It isn’t just a rumour that the Canucks are in the mix to sign Thomas Vanek, one of the biggest names still available in free agency; it was confirmed by Trevor Linden during an appearance on TSN 1040.
This might come as a surprise to Canucks fans who assumed the team was done with free agency on the very first day, when they replaced five outgoing veterans with five incoming veterans. Does it make sense for the Canucks to pursue Vanek? Let’s look at the pros and cons.
Pro: Thomas Vanek is a proven scorer with 333 career goals. Only Daniel Sedin has more career goals among current Canucks. The Canucks set a franchise record for fewest goals last season; they need goals.
Con: Vanek is long removed from his 40-goal seasons with the Buffalo Sabres. The last time he had a 20-goal season was three years ago with the Minnesota Wild. Vanek is too small a bandage for too big a wound.
Pro: Vanek does more than just score goals: he’s a great playmaker too. He finished the season with 48 points in 68 games and his rate of primary assists — 1.03 per 60 minutes at 5-on-5 — was 18th among NHL forwards.
Con: That offensive prowess comes at the cost of his defensive game. According to Goals Above Replacement, only three forwards had a worse even-strength defence rating than Vanek: Jason Chimera, Jarome Iginla, and Jay McClement. At even-strength, he costs you almost as much defensively as he gives you offensively.
Pro: The Canucks do have room to shelter Vanek if they need to, either on the wing with the Sedins or on the Bo Horvat line.
Con: Vanek lacks foot speed, making him a poor fit for the Sedins, who need a speedy winger to get in on the forecheck, retrieve pucks, and help on defence.
Pro: The Canucks’ power play was terrible last season: Vanek’s 13 power play points last season would have been third on the Canucks behind the Sedins and he once scored 20 power play goals in one season. He’s a net-front presence with a knack for deflections.
Con: Vanek hasn’t scored in double digits on the power play since 2011-12. The Canucks brought in Sam Gagner, Michael Del Zotto and a new power play coach: the rest of fixing the power play will fall on the shoulders of returning players.
Pro: As a 33-year-old veteran, Vanek would provide experience and veteran leadership to a young Canucks team.
Con: As a 33-year-old veteran, Vanek would take away a roster spot from a young player. The Canucks are already going to have a tough enough time finding room for all the young players who deserve a spot on the roster.
Pro: Signing Vanek is like buying a draft pick. Last season the Detroit Red Wings signed Vanek for $2.6 million for one year, then traded him at the deadline to the Florida Panthers for Dylan McIlrath and a third-round pick. That’s a lower return than expected, but it’s still a draft pick at the cost of no assets but money and the exact type of move other rebuilding teams have made to acquire additional prospects.
Con: There is no guarantee that Vanek would net any return at all. Teams have grown wise to Vanek's defensive shortcomings, resulting in that lesser return. Is it actually worth paying a couple million dollars for, potentially, a fourth round pick or worse?
Pro: Vanek’s last name lends itself to “Vanekouver” puns. I mean, it’s something.
Con: The Canucks need to play Vanek in a position to succeed in order to pump up his value for a potential trade and they have young wingers who need to be put in that same position. Signing Vanek likely means sending down to the Comets, at the very least, both Nikolai Goldobin and Reid Boucher, and possibly Brock Boeser as well.
