HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Drew Stafford, the real deal ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-14-2011, 07:51 AM
  #151
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
If you were the GM of another team and wanted Stafford, you looked at his salary, age, injuries, production over his career, production this year, playoff stats etc.... If the Sabres ONLY wanted draft picks, would he be worth more than a high 2nd round pick/a very late first round pick? Taking off any rose colored glasses, honestly. Just a question, I am not sure what to think here. I can see both sides.
If I'm a GM on a perrenial playoff-bound team, I would offer a 2nd rounder for a guy who is scoring 2 goals for every 3 games played this year.

Only Stamkos and Crosby exceed that pace among the top 30 goal-scorers in the NHL.

And then I'd hope to resign him in the offseason, because I'm the GM of a perrenial playoff team.

And if I'm Darcy, I don't take it, because I'm hoping to resign him for 4/$18M or better.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 08:36 AM
  #152
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,117
vCash: 50
For those who want to trade him, there are two main questions that need to be answered, and the answers to those questions demonstrate why Stafford won't be traded:

1) What will Buffalo require to trade Drew Stafford?

First, you have to gauge what his value is to Buffalo. The Sabres are going to frame him as a player who finally gets it. You heard Lindy Ruff adamantly state that this was the case in his radio interview, as well as deny this was a contract-year aberration. The price tag on Stafford will be commensurate to what it costs for a guy who they believe will be a consistent 25-30 goal scorer, with the potential for more, who still has two RFA years left.

Short of a clear upgrade at a position of need--top-6 center--Buffalo has no reason to move him. Not for a mid-1st round pick who may be as good as Stafford in 4-5 years. And certainly not for a 2nd rounder and some above-average prospects. Buffalo would need someone established like Ribeiro, or someone on the cusp of being NHL-ready who will be very good very early in his career (B. Schenn).

Buffalo will be looking at the present and the future when setting his value.

2) What will other teams be willing to part with for Drew Stafford?

If a team trades for Stafford this summer, they're going to have to part with a quality asset (see above), and pay market for his next contract--likely $3.7+. Drew will cost assets and money for another team to acquire his services, which can be a tough pill to swallow. If a team is parting with assets and cash, they're going to want to consider Stafford's past inconsistencies, so that they can part with fewer assets to get him.

Other teams will put more stock in the past when setting his value, fearful that he'll return to being an inconsistent winger after said team parts with a nice asset and pays him his market worth.

That's why I'd be shocked if he gets moved. I can't see any team stepping up with the assets that Buffalo is going to demand. Maybe Dallas, just because they need a right-handed winger, Ribeiro could replaced by Benn, and Stafford is cheaper than Ribeiro. But that's about it, and that definitely won't happen if Richards leaves this summer. And Buffalo isn't going to just dump him for less than a clear upgrade at center just because they don't want to pay his next contract. Do you think Pegula, in his first big negotiation, is going to want to dump Stafford for value that is cents on the dollar relative to Staff's value because he didn't want to pay the man what the market suggests he should be paid? No way.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 09:17 AM
  #153
CowbellConray
Registered User
 
CowbellConray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
I would not be surprised to see Stafford get a 4 year 16 million dollar deal.

CowbellConray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 12:55 PM
  #154
nEaLB4ZoD
Registered User
 
nEaLB4ZoD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
If you were the GM of another team and wanted Stafford, you looked at his salary, age, injuries, production over his career, production this year, playoff stats etc.... If the Sabres ONLY wanted draft picks, would he be worth more than a high 2nd round pick/a very late first round pick? Taking off any rose colored glasses, honestly. Just a question, I am not sure what to think here. I can see both sides.
Rose colored glasses, lol. The guy is absolutely tearing the league up and you think we can't get more than a 2nd or a late first? I think this is more of a case of the usual Buffalo pessimism rather than a case of rose colored glasses.

