Page 16 of 94 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 1862

Thread: New York Islanders 2013-14

  1. #301
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Offense was and is not the problem with this team. MM was 6-3-9 and Vanek 4-5-9. Pretty freakin similar numbers this year, I'd say. MM and JT had chemistry. Now JT's got diddly poo. Isles have one of the better goals scored per game in the league, and yet one of the worst records to show for it. Adding Patrick Kane and Sidney Crosby wouldn't matter an ounce of shlt with Nappy back there.

    Adding a RW ain't gonna solve bubkus.


  2. #302
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Big L View Post
    Offense was and is not the problem with this team. MM was 6-3-9 and Vanek 4-5-9. Pretty freakin similar numbers this year, I'd say. MM and JT had chemistry. Now JT's got diddly poo. Isles have one of the better goals scored per game in the league, and yet one of the worst records to show for it. Adding Patrick Kane and Sidney Crosby wouldn't matter an ounce of shlt with Nappy back there.

    Adding a RW ain't gonna solve bubkus.

    Actually, it will. Your acting as if if the Islanders are an offensive juggernaut. They aren't. They are slightly above average offensively.

    Scoring more goals is imperative for a team that is weak defensively and in net. This move will no doubt translate into more points during the course of the season.

  3. #303
    just because they have similar stats doesn't mean they r similar talent level

  4. #304
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,086
    Moulson just scored three minutes into the first period on a slap shot. Maybe JT was holding him back.

  5. #305
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Traitor Jay & the Woodies View Post
    Actually, it will. Your acting as if if the Islanders are an offensive juggernaut. They aren't. They are slightly above average offensively.

    Scoring more goals is imperative for a team that is weak defensively and in net. This move will no doubt translate into more points during the course of the season.
    Respectfully disagree, TJ&TW. No one, including myself, ever called the Isles an offensive juggernaut.

    The isles are tied for 9th in the league for goals scored per game. They have the fewest wins to show for it in the top 15 teams of goals scored per game.

    They are 24th in goals allowed. The top 10+ teams in the league leading goals allowed all have 6 wins or more.

    As you can see, offense is not the isles problem. Upgrading defense and/or goaltending will earn them more points in the standings than adding 10 goals a year.

    Like I said before, al the firepower doesn't mean dick if your goalie can't stop the puck.

    The isles didn't need to tinker with the offense. They should have traded a player and picks for a decent goalie.

  6. #306
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Serious question, but how many more goals do you think Vanek will score than MM? What's the differential? Over the season.

  7. #307
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Big L View Post
    Serious question, but how many more goals do you think Vanek will score than MM? What's the differential? Over the season.
    I don't know, but I think that is the wrong question.

    I think it's about how much more the top line and JT produce with Vanek on the wing vs Moulson.

  8. #308
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Big L View Post
    Serious question, but how many more goals do you think Vanek will score than MM? What's the differential? Over the season.
    Matt is up 2-0

  9. #309
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The swamp via LI
    Posts
    2,238
    These are not my words but were swiped off of an Islander message board. But I think it sums up this trade too a T.

    "It comes down to this...

    Crosby has Malkin
    Stamkos has StLouis
    Toews has Kane
    Getzlaf has Perry
    Thornton has Marleau
    Datsyuk has Zets

    Tavares finally has someone else to take some heat off of him. Not one single coach in the NHL was looking for ways to shut Moulson down... no one else on JT's line or any other line for that matter. It's going to open up a lot of space for him, and that's good for the entire team."



    Now my take is this CAN BE a great trade, but only if Vanek is re-signed. If they lose him to free agency then this trade will go down as worse than the Smyth trade because of the picks. You can ask 30 NHL Gm's who they would rather have and Vanek would be 30 for 30. He is so much better than Moulson 5 on 5 and we lose nothing on the PP. He's also a beast in the crease.

    I've always liked Moulson because of what he does, puts pucks in the net. But the rest of his game is a liability.

    I've used this tool in the past regarding Moulsons game. How many times does the puck stay on his stick for more than two seconds. Answer is never. He is what he is, a PP specialist, and a damn good one at that.

    And the stats used too compare these players is laughable. Show me one good Centerman Vanek has ever played with on JT's class.

