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

Stafford signs multi-year deal (4 years, $16M)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2011, 10:16 PM
  #176
HarryNealesGarden
Big Daddy Ted
 
HarryNealesGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BOS
Country: United States
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weird Fish View Post
You're right that my post is overly bleak. It was really just an expression of frustration.

To fix the problems with this team (shortage of centers and defensive defensemen, not enough high end talent or grit amongst the forwards) Darcy is going to have to change his M.O. pretty dramatically. I know that the offseason is far from over, but when his first 2 moves of the Pegula era are to acquire a $4million middle of the road scoring winger, and to sink $16million into another, my doubts that Darcy is the guy who can fix our problems begin to grow.
"Darcy is going to have to change his M.O.?" Did I really just read someone write that?

Signing RFA's early-on to reasonable market deals is Darcy's M.O.????

Seriously, where do you people come from?

HarryNealesGarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2011, 10:23 PM
  #177
HarryNealesGarden
Big Daddy Ted
 
HarryNealesGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BOS
Country: United States
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i was about to articulate something similar.

The deal isn't team friendly. It's right on the dot market value. At the end of the day, anyone familiar with the league and contracts knew this was right around where things would end up.

What you pointed out is exactly how I feel... this is a sign of good things to come. We should see a few more contracts taken care of before the draft.
Yep.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Stafford's arbitration award would have been below $4M is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. He may have gotten $4.5ish if not more at arbitration. Then what?

Paying players a salary at or slightly below market value at reasonable terms is how you build winning teams in a capped era. Stafford was never going to sign for 3 million. And if you don't think he's worth more than that, you let him walk. Which, had it happened, would have gotten Pegula, Regier and Black SKEWERED by the fans, media, and the rest of the NHL for refusing to pony up on the first significant contract negotiation of their era. "Oh, look at that new Sabres owner, looks like it's more of the same, refusing to pay good players and letting them walk to greener pastures, too bad for the fans they got another tightwad owner after all those nice things he said" blah. blah. blah. seanlinden would have had a field day.

You pay Stafford a reasonable deal, show the rest of the NHL that you mean business and take care of your players, lock up a good player for a reasonable term (let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player), and you move on. The rest of the league has and will continue to take notice.

Sometimes it's not about pinching pennies. I'm astounded there's a single person out there who would have rather the Sabres let him hit arbitration and then walked away from his $4.75M award so they could fight to save 300 grand on his yearly salary.

Astounded.


Last edited by HarryNealesGarden: 06-05-2011 at 10:29 PM.
HarryNealesGarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2011, 10:33 PM
  #178
HarryNealesGarden
Big Daddy Ted
 
HarryNealesGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: BOS
Country: United States
Posts: 4,269
vCash: 500
Goodwill comes with a pricetag, guys.

HarryNealesGarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2011, 11:17 PM
  #179
BCS
Registered User
 
BCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryNealesGarden View Post
Yep.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Stafford's arbitration award would have been below $4M is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. He may have gotten $4.5ish if not more at arbitration. Then what?

Paying players a salary at or slightly below market value at reasonable terms is how you build winning teams in a capped era. Stafford was never going to sign for 3 million. And if you don't think he's worth more than that, you let him walk. Which, had it happened, would have gotten Pegula, Regier and Black SKEWERED by the fans, media, and the rest of the NHL for refusing to pony up on the first significant contract negotiation of their era. "Oh, look at that new Sabres owner, looks like it's more of the same, refusing to pay good players and letting them walk to greener pastures, too bad for the fans they got another tightwad owner after all those nice things he said" blah. blah. blah. seanlinden would have had a field day.

You pay Stafford a reasonable deal, show the rest of the NHL that you mean business and take care of your players, lock up a good player for a reasonable term (let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player), and you move on. The rest of the league has and will continue to take notice.

Sometimes it's not about pinching pennies. I'm astounded there's a single person out there who would have rather the Sabres let him hit arbitration and then walked away from his $4.75M award so they could fight to save 300 grand on his yearly salary.

Astounded.

