prospect who is ready to join this team asap.

I think the overall perception of the Vanek deal can't be complete until he's been traded. If we get a first rounder and a high quality NHL prospect along with another pick, this deal is a win IMO, because you've gotten 3/4 of a season worth of service from an elite player and brought in a 'sure thing player' with a high pick. That ultimately makes the losses sustained in the Moulson deal as minimal.

Still, from the perspective of a GM, the overall body of work is a fail. Plenty of good things done, but no matter what we consider the reason (or excuse), systematic failures by inaction caused this team to regress. Ultimately the buck has to stop with Snow. His job is to build a team that wins games. We're now 6 years in this rebuild and in danger of giving away a top five pick. That can't be accepted or else this teams negative perception to UFA"s appears to be totally validated.

It's about accountability...fair or not.
- keaner17

disagree except for that the deal cant be evaluated until vanek is dealt...if he gets something along the lines of top prosect(/nhl ready player) and a 1st plus late round pick than i definitely give him another year. again, we cant fault the guy for trying to win over a top pending ufa. vanek said no. hes allowed to

what has changed from last week to this week that all of a sudden youve changed your stance?

i also think that garth has done so much of the restocking that the team is legit on the cusp of breaking out.

we all (most) agree that the team is 1 goalie, 1 top 4 dman, and a new coach away from being competitive. vanek alone can get the goalie or dman...i just think it would weird to let garth go just in time for him to see what he built.

disagree except for that the deal cant be evaluated until vanek is dealt...if he gets something along the lines of top prosect(/nhl ready player) and a 1st plus late round pick than i definitely give him another year. again, we cant fault the guy for trying to win over a top pending ufa. vanek said no. hes allowed to

what has changed from last week to this week that all of a sudden youve changed your stance?

i also think that garth has done so much of the restocking that the team is legit on the cusp of breaking out.

we all (most) agree that the team is 1 goalie, 1 top 4 dman, and a new coach away from being competitive. vanek alone can get the goalie or dman...i just think it would weird to let garth go just in time for him to see what he built.
- LetsGoIsles

No change. It's always been that way. I understand that there are obstacles that have made this job very difficult for Snow, but I've said for the last 12 months, that if this team wasn't ready to be a contender by THIS point, he'd need to be held accountable. I won't scream bloody murder if he gets one more year, but I think it's time to consider there may be better options.

Look, he's not going to get fired. That's a fact. Still, there comes a point of time where you have to evaluate your product's results. The ingredients may be decent but the bottom line is the results have failed 7 out of 8 years under him.

No change. It's always been that way. I understand that there are obstacles that have made this job very difficult for Snow, but I've said for the last 12 months, that if this team wasn't ready to be a contender by THIS point, he'd need to be held accountable. I won't scream bloody murder if he gets one more year, but I think it's time to consider there may be better options.

Look, he's not going to get fired. That's a fact. Still, there comes a point of time where you have to evaluate your product's results. The ingredients may be decent but the bottom line is the results have failed 7 out of 8 years under him.
- keaner17

I give him a pass on the first few years since the team was such a mess. However there is no excuse for the Isles being a bottom 5 team at this point.

I give him a pass on the first few years since the team was such a mess. However there is no excuse for the Isles being a bottom 5 team at this point.
- JimmyP

Agreed. And NO ONE has argued the point of how difficult his job was over those first few years more than I. It's never been a matter of blindly supporting the guy. I say what I say because it's a fact, this was the worst and most difficult job of any GM in pro sports.
Consider the problems:
1. Worst stadium lease in sports that still has the team $16 million in the red annually.
2. Non existant farm club that had virtually no NHL hopeful prospects in the minors
3. Negative perception of the franchise that dates back to 1995, over a decade before he even took the job, which leads to UFA's to run the other way.
4. Tax happy state that causes players to lose up to 10% more of their income than some other states...(that one's for UIF )

When you combine these things, it limits your player resources to reclamation projects and picks. It slows the rebuild period. Still, 6 years should be enough to have that team competitive and certainly when they appear competitive. Instead, it's groundhog day. At some point we have to stop acknowledging all of the handicaps, and start recognizing the body of work as a whole.

