daz28 wrote:
I can see how one may compare Vanek to Buff, because they are both tough to move down low, but I can't see comparing Iginla to Pat Kane?? Also, no one claimed Buff was Vanek, nor did they claim he'll score 50 goals. I see his potential to be 25-30 goals. You can claim having no stars hurts him, but I see it as giving him the key role in their PP.
Dunno, maybe it's just me.
daz28 wrote:
Skyline_BNR34 wrote:
30 goals a year .
The max for a guy like him is possibly 50-60 points on a great year.
If used properly(esp on the PP) Buff could potentially achieve 25-30 goals. Probably 20 assists tops. I think your range is right on(maybe even heavy on assists), but he may have a scoring touch(key).
\We paid $7 million/year, also forgoing 4 top 5 1st round picks for this type guy. The rape potential is strong here.
Reworded.
Byfuglien could possibly achieve 25-30 goals, probably 20 assists tops. We pay Thomas Vanek to be this type of player.
What the hell are you saying then?
If you Byfuglien's best TWO seasons and add them together here's how he matches up with Thomas Vanek:
(Byfuglien's stats for his two best years COMBINED minus Vanek's stats for each listed year)
G
05-06 - +11
06-07 - -7
07-08 - even
08-09 - -4
09-10 - +8
A
05-06 - +11
06-07 - -7
07-08 - +6
08-09 - +10
09-10 - +9
PPG
05-06 - +2
06-07 - -2
07-08 - -6
08-09 - -7
09-10 - +3
And that doesn't even take into account that Byfuglien is a career minus player.
In summation, Byfuglien will be slightly more productive in 82 games than Thomas Vanek is in 41.....every other year.