Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Thomas Vanek | #26 | RW


-SN-

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I was one of the few (it seemed) happy when he was signed but I was happy for the skill he brought as I thought some of the younger players could learn some of his tricks.   I was not prepared for the leadership and mentorship roles he seems to be playing.   I had no idea he was like that.   If the Canucks can move him for a decent pick or similar at deadline, that would only make sense but if the market is dead and nothing is out there it would not be horrible to have him around for another season as with the potential loss of the Sedins, he may have an important role to help the next generation get their bearings.    I see nothing from him that doesn't say "good guy for the team" written all over him.

Have loved his game this year and the fact that he actually talks to the younger players. If you decide to keep him I doubt you get him for only 1 year. How does Benning both resign Vanek and re-up the Twins? Imagine Vanek's production if he got 1st PP TOI instead of 2nd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Have loved his game this year and the fact that he actually talks to the younger players. If you decide to keep him I doubt you get him for only 1 year. How does Benning both resign Vanek and re-up the Twins? Imagine Vanek's production if he got 1st PP TOI instead of 2nd. 

I think there are a lot more options for veterans for next year than you are implying.   So many moves between now and start of next season are possible including even burying some contracts in AHL if that is required.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Have loved his game this year and the fact that he actually talks to the younger players. If you decide to keep him I doubt you get him for only 1 year. How does Benning both resign Vanek and re-up the Twins? Imagine Vanek's production if he got 1st PP TOI instead of 2nd. 

This is exactly what Blake Price was worried about yesterday.  The Nucks have a .3% chance at a playoff spot, in other words they are just not good enough.  Price argued that management might think they have a better team than they actually do(after all injuries are apart of the game) and they might retain Vanek which would be a huge mistake.  Vanek needs to be dealt at the trade deadline for whatever asset they can get.  If they want Vanek next year they can offer him a contract in the summer but to hang on to him much like they did with Vrbata and get nothing at the deadline would be another mistake.  Same goes with Gudbranson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

This is exactly what Blake Price was worried about yesterday.  The Nucks have a .3% chance at a playoff spot, in other words they are just not good enough.  Price argued that management might think they have a better team than they actually do(after all injuries are apart of the game) and they might retain Vanek which would be a huge mistake.  Vanek needs to be dealt at the trade deadline for whatever asset they can get.  If they want Vanek next year they can offer him a contract in the summer but to hang on to him much like they did with Vrbata and get nothing at the deadline would be another mistake.  Same goes with Gudbranson.

'Huge mistake' might be a bit extreme.

 

He's likely to return a 3rd +/- (though I'd prefer we packaged him) which certainly would be welcomed but is hardly some colossal return that would set the team up for a decade.

 

I'll also take issue with 'any asset they can get'. If all we get offered is a conditional 5th or something, it's easily argued his finishing the year here could have more value to the young kids on the team than moving him for peanuts. But I doubt that happens anyway.

 

This is nothing like the Vrbata situation. The Canucks didn't 'hang on to' Vrbata. He was immovable. He was having a crap year, had an NTC, a pregnant wife and had zero desire to move, giving the the Canucks an untradeable list of teams he'd go to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

'Huge mistake' might be a bit extreme.

 

He's likely to return a 3rd +/- (though I'd prefer we packaged him) which certainly would be welcomed but is hardly some colossal return that would set the team up for a decade.

 

I'll also take issue with 'any asset they can get'. If all we get offered is a conditional 5th or something, it's easily argued his finishing the year here could have more value to the young kids on the team than moving him for peanuts. But I doubt that happens anyway.

 

Jb’s 5th round drafting includes:

gaudette, Neil, candella, forsling and Gunnarsson 

 

I’ll gladly take what we can get. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Jb’s 5th round drafting includes:

gaudette, Neil, candella, forsling and Gunnarsson 

 

I’ll gladly take what we can get. 

 

I said conditional ;)

 

Either way, I doubt we have to worry about that as I'm fairly confident we'll get more than that. 

 

Still prefer to package him though. Edler @50% +Vanek forexample would look really nice to a contender IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I said conditional ;)

 

Either way, I doubt we have to worry about that as I'm fairly confident we'll get more than that. 

 

Still prefer to package him though. Edler @50% +Vanek forexample would look really nice to a contender IMO. 

One can dream about Edler willing to move and be packaged up, given the bottleneck we have when it comes to top 4 and top 6 d (depending one what people perceive we have as being top 4 and top 6 defenders).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

This is exactly what Blake Price was worried about yesterday.  The Nucks have a .3% chance at a playoff spot, in other words they are just not good enough.  Price argued that management might think they have a better team than they actually do(after all injuries are apart of the game) and they might retain Vanek which would be a huge mistake.  Vanek needs to be dealt at the trade deadline for whatever asset they can get.  If they want Vanek next year they can offer him a contract in the summer but to hang on to him much like they did with Vrbata and get nothing at the deadline would be another mistake.  Same goes with Gudbranson.