    This will be a good trade if Vanek is locked up. If he walks it is a terrible trade because we could have used those picks for more urgent needs like a goalie and a stout Dman. IMO after Hammer and Viz the rest of our Dman suck. Hopefully Donovan progresses but the real studs are still in the waiting. The Reinharts, Pulocks, and my boy Pedan. Don't want too leave out Pokka and Pelech either.

    It's unfortunate that Cappy will somehow screw this up. Already looks like Okposo will stay on the first line and Grabs will go to the third in favor of PMB. He'll probably scratch Nelson again in favor of Regin and PMB. This fvcking clown can't be gone soon enough. But we are stuck with this incompetent chowd for the foreseeable future.

    But I give Garth credit for blowing his load, and if he can re-sign TV this trade will be great. If not, not so great giving a 1+2 for a rental.

    Also think Garth had no inclination too resign MM long term at the numbers he would have commanded. IMO that was a smart move. I'm just glad it happened with the bulk of the season ahead of us, not behind us.

  10. #310
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    4,966
    I agree with Big L on this one. I don't like this trade. Only 2 ways that I see a team making a trade like this: 1 - if they are one piece away from a legitimate Stanley Cup run, or 2 - if there is some degree of certainty that Vanek will sign a long term extension. This team is clearly more than one missing piece from a cup run - they still have huge issues on the blue line and in the net, so that even with Vanek, they are not a lock to even make the playoffs, much less make a run. Hopefully Garth has some comfort level that he will be able to sign Vanek, but he is taking a huge risk.

    Vanek is an upgrade over Moulson, but is one partial season of Vanek (with a possibility of more) worth Moulson and 2 high picks. I am just afraid he will walk after this season, and what will we really have accomplished with this deal. Hopefully I am wrong, but I don't like the deal. Still, looking forward to seeing Vanek play tonight.

  11. #311
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by RobR View Post
    These are not my words but were swiped off of an Islander message board. But I think it sums up this trade too a T.

    "It comes down to this...

    Crosby has Malkin
    Stamkos has StLouis
    Toews has Kane
    Getzlaf has Perry
    Thornton has Marleau
    Datsyuk has Zets

    Tavares finally has someone else to take some heat off of him. Not one single coach in the NHL was looking for ways to shut Moulson down... no one else on JT's line or any other line for that matter. It's going to open up a lot of space for him, and that's good for the entire team."



    Now my take is this CAN BE a great trade, but only if Vanek is re-signed. If they lose him to free agency then this trade will go down as worse than the Smyth trade because of the picks. You can ask 30 NHL Gm's who they would rather have and Vanek would be 30 for 30. He is so much better than Moulson 5 on 5 and we lose nothing on the PP. He's also a beast in the crease.

    I've always liked Moulson because of what he does, puts pucks in the net. But the rest of his game is a liability.

    I've used this tool in the past regarding Moulsons game. How many times does the puck stay on his stick for more than two seconds. Answer is never. He is what he is, a PP specialist, and a damn good one at that.

    And the stats used too compare these players is laughable. Show me one good Centerman Vanek has ever played with on JT's class.

    This will be a good trade if Vanek is locked up. If he walks it is a terrible trade because we could have used those picks for more urgent needs like a goalie and a stout Dman. IMO after Hammer and Viz the rest of our Dman suck. Hopefully Donovan progresses but the real studs are still in the waiting. The Reinharts, Pulocks, and my boy Pedan. Don't want too leave out Pokka and Pelech either.

    It's unfortunate that Cappy will somehow screw this up. Already looks like Okposo will stay on the first line and Grabs will go to the third in favor of PMB. He'll probably scratch Nelson again in favor of Regin and PMB. This fvcking clown can't be gone soon enough. But we are stuck with this incompetent chowd for the foreseeable future.

    But I give Garth credit for blowing his load, and if he can re-sign TV this trade will be great. If not, not so great giving a 1+2 for a rental.

    Also think Garth had no inclination too resign MM long term at the numbers he would have commanded. IMO that was a smart move. I'm just glad it happened with the bulk of the season ahead of us, not behind us.
    I agree, I just think tinkering with the offense at this time is basically a net sum of close to zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lithfan View Post
    I agree with Big L on this one. I don't like this trade. Only 2 ways that I see a team making a trade like this: 1 - if they are one piece away from a legitimate Stanley Cup run, or 2 - if there is some degree of certainty that Vanek will sign a long term extension. This team is clearly more than one missing piece from a cup run - they still have huge issues on the blue line and in the net, so that even with Vanek, they are not a lock to even make the playoffs, much less make a run. Hopefully Garth has some comfort level that he will be able to sign Vanek, but he is taking a huge risk.