BCS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 12:07 AM
  #180
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryNealesGarden View Post
Yep.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Stafford's arbitration award would have been below $4M is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. He may have gotten $4.5ish if not more at arbitration. Then what?

Paying players a salary at or slightly below market value at reasonable terms is how you build winning teams in a capped era. Stafford was never going to sign for 3 million. And if you don't think he's worth more than that, you let him walk. Which, had it happened, would have gotten Pegula, Regier and Black SKEWERED by the fans, media, and the rest of the NHL for refusing to pony up on the first significant contract negotiation of their era. "Oh, look at that new Sabres owner, looks like it's more of the same, refusing to pay good players and letting them walk to greener pastures, too bad for the fans they got another tightwad owner after all those nice things he said" blah. blah. blah. seanlinden would have had a field day.

You pay Stafford a reasonable deal, show the rest of the NHL that you mean business and take care of your players, lock up a good player for a reasonable term (let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player), and you move on. The rest of the league has and will continue to take notice.

Sometimes it's not about pinching pennies. I'm astounded there's a single person out there who would have rather the Sabres let him hit arbitration and then walked away from his $4.75M award so they could fight to save 300 grand on his yearly salary.

Astounded.
You're my hero.

BuiltTagonTough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 07:17 AM
  #181
WhoIsJimBob
I Believe
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I use high end talent as a generic/general description of top 6 talented players. Where did I say anything about elite players? Am I now going to read some nonsense that we don't have the talent to put together a really good top 6?

Not directed specifically at you

Honestly the pissing on our current players is sooo tiresome. The rest of the NHL must have let us go on that run from Jan 1st on out of kindness. We must have been injury free as well in the playoffs and had all our top players in the lineup. Plus we were the favorite going into the series with the higher seed that should have won the series but choked and lost to an inferior opponent. At least thats what you would take away from some of the nonsense posted on here.
It's all subjective and I was just trying to get some clarification on what you meant.

Personally, I think that the Sabres have plenty of top 6 wingers, they are short a top 6 center, and they lack the 1 or 2 elite, difference making, forwards that a lot of the top tier teams have.

The biggest issue with this crew is whether this team can get it done in crunch time.

This team has 0 playoff series wins in the past 4 seasons with pretty much the same "core" save for Myers being added to the mix the past two seasons.

WhoIsJimBob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 08:07 AM
  #182
SECRET SQUIRREL
Registered User
 
SECRET SQUIRREL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Clarence
Country: Ireland
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryNealesGarden View Post
Yep.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Stafford's arbitration award would have been below $4M is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. He may have gotten $4.5ish if not more at arbitration. Then what?

Paying players a salary at or slightly below market value at reasonable terms is how you build winning teams in a capped era. Stafford was never going to sign for 3 million. And if you don't think he's worth more than that, you let him walk. Which, had it happened, would have gotten Pegula, Regier and Black SKEWERED by the fans, media, and the rest of the NHL for refusing to pony up on the first significant contract negotiation of their era. "Oh, look at that new Sabres owner, looks like it's more of the same, refusing to pay good players and letting them walk to greener pastures, too bad for the fans they got another tightwad owner after all those nice things he said" blah. blah. blah. seanlinden would have had a field day.

You pay Stafford a reasonable deal, show the rest of the NHL that you mean business and take care of your players, lock up a good player for a reasonable term (let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player), and you move on. The rest of the league has and will continue to take notice.

Sometimes it's not about pinching pennies. I'm astounded there's a single person out there who would have rather the Sabres let him hit arbitration and then walked away from his $4.75M award so they could fight to save 300 grand on his yearly salary.

Astounded.
Excellent post

SECRET SQUIRREL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 08:24 AM
  #183
puckish66
Registered User
 
puckish66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
So you don't anticipate any significant acquisitions?
I anticipate a significant acquisition, but not a significant makeover of the team, or even the beginning of one.

Terry likes the team and made comments after taking over about the year Miller was hurt when the Sabres were a "cinch" to make the playoffs and the Boston series when the Sabres led before Vanek was hurt. This is how he thinks, unfortunately.

He did describe his vision for owning the team, at least in the short term, as a "rebranding." And Lindy and Darcy are still here. How can anyone be confident Pegula has any kind of major remaking of the on-ice product in mind?

