HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Drew Stafford, the real deal ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-09-2011, 09:00 AM
  #26
brian_griffin
Measured Intangibles
 
brian_griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Z4QQQ batman symbol
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 6,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
Ruff addressed the 'contract year' vs. 'light going on' issue with Stafford directly yesterday on WGR. Stafford got himself in good enough shape to finish his shifts at the same energy level as the beginning of the shift and that has given him the tools he needs to succeed in this league.

If he continues to play like this through the end of the year he's going to get a Derek Roy like contract from the Sabres. They asked him to step up his game and he has. I have no issue with him getting something like that. He's 25, hitting his prime and is, right now, nearly a PPG player. Thankfully, no one is talking about him in the Toronto media to raise his price.... yet.

Not only does he have 20 goals in 34 games (a 49 goal pace btw), but he's scoring big goals at key times. 2 goals in the final minute of regulation to force OT this year... that's huge. And, he's done this while fighting injuries and ever-changing linemates due to injury.

Ta,
Equally impressive (IMO) as his goals last night was his play on Ohlund behind the net to get him to cough the puck to Ennis at the goal line in the corner, who sent it straight to the crease for Connolly's goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlr View Post
This. Especially that last part.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but Stafford is one of the very few forwards that has shown an ability to generate his own offense. That's a big plus in my book. I'm cautiously optimistic that he's finally put his game together.
Exactly. Other than Vanek at times, and Roy at times, no-one else on BUF does that. And when Stafford flips the switch, he's Vanek-like in dominance, yet has been doing it far more often this season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
I heard this, too, and what struck me was how quickly Ruff answered that he thinks the light went on, and this wasn't a contract-year bump. He talked about the commitment that Stafford made this summer to get into "elite shape," not just get into a little bit better shape. It seems pretty clear that they view him as an important piece going forward.
Sabres training staff should learn more about that offseason program with Parise (or whomever).

What I've noticed the past several games I've watched him is his ability to get into / stay in open ice and separate from the crowds when he needs to so that the puck finds him, or stays with him longer before he is covered by a defender. That extra second / stride is getting him better looks and better shots.

At this point in the season, and with uncertainty re: Roy's capabilities if / when he returns next season, I think BUF needs to make a concerted effort to sign Drew to a value contract.

brian_griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:03 AM
  #27
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
I would try and sell high with Stafford this off season.

I don't believe that this is the "light going on" for Stafford and I don't want to be paying Stafford like a 30 goal guy when I expect him to continue to be the streaky 15 to 20 goal guy he has been for the bulk of his career.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:05 AM
  #28
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_griffin View Post
Sabres training staff should learn more about that offseason program with Parise (or whomever).
After seeing Steven Stamkos and others working with Gary Roberts over the summer with regards to working out and diet stuff, I would love to see Pegula hire Roberts as VP of Player Development.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:26 AM
  #29
maarch
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
something that nobody seemed to have raised is, do he get more icetime with the injury of roy and others major players with the sabres, wich would boost his offensive number this year

what I mean is... when he was playing with roy, was he was dominant ? or could he be even better with roy with him now that he finally hit his prime ?

not the first time I would say a player became an elite player all of a sudden because of the injury of another more important player, to then disapeared when that player came back on the ice.

Wont happen this year for stafford since roy is out for the season, but how about next year ?

what's your take on that ?

maarch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:38 AM
  #30
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,204
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
After seeing Steven Stamkos and others working with Gary Roberts over the summer with regards to working out and diet stuff, I would love to see Pegula hire Roberts as VP of Player Development.
Roberts is already filling a Player Development role working for boyhood friend and long-time teammate Joe Niieuwendyk in Dallas. I don't see him leaving that role.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:40 AM
  #31
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maarch View Post
something that nobody seemed to have raised is, do he get more icetime with the injury of roy and others major players with the sabres, wich would boost his offensive number this year

what I mean is... when he was playing with roy, was he was dominant ? or could he be even better with roy with him now that he finally hit his prime ?

not the first time I would say a player became an elite player all of a sudden because of the injury of another more important player, to then disapeared when that player came back on the ice.

Wont happen this year for stafford since roy is out for the season, but how about next year ?

what's your take on that ?


-Other than a few games this year, Stafford has hardly played with Vanek/Roy since the tail end of last year.

-His ice time really hasn't change much

-His success and production this year has pretty much been his own doing as opposed to clicking with anyone else. He has played with multiple linemates this year.

-As for Roy and Stafford thats an interesting one. They have had success together for small stretchs without Vanek. But the 3 of them together haven't clicked since Stafford's callup (when Max went down) in the 06-07 season.