    Vanek is an upgrade over Moulson, but is one partial season of Vanek (with a possibility of more) worth Moulson and 2 high picks. I am just afraid he will walk after this season, and what will we really have accomplished with this deal. Hopefully I am wrong, but I don't like the deal. Still, looking forward to seeing Vanek play tonight.
    +1

    On NHL tonight, they were analyzing the trade. One guy said, "get all the goal scoring you want, if you get goaltending, that's the difference between winning and losing. Last year, if Nabakov was better, they beat Pittsburg. And if Pitt had better goaltending, they'd go further in the playoffs as well."

  12. #312
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Big L View Post
    I agree, I just think tinkering with the offense at this time is basically a net sum of close to zero.



    +1

    On NHL tonight, they were analyzing the trade. One guy said, "get all the goal scoring you want, if you get goaltending, that's the difference between winning and losing. Last year, if Nabakov was better, they beat Pittsburg. And if Pitt had better goaltending, they'd go further in the playoffs as well."
    No one is disputing that we need better goaltending. Would you rather spent te picks on Ryan Miller and kept Moulson because that's wat it would likely have cost.

    Moulson was a great Islander - he stayed with this team through the real bleak years. But, he is a one dimensional player and would have demanded big bucks. If we are going to throw money at a winger, I'd much rather it be Vanek over Moulson.

    This move is risky, no doubt. But just because we also need a goalie doesn't mean we didn't need a #1 winger too.

  13. #313
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    No one is disputing that we need better goaltending. Would you rather spent te picks on Ryan Miller and kept Moulson because that's wat it would likely have cost.

    Moulson was a great Islander - he stayed with this team through the real bleak years. But, he is a one dimensional player and would have demanded big bucks. If we are going to throw money at a winger, I'd much rather it be Vanek over Moulson.

    This move is risky, no doubt. But just because we also need a goalie doesn't mean we didn't need a #1 winger too.
    The deal haters are saying we should have used those picks on a goalie, i.e. Miller. But I have to believe that the price for Miller was higher than what the Isles paid to get Vanek.

    Isles are starting to have the look of a legit NHL franchise.

  14. #314
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Traitor Jay & the Woodies View Post
    The deal haters are saying we should have used those picks on a goalie, i.e. Miller. But I have to believe that the price for Miller was higher than what the Isles paid to get Vanek.

    Isles are starting to have the look of a legit NHL franchise.
    I can't imagine it was higher, but who would you want more....a 33 yr old Miller or a 29 yr old Vanek for that price? Miller could be had in the off season, me thinks. There are only a limited number of teams looking for a goalie. Vanek, OTOH, would have every team in the league interested. The Isles can re-sign Vanek AND go after Miller....they'd be trading the salaries of Moulson and Nabby for Miller and Vanek. Higher to be sure, but not to the point where it blows their (cheap as hell) cap structure.

    And the swap of Moulson for Vanek makes sense. We make room in our top 6 by letting go a guy taking up a space. Not saying that the trade isn't risky (it most certainly is), but the pieces at least fit. I guess we could have done Nabby and picks for MIller, but I can't see the Sabres doing that.

    Bottom line, the reason I like this trade is that the upside is higher than the downside.

  15. #315
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    No one is disputing that we need better goaltending. Would you rather spent te picks on Ryan Miller and kept Moulson because that's wat it would likely have cost.

    Moulson was a great Islander - he stayed with this team through the real bleak years. But, he is a one dimensional player and would have demanded big bucks. If we are going to throw money at a winger, I'd much rather it be Vanek over Moulson.

    This move is risky, no doubt. But just because we also need a goalie doesn't mean we didn't need a #1 winger too.
    Ab-so-fvcking-lutely. 100 and 10%. Adding Vanek doesn't get us much closer to making the playoffs, IMO. While on the other hand, adding a real goalie would definitely increase the chances of making the playoffs.


    We'll see at the end of the year. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. But I'm not drinking the blue and orange Kool-Aid either.