I think he wants to let status quo play out, confident that his "feel good stuff" is going to put them over the top.

Edit: I guess you'd have to define "significant." Darcy has made significant moves over recent summers. I'd say signing Steve Montador was significant.


Last edited by puckish66: 06-06-2011 at 08:29 AM.
puckish66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 08:30 AM
  #184
Clock
Moderator
 
Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 21,316
vCash: 50
With the cap continuing to rise, an owner who has at least spoke of a willingness to spend toward it, and seeing Stafford's performance last season, I think it's a solid deal. Somewhere along the way, you have to take risks and use judgement to build a winning team.

It's also a tradeable contract should things go south. No NMC / NTC that I could find.

Zero issue with this.

Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 11:04 AM
  #185
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 11,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryNealesGarden View Post
Yep.

Frankly, anyone who thinks Stafford's arbitration award would have been below $4M is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. He may have gotten $4.5ish if not more at arbitration. Then what?

Paying players a salary at or slightly below market value at reasonable terms is how you build winning teams in a capped era. Stafford was never going to sign for 3 million. And if you don't think he's worth more than that, you let him walk. Which, had it happened, would have gotten Pegula, Regier and Black SKEWERED by the fans, media, and the rest of the NHL for refusing to pony up on the first significant contract negotiation of their era. "Oh, look at that new Sabres owner, looks like it's more of the same, refusing to pay good players and letting them walk to greener pastures, too bad for the fans they got another tightwad owner after all those nice things he said" blah. blah. blah. seanlinden would have had a field day.

You pay Stafford a reasonable deal, show the rest of the NHL that you mean business and take care of your players, lock up a good player for a reasonable term (let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player), and you move on. The rest of the league has and will continue to take notice.

Sometimes it's not about pinching pennies. I'm astounded there's a single person out there who would have rather the Sabres let him hit arbitration and then walked away from his $4.75M award so they could fight to save 300 grand on his yearly salary.

Astounded.

struckbyaparkedcar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 11:42 AM
  #186
puckish66
Registered User
 
puckish66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryNealesGarden View Post
....(let's not forget we're a cap team now, and Stafford's salary makes up only 6.5% of the projected cap for a good player)....
What's your definition of a "cap team"? Were the Sabres one under Golisano?

Ted Black has gone on record to say that teams shouldn't spend right up to the cap, to leave a little breathing room, and that the Sabres' "sweet spot" could be one million dollars, or five million, under the cap.

I don't see how this is any change in philosophy.

puckish66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 11:48 AM
  #187
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckish66 View Post
What's your definition of a "cap team"? Were the Sabres one under Golisano?

Ted Black has gone on record to say that teams shouldn't spend right up to the cap, to leave a little breathing room, and that the Sabres' "sweet spot" could be one million dollars, or five million, under the cap.

I don't see how this is any change in philosophy.

Golisano's budget was based on actual salaries not cap hits. It was also pretty much set in stone at the start of the year. That basically meant if we took on any salary (players) during the season we had to send salary out. Whether you like the acquisition of Boyes or not that was a sign of a different approach. He was acquired to help the team and no one had to be sent away in a trade to bring on his salary. Thats also why Black talks about leaving space to start the year. So you have more flexibility to add players at the trade deadline. Whereas with Golisano whenever we added a player and their salary at the deadline someone had to be moved out accomodate it.


Last edited by joshjull: 06-06-2011 at 12:03 PM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2011, 05:51 PM
  #188
ImpressedDAHagent
Go sabres
 
ImpressedDAHagent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
stafford has the ability to play at a satan like level and be a bit physical. its what you want from an organization

ImpressedDAHagent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 12:15 AM
  #189
ct2111
Registered User
 
ct2111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,901
vCash: 500
Stafford interview on WGR:
http://www.wgr550.com/topic/play_win...udioId=5334260

ct2111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2011, 06:12 AM
  #190
sabresfan123*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 609
vCash: 500
Stafford not watching the finals....guess according to JAME he is not a hockey fan

sabresfan123* 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 04:10 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.