Agreed. And NO ONE has argued the point of how difficult his job was over those first few years more than I. It's never been a matter of blindly supporting the guy. I say what I say because it's a fact, this was the worst and most difficult job of any GM in pro sports.
Consider the problems:
1. Worst stadium lease in sports that still has the team $16 million in the red annually.
2. Non existant farm club that had virtually no NHL hopeful prospects in the minors
3. Negative perception of the franchise that dates back to 1995, over a decade before he even took the job, which leads to UFA's to run the other way.
4. Tax happy state that causes players to lose up to 10% more of their income than some other states...(that one's for UIF )

When you combine these things, it limits your player resources to reclamation projects and picks. It slows the rebuild period. Still, 6 years should be enough to have that team competitive and certainly when they appear competitive. Instead, it's groundhog day. At some point we have to stop acknowledging all of the handicaps, and start recognizing the body of work as a whole.
- keaner17

I fully agree. I would add one more:

5. An owner that chased away an experienced GM because he wanted GM by committee.

I didn't expect the Cup at this point, but I did expect them to be competitive. Bottom five is extremely disappointing.

Agreed. And NO ONE has argued the point of how difficult his job was over those first few years more than I. It's never been a matter of blindly supporting the guy. I say what I say because it's a fact, this was the worst and most difficult job of any GM in pro sports.
Consider the problems:
1. Worst stadium lease in sports that still has the team $16 million in the red annually.
2. Non existant farm club that had virtually no NHL hopeful prospects in the minors
3. Negative perception of the franchise that dates back to 1995, over a decade before he even took the job, which leads to UFA's to run the other way.
4. Tax happy state that causes players to lose up to 10% more of their income than some other states...(that one's for UIF )

When you combine these things, it limits your player resources to reclamation projects and picks. It slows the rebuild period. Still, 6 years should be enough to have that team competitive and certainly when they appear competitive. Instead, it's groundhog day. At some point we have to stop acknowledging all of the handicaps, and start recognizing the body of work as a whole.
- keaner17

do you believe another GM, given the same issues 1-4, would have put together a team that would be significantly more competitive at this point or was this simply a kamikaze mission for garth?

do you believe another GM, given the same issues 1-4, would have put together a team that would be significantly more competitive at this point or was this simply a kamikaze mission for garth?
- LetsGoIsles

That's an awesome question and one I think everyone here should answer.

I think it's damn hard to evaluate Garth's GM abilities over the first 5 years of his tenure. I think you and I seem to recognize those obstacles more than most. I also think that 75% of the GM's presently in this league wouldn't have advanced this team much, if at all more than Snow did during the first few years. However, I also think there have been a wealth of mistakes that have set us back, most of which didn't occur until this season. But again, regardless of whether I felt he did a good job during those first few years, the ultimate evaluation has to based on where the franchise was and where it IS.
Regardless of how good we think they'll be, the reality is today they are ranked in the bottom 5 in this league and to some degree this could have been avoided.
As I said, I'm okay if they give him one more season, but I can't say at this point that he's truly earned another year. Even if we were to say, this season is just one setback on a team that's been getting gradually better, the evaluation has to be based on the end result and what we're seeing right now isn't good.

New blog is up.

do you believe another GM, given the same issues 1-4, would have put together a team that would be significantly more competitive at this point or was this simply a kamikaze mission for garth?
- LetsGoIsles

I homestly feel Neil Smith would have done a better job. I can go by the 3 or 4 FA's he was able to sign in 40 days that have been better than the guys Garth has signed.

I homestly feel Neil Smith would have done a better job. I can go by the 3 or 4 FA's he was able to sign in 40 days that have been better than the guys Garth has signed.
- ses111

TOTALLY DISAGREE there. Hate Neil Smith and we should be glad he was gone.

I fully agree. I would add one more:

5. An owner that chased away an experienced GM because he wanted GM by committee.

I didn't expect the Cup at this point, but I did expect them to be competitive. Bottom five is extremely disappointing.
- JimmyP

He chases away GMs for more reasons than that. He insists on being involved to a degree that's more destructive than constructive. Having a president of hockey operations with Wang stepping back would do a world of good for most of the "obstacles" we concoct for why the Isles are never a good team. The plain fact is that Wang has made decision after decision perceived by the rest of the league as joke after joke, which has hurt the organization's image with players, managers, etc. more than a building or a lease.

So when we talk about, could other GMs have succeeded given obstacles 1-4 or 5, the answer is no, because no other GM in his right mind would work for Charles Wang. Like the players (edit -- FAs, not drafted players) we get stuck with, they'd come here if they had no other options.

TOTALLY DISAGREE there. Hate Neil Smith and we should be glad he was gone.
- keaner17

Neil seemed to have the respect of other GM's players, and agents. He also grew up under Al and Bill.

Neil seemed to have the respect of other GM's players, and agents. He also grew up under Al and Bill.
- ses111

He also inherited a Stanley Cup team and a boatload of cash in MSG and promptly sent them to the dark ages.