2014 Trade Deadline Thread (All General Deadline Talk/Proposals/Blog Rumors in here)
- Thread starter Mcnotloilersfan
- Start date
- Status
Vanek at 7 years/$50m is a bargain. I wish that would be enough to bring him here.
I'm curious why it looks like a bad deal to some.
I'm curious why it looks like a bad deal to some.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Because that puts him in the same bracket as guys like Crosby and Giroux ... ahead of guys like Toews. Is Vanek really comparable to any of those players? And, as many have mentioned, he's 30 years old already. How many 40 goal seasons does he really have left?
I'd rather have Vanek at 7 million than a Gaborik or Nash contract.
Not really comparable to a contract from years ago with a RFA, who took a hometown deal to stay with the top team that drafted him IMO.
Not really comparable to a contract from years ago with a RFA, who took a hometown deal to stay with the top team that drafted him IMO.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,698
- 26,745
No, he's not even close. Crosby and Toews are both leaving oodles of cash on the table. I think with the cap ranging from 70 to 80 million their true market value would both be in excess of $10 million.
Probably none. But I think we're past the stage where you need to score 40 to justify $7m a year. This is very roughly where I think the new payscale is at, leaving all other factors (defense, etc..) equal:
20pts - <$1m
30 - $1.5m
40 - $3m
50 - $4m
60 - $6m
70 - $7m
80 - $8m
90 - $10m
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,445
Yikes. It is hard to disagree but it just seems like the league is heading for another problem down the road. Small market teams will get crushed again.
So they are going on the assumption that adding Girardi would reduce the number of shots a game would be reduced, thus reducing the number of goals against.
Let's assume we reduce 2 per game, at a 91.5% Save Pct. Let's see that would be a goal every 5 or 6 games.
We were 20th in GA last season with a top 10 defense. The issue is more of quality chances against, not so much shots against. That shots against was a red herring.
Look, you can generally always improve team defense. I'm not sure that our weakness is really in the top 4 in which we need to spend 6 million a year to get a marginal improvement. At that point you are basically saying you need to ship out JJ or Tyutin (the later being the more likely) in order to make room for him, although Tyutin is harder to move because of his NMC. If you want to invest in Giardi because Tyutin is again, it's reasonable from the FO. I wouldn't expect a huge difference, however.
Our issues with team defense tend to move around a bit. Recently we've seen that Dubinsky line being manhandled 5 on 5, as an example. Girardi doesn't fix that. Some of the issues, that helped lead to this GAA, were with Bob early on. We also had some average goal tending with McBackup.
I wouldn't mind a stop gap shut down for this season; mostly to get Savard out of the lineup. However I'm not sold, with the emergence of Murray and the reemergence of JJ, that we need to make a major investment.
Honestly I would rather pay for Callahan as opposed to Girardi and I don't like Callahan's injury history. I think Giradi is a fine player, but I don't think the extra money would would be worth it.
um, you do realize the whole reason Marty is talking trade is because he doesn't want to be a backup right?
Iron Balls McGinty
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2005
- 9,163
- 7,244
A fourth period article says that the Devils may have kicked the tires on Marian Gaborik for some scoring help. Trading in the division for teams so close would be hard but if by the odd chance Bob gets hurt in Russia with a significant injury, I would certainly entertain a deal of Brodeur for Gaborik. 2 expiring contracts filling a need.
Brodeur is my favorite player of all time and the reason I am a hockey fan but that is the only possible scenario I would ever see him in a CBJ uniform outside of the time I traded for him in video games.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
I don't think we could safely get Brodeur on this team. I'm sure Bobrovsky is still steaming about losing the EA cover to him. 
Robert
Foligno family
Agree... the new forty goal scorer is 35 goals... NHL rule changes have changed the game.. Vanek seems like a young 30 to me, he will be worth his pay a lot longer than Gaborik.. For example, if the CBJ would sign Gaborik for 7 million a year and skip on Vanek for the same amount I would be shocked.
Last edited:
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,698
- 26,745
Id rther keep Gaborik than giveh im to a division rival AND take on Brodeur. Have you guys seen him this year? He's done
Robert
Foligno family
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,698
- 26,745
Brodeur. I think Gaborik can still contribute on a team. Not the former 40 goal Gaborik, but a 25+ scorer.
Robert
Foligno family
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Why are Crosby and Toews leaving so much cash on the table?
Because they want winning teams built around them.
Does paying Tomas Vanek over $7m/year get us closer to that dream, or does it handicap us as Rick Nash did for so many years?
We've tried the superstar, goal scoring winger angle before. Let's continue to build with the hard working blocks like we are now. I'll make the valid argument that you win more with guys like Dubinsky and Foligno, than you do with Tomas Vanek or Rick Nash.
Xoggz22
Registered User
Bergenheim and Kulemin are two options I would like to see for this team. Even as off season acquisitions.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,445
I agree that a Vankek or Nash without a supporting cast doesn't work;however I think they could be vital cogs to building a winning team provided the other pieces are in place. I'm not that familiar with Vanek's overall game but I have read that he is somewhat lax on the D end and Nash is prone to floating and periodic disappearing acts. Bottom line is I think I'd pass on both.
You also have to consider when they signed their contracts. The cap was certainly different then. I'm not saying they didn't take some of a home town discount, but no contract exists in a vacuum. The amounts are affected by the cap and comparable contracts "at the time". One of the incentives for a team to sign long term deals is to lock down a player at a dollar amount that hopefully by the end of the contract is under "market value".
This brings up an interesting question. Does anyone know the last team to win the Stanley Cup with a LW or RW making the most money on the team? It seems to me that spending on C, D, and G is the smart thing to do. Along with drafting them. We have seen that as we have gone away, for the most part, from drafting LW/RW early. Johansen, Murray, Wennberg, Jenner, Dansk, etc....
Yeah, you generally want to build goalie, d, up the middle. I'm not sure I care all that much about the first question, by default good centers will get paid more than good wingers. There are less of them.
You won't get any argument from me, the guy I'd target is Stastny. I have no issue with Dubinsky on wing and playing center due to injury. However that probably has nothing to do with the deadline.
Of course. The point is good teams usually don't go out and spend big money to sign/trade for a LW/RW.
- Status
