I keep hearing commentators suggest that too many Sabres are not motivated enough or are too complacent.

Every time I hear that, my first thought is: Are these guys professionals? Of course they are....so HOW is it possible that they can even allow themselves to play with sub-par effort while cashing paychecks for amounts that most fans would need a winning lottery ticket to see. Seriously, think about it: Vanek alone gets paid over $85,000 PER GAME! And don't tell me it's not about the money for these athletes, because ultimately, IT IS.

These guys are PAID to be motivated, PERIOD.

Maybe, in spite of what the front office tells everybody, they aren't as talented as they were originally thought to be, save Miller (who carried them last season).

So which is it:
Are they just not "motivated" whatever that means, or are they just not talented enough to really make a run?

I'm not sure why, but many goalies seem to find their groove later on average than forwards and D. The examples you gave illustrate this. Also, the one I broguht up, Tim Thomas, is a more extreme example.

Excellent players usually establish themselves as that before they get to be 27-28. That really is the case in most sports, hockey included.

The Sabres that I think will be a lot better in time and/or finally turn the corner:

Tyler Ennis (he will be excellent in a few years))
Drew Stafford (one of the only top liners who will get better)
Tyler Meyers (superstar D-man by age 25. )

The rest, IMHO, are playing at their max capacity, or are rookies who will not pan out much in the long run.

Footnote to all this:
Ryan Miller: If this team doesn't get their shit together in the next few seasons, I hope for his sake he can go somewhere else and get the trophy he deserves. I hate seeing top talent get bogged down surrounded by mediocrity.
Thomas Vanek: I like Vanek, but I think he is a head case. Great talent translates to great performance by having indestructable confidence. There is a very short list of players who can manage that and Vanek is not on it. He will probably always be streaky because of his confidence issues. If he is having trouble scoring, it snowballs in his head. While it's easier said than done, that just can't happen.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

I have two names for you then. Daniel and Henrik Sedin. Both have been in the league for some time now. They didn't break out into huge name guys until last year when Henrik had 112 points in 82 games and Daniel had 85 in 63 games. Neither of those guys were 100 point getters before last year. Their first four years weren't anything to behold about either. It wasn't until after the lockout they flourished more, and even then, it took them another 4 years to become the threats they are right now.

You're cherry picking. Of course you can pick a star here or there, but MOST players will show their max abilities by their mid to upper 20s.

I am discussing the norm, not the exception.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Vanek has the ability to score 50 goals in an NHL season. Period. There's maybe 20 other players in the NHL this season that could realistically achieve that goal and he's one of them. If a lack of confidence is a mental illness then sign me up for shock therapy. It's really not much of a stretch to call a 2 time 40 goal scorer who is still only 27 years old, a potential 50 goal scorer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling the feat to try and make Vanek sound better than he his, scoring 50 goals in an NHL season in todays game is one of the toughest things to accomplish in all of sports. If you don't want to do it, and if you don't have an unwavering belief that you can, then you certainly wont.

Having said all of that, I still think Vanek+more for Malkin would be a good deal.

By the way, ALL scorers are streaky.

Well you can cherry pick also, you always do that when someone calls you out for showing you proof of something that argues your point, you always conclude the same statement saying they just cherry picked their stats and used it against you.

Don't like it, then don't respond. Vanek could easily be the exception to your so called rule.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I am speaking of the odds of any one player transcending the norm, based on what typically happens. YOU are trying to make an argument based on wishful thinking. Your assertion that Vanek is a 50-goal scorer is completely unfounded.

And where exactly am I cherrypicking stats or whatever you're referring to? In this case, I am just repeating what is common knowledge. And if I cherrypick "all the time", you should be able to give ONE example.

You don't like the simple point, so you're attacking the messenger.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Vanek has never shown the ability to score 50 goals in an NHL season. Period.
He has scored in the 40 to 45 goal range only twice in his 5 year career.
Vanek though, is not the central issue with the lack of sustained offensive zone attack.
Now, with that said, does it mean he will never score 50 goals in a season? No, it does not.

Quite frankly, Vaneks problem is not Vanek. We all knew what he was after Drury and Breire left.
Roy is his current best partner and Lindy tends to break them up frequently in some sort of wierd musical line up changes game.

Darcy Regier is ultimately responsible for a good portion of Vaneks inability to achieve sustained maximum success by not going out and getting a RWer that can boost his production offensively.
It is painful to watch Thomas flounder without Roy, and yes, Vanek is responsible for his own "streakiness" and inability to manage sustained production as well.

Quite frankly, Vaneks problem is not Vanek.

Can't disagree more. Vanek's problem is between his ears. He gets too frustrated when he's working and things aren't going in, and it affects his play.

No need for violence, just tell her she's got a game misconduct and show her the door.

As I said in the GDT, the call on Rivet was horseshit. The Bruins player was holding onto Rivet's stick like it was the last fucking raft on the Titanic.

Vanek's icetime has always been lower because he's so rarely killed penalties, although he's also historically been a little farther down the list when you look at even strength TOI.

Ruff, for some reason, has this vendetta against Vanek even though Vanek could most certainly be a game-changer at any minute.

How do you determine that Ruff has a 'vendetta' against Vanek, his most offensively gifted player?