Vanek would likely net a 3rd which most people think was the plan all along.   My thoughts on the Vanek signing were that he was brought in as insurance with respect to how the Sedin's may perform and how some of the young players like Boeser, Virtanen and Goldobin may go.  There was much talk last summer about where the goals were going to come from.  At mid season, Vanek is 2nd in goals on the Canucks with 13.

 

Fast forward to this coming summer and ask the same question.  Where are the goals going to come from?

 

The Sedin's don't score much and are mostly play makers at this point in their careers.

Boeser, better than expected

Virtanen, ok but we would have thought more

Goldobin, not getting it, may bust, time will tell

Eriksson, Sutter, Gagner, Granlund, the back end, all less than expected

Horvat, Baertschi  as expected

 

So if they move Vanek out, they will have to find some goals from somewhere for next year.  They can hope that some under performers turn it around but they can't be counting on kids to start lighting it up as rookies.  Hopefuls like Goldobin are becoming faint hopes.

 

The question is, can Benning replace Vanek's 20 some goals for the $3.0 it may take to re-sign him?   And is that worth a 3rd?

 

Don't be surprised if Vanek isn't dealt.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be opposed to keeping Vanek. It would be a far easier decision to make if the Eriksson contract didn't exist though, and to an extent the Gagner/Sutter contracts. Keeping Vanek, plus the Sedins, just feels like too many veterans on a team that's supposed to be rebuilding... it sucks because Vanek has outplayed guys like Eriksson/Gagner/Sutter (although Gagner has been much better of late) but he is the most expendable and the easiest to move so a young player can have a full-time spot or an expanded role next year. Not keeping Vanek means we lose 20-25 goals but it may mean a better opportunity for Virtanen or Goldobin, or perhaps Pettersson/Gaudette if they push hard enough to make the team. Or maybe the Canucks cut ties with a guy like Granlund and a spot is freed up that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team cannot afford to not obtain an asset for Vanek.  Canuck fans should be absolutely giddy with an asset the team gave nothing up to get becoming more valuable every time he scores potentially returning a decent pick.

 

Trade him (either alone or in package deal) at the deadline but tell him you'll want sign him once he becomes a UFA and maybe spell out the terms (dollars and length of term) that might work for the team.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MJDDawg said:

This team cannot afford to not obtain an asset for Vanek. 

Isn't him being around to improve the play of younger players like Boeser also an asset?    Perhaps the most value to the Canuck organization could be to have Vanek stay put.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Isn't him being around to improve the play of younger players like Boeser also an asset?    Perhaps the most value to the Canuck organization could be to have Vanek stay put.   

It might be in this case since he and Brock live in the same state and practice together in the off-season, but this can't be an excuse to not get something for him.

 

Brock is already a great player in his own rights and IMO great players don't need someone else to make them better, rather they tend to make everyone they play with better.

 

Besides, no reason we can't try to re-sign him in the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MJDDawg said:

It might be in this case since he and Brock live in the same state and practice together in the off-season, but this can't be an excuse to not get something for him.

 

Brock is already a great player in his own rights and IMO great players don't need someone else to make them better, rather they tend to make everyone they play with better.

 

Besides, no reason we can't try to re-sign him in the summer.

It is not an "excuse", it simply may be the logical case.   You (nor I) have no idea how much of the "great player already" hasn't been due to the summer and then season-to-date mentoring from Vanek to Boeser and, again, what another year or so could do to even improve Boeser further.   If you got an even better Boeser (and others that have not yet had Vanek around them like EP and Gaudette), that could be many, many times more valuable to the Canucks than a third round pick from a contender.   

 

The summer his price may be quite a bit higher than getting him under contract now.   HOWEVER, where I will agree with you is if they do not re-sign him prior to TDL, then they should move him even if it brings back some FeBreeze for laundry room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I favor trading him for a pick.  Maybe, we could get a higher pick if we trade for one further into the future like in 2020 and up.  He is playing well this season, but it doesn't mean he won't regress next season like what happened with Vrbata.  Also, there will be plenty of vets looking for jobs during free agency so he is replaceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to keep Vanek, and not just because he produces. He's also very good for the younger guys on the team. I don't think the Sedins and Edler do a lot of talking and teaching. The Sedins set an example with their work ethic and playing the right way (whatever that is).   

 

Let's say they trade Vanek for a 3rd, most likely some player that will never be a regular on the Canucks. Not because he isn't good enough, but there is a log jam of better forwards all trying to make the team. How does this make the team better? Heck, I think Vanek is the only veteran I really want to keep lol  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...