  16. #316
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    I can't imagine it was higher, but who would you want more....a 33 yr old Miller or a 29 yr old Vanek for that price? Miller could be had in the off season, me thinks. There are only a limited number of teams looking for a goalie. Vanek, OTOH, would have every team in the league interested. The Isles can re-sign Vanek AND go after Miller....they'd be trading the salaries of Moulson and Nabby for Miller and Vanek. Higher to be sure, but not to the point where it blows their (cheap as hell) cap structure.

    And the swap of Moulson for Vanek makes sense. We make room in our top 6 by letting go a guy taking up a space. Not saying that the trade isn't risky (it most certainly is), but the pieces at least fit. I guess we could have done Nabby and picks for MIller, but I can't see the Sabres doing that.

    Bottom line, the reason I like this trade is that the upside is higher than the downside.
    Plus a number one this year and #2 next year. Don't forget. If it was a straight up player swap, I'd take it in a heart beat. But it wasn't. I'm no GM, but I would have used the player and two picks on getting better in net. Seems like the smarter move to me, but what the hell do I know.

    Upside is if Vanek signs long term. Otherwise, nothing but downside. You all read the quote from Vaneks agent saying "We'll see at the end of the season."? Not for nuthin, but that doesn't sound too good right off the bat.

  17. #317
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Traitor Jay & the Woodies View Post
    The deal haters are saying we should have used those picks on a goalie, i.e. Miller. But I have to believe that the price for Miller was higher than what the Isles paid to get Vanek.

    Isles are starting to have the look of a legit NHL franchise.
    With Nabakov still the #1?? I bet 29 other NHL franchises might disagree.

  18. #318
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Big L View Post
    Plus a number one this year and #2 next year. Don't forget. If it was a straight up player swap, I'd take it in a heart beat. But it wasn't. I'm no GM, but I would have used the player and two picks on getting better in net. Seems like the smarter move to me, but what the hell do I know.

    Upside is if Vanek signs long term. Otherwise, nothing but downside. You all read the quote from Vaneks agent saying "We'll see at the end of the season."? Not for nuthin, but that doesn't sound too good right off the bat.
    Its a pretty simple scenario (barring something unforeseen....like the Isles making a Cup run this year)...he signs, we win, he doesn't, we lose.

    It will be interesting to see what Miller ultimately goes for, assuming he does (seems like he has to now, right?). If the same deal of swap goalies with the same picks is/was available, I'm not sure how I would feel. JMO, but I think Vanek is a better player than Miller is goalie. But we obviously need a goalie more.

  19. #319
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    4,966
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    Its a pretty simple scenario (barring something unforeseen....like the Isles making a Cup run this year)...he signs, we win, he doesn't, we lose.
    I agree completely, and this sums up my view of the trade. We are a better team tonight with Vanek in place of Moulson, but I am afraid that this is TVs first shot at free agency and he is going to want to test the market and we will lose. Hopefully the opportunity to spend the next 6+ months playing alongside JT will convince him to stay.

    It is a risky gamble, and I think the odds are against us. Time will tell.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

  20. #320
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Lithfan View Post
    I agree completely, and this sums up my view of the trade. We are a better team tonight with Vanek in place of Moulson, but I am afraid that this is TVs first shot at free agency and he is going to want to test the market and we will lose. Hopefully the opportunity to spend the next 6+ months playing alongside JT will convince him to stay.

    It is a risky gamble, and I think the odds are against us. Time will tell.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    the difference here - as opposed to the Smyth trade - is that back then, we probably could have used the picks we lost. Now, OTOH, we are pretty much stocked in the prospect category that its not like there could really be a fast track to the NHL for whomever we draft next year. We simply have too many players in our system from 18-20 yrs old that would be in front of any potential player. And while a pick in teh 15-20 range of a relatively weak draft has a better than average chance to be a regular NHLer, he also has a pretty remote chance of being a star. So, realistically, we are giving up a potential 2nd/3rd liner in 2017 and beyond in exchange for the opportunity to obtain the services of a guy like Vanek.

    That's ultimately why I don't mind taking the risk. Vanek bolts, we lose this deal. But, what do we really lose? And with this team, the fact that we took a bold shot is a positive. Having management take a calculated risk and show that they are willing to spend is a good thing, IMO.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us