-I also think taking him off the top line has helped him this year.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:42 AM
  #32
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,949
vCash: 50
I won't editorialize, and people can take this for what it's worth and make their own conclusions. I've comprised a quick list of comparable (by production and age) wingers, their 82-game averages, their contracts, their cap hit, and at what age they signed said deal:

1) Wojtek Wolski [25]: 20 G, 32 A, 52 pts-- Signed 2yr/$7.6m ($3.8 cap hit) at 24 yrs old**

2) Milan Michalek [26]: 24 G, 27 A, 51 pts--Signed 6yr/$26m ($4.33 cap hit) at 23 yrs old

3) Drew Stafford [25]: 24 G, 25 A, 49 pts-- Making $2.3m this season, 25 yrs old

4) David Backes [26]: 22 G, 26 A, 48 pts-- Signed 5yr/$22.5m ($4.5 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

5) R.J. Umberger [28]: 22 G, 25 A, 47 pts-- Signed 4yr/$15m ($3.75 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

6) Andrei Kostitsyn [26]: 22 G, 25 A, 47 pts-- Signed 3yr/$9.75m ($3.25 cap hit) at 23 yrs old**

7) Tuomo Ruutu [27]: 20 G, 27 A, 47 pts-- Signed 3yr/$11.4m ($3.8 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

8) Joffrey Lupul [27]: 23 G, 23 A, 46 pts-- Signed 4yr/$17m ($4.25 cap hit) at 25 yrs old

**denotes contracts that did not buy any UFA years

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:43 AM
  #33
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Roberts is already filling a Player Development role working for boyhood friend and long-time teammate Joe Niieuwendyk in Dallas. I don't see him leaving that role.
He's listed as a "Player Development Consultant" for the Stars.

It can't hurt to ask if a bigger role and more money with the Sabres might be of interest.

Buffalo would be a much shorter commute.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:49 AM
  #34
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,204
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
He's listed as a "Player Development Consultant" for the Stars.

It can't hurt to ask if a bigger role and more money with the Sabres might be of interest.

Buffalo would be a much shorter commute.

Having watched him on NHL Radio the other day (ok, it was around Christmas), it would have to be a real nice bump to get him out of that position. He's very, very happy doing what he's doing.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:49 AM
  #35
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 12,931
vCash: 500
These are the times when HFBoards makes me giggle. It's like some people on here spend a little too much time thinking about prospects or something. Unless a player is good by his second year in the league so many people on these boards write them off like they're busts. Some players just take longer than others to figure out their talents. The guy's 25. It's taken plenty of players longer than that to become good players in this league. I swear, if some people on these boards had their way the team would be nothing but 19 year olds and 35 year old vets.

/rant

That said, there is a legitimate concern about this being a contract year. Even with that, you still have to sign him. What are you honestly going to get for him other than a draft pick during the deadline? A draft pick that MIGHT be as good as he is now in 3-4 years.

Myllz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 09:59 AM
  #36
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Having watched him on NHL Radio the other day (ok, it was around Christmas), it would have to be a real nice bump to get him out of that position. He's very, very happy doing what he's doing.
I'm of the opinion that an investment in certain off ice staff (Player Development, Goalie Coach, etc.) can have a very high ROI when compared to spending that money on player salaries.

For instance, I believe that spending $2M a year to get Gary Roberts and Mitch Korn would add more to the on ice results than spending $2M more on NHL players.

And if you gave those two a nice budget to say hire Steve McKichan as an assistant to Mitch to help work with the guys in the pipeline (Portland and in College/Jrs) and scout goalie prospects for the draft, that would have a huge return down the line.

To me, I think too much can be made about NHL salaries and nobody really knows how much is spent on the support staff around the NHL roster that can make a huge difference in your on ice results.

Another thing I'm wondering about is the NHL scouting. Did the pro scouting staff get whacked big time in the great purge and "move to video scouting"?

If so, has pro scouting gotten way worse and led to things like dealing for Torres & Moore the past two deadlines with less than hoped for results?

I just believe that you get really good bang for the buck if you spend extra to get the right people on staff.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:15 AM
  #37
Luceni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
I'd trade him at deadline for as much we can get.

Luceni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:20 AM
  #38
Pengo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,910
vCash: 500
Teams around the league may not be convinced that he's a PPG player.

It might be worth it to re-sign him, and then trade him for a #1B center (or better) if he continues this success. Obviously there's a chance that he'd go back to the same old Stafford, but if not then we'd be able to get a lot more for him.

Pengo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:24 AM
  #39
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 Kassian View Post
Teams around the league may not be convinced that he's a PPG player.

It might be worth it to re-sign him, and then trade him for a #1B center (or better) if he continues this success. Obviously there's a chance that he'd go back to the same old Stafford, but if not then we'd be able to get a lot more for him.
The only thing I would trade Stafford for right now is a potential #1 center. Otherwise, he's too valuable an asset to not re-sign through at least age 29.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:32 AM
  #40