Stafford came into the season in great shape and is finally playing to his potential. How much value does he have when he ends the season with 35 goals in 67 games? There is a decent chance that Drew Stafford is going to be a consistent 30-40 goal scorer in this league. He is already a solid 20-25 a year guy. Raffi Freaking Torres went for a second last year. Stafford's value at minimum right now is a top prospect and a 1st. I don't think the Sabres will get that if they were to trade him but they would be absolutely crazy and incompetent if they traded him for anything less.

nEaLB4ZoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 01:25 PM
  #155
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,244
vCash: 500
Ok sikmonster so let me understand what you are saying without rose colored glasses...
If stafford were traded, the sabres should get one of the following in return:
Tyler Seguin
Taylor Hall
Erik Gudbranson
John Tavares
Matt Duchene
Victor Hedman

Those are the top 3 picks (prospects) in 2009 and 2010. Or are you considering any 1st round pick in the last 2-3 years as a "top prospect". Plus a first round pick in the 2011 draft.
No you are not over rating Stafford at all.

I like Staffords play THIS year. I hope he will forever more be this good every year. I have my doubts, but it would be great if he turns into a reliable 60+ pt. producer.


Last edited by ZZamboni: 02-14-2011 at 01:38 PM.
ZZamboni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 01:56 PM
  #156
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Well, you won't get that much from the Kings for Stafford, but I'd settle for Schenn. Vanek and Pominville could be the top-6 RW's, Ennis one of the top-6 LW's, and then find another LW via UFA, where wingers abound, or trade.
I read one online item from a source that is worthless that threw out that the Kings really want a top line winger and might part with Schenn to land one and I immeditately thought of Stafford for Schenn.

No need for the Kings to sweeten the deal for me, either.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 02:28 PM
  #157
Buffalo87
thehosers dot com
 
Buffalo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rochester
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
Ok sikmonster so let me understand what you are saying without rose colored glasses...
If stafford were traded, the sabres should get one of the following in return:
Tyler Seguin
Taylor Hall
Erik Gudbranson
John Tavares
Matt Duchene
Victor Hedman

Those are the top 3 picks (prospects) in 2009 and 2010. Or are you considering any 1st round pick in the last 2-3 years as a "top prospect". Plus a first round pick in the 2011 draft.
No you are not over rating Stafford at all.

I like Staffords play THIS year. I hope he will forever more be this good every year. I have my doubts, but it would be great if he turns into a reliable 60+ pt. producer.
Holy exaggeration...a top prospect does not infer a top 3 draft pick in any way, shape, or form. Luke Adam is what I would consider a top prospect right now, he was a 2nd rounder. A 1st and a guy like Luke Adam is slightly more than what I would expect in a Stafford trade but it's not too far off.

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 02:46 PM
  #158
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,244
vCash: 500
Buffalo87.... It seems you have a different definition of the term "top prospect". You are not wrong, I am not wrong, sikmonster is not wrong. Unless there is a definition of "top prospect" that everyone knows and follows. My definition of a top prospect is a top 10-15 pick in the first round. "prospect" I view as someone who has not played in the NHL (or very little, like under 10 games) and he has high promise of being a good to great NHLer. Your definition is different, that's cool. When miller was drafted was he a top prospect? Was Derek Roy? Was pominville? IS Luke Adam? My opinion is no to all. Just my opinion and what I view as a top prospect.

ZZamboni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2011, 03:17 PM
  #159
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
Buffalo87.... It seems you have a different definition of the term "top prospect". You are not wrong, I am not wrong, sikmonster is not wrong. Unless there is a definition of "top prospect" that everyone knows and follows. My definition of a top prospect is a top 10-15 pick in the first round. "prospect" I view as someone who has not played in the NHL (or very little, like under 10 games) and he has high promise of being a good to great NHLer. Your definition is different, that's cool. When miller was drafted was he a top prospect? Was Derek Roy? Was pominville? IS Luke Adam? My opinion is no to all. Just my opinion and what I view as a top prospect.
People pulling down regular shifts int he NHL are not "prospects.' Stop playing semantics to downplay are poorly argued point. The issue is that Stafford is now a 'present' asset and team will not trade present assets unless they have a plethora at one position and a dearth at another. If Boston had depth at center and was desperate for scoring off the wing then Seguin for a Stafford that had 1 more year of 30+ goals would be a good trade... if the other issues could be balanced... salary, yadda yadda. Seguin for Ennis is a more likely deal.

But, Playoff teams don't trade present assets, they trade future assets, junior/AHL players and picks. Non-playoff teams trade present assets for future assets.

Miller, was a top prospect the minute he won something at the AHL level. He was never worth more than a late 1st.

So, Stafford for a 1st and a prospect is the most likely deal. That prospect would be of the Adam/Kassian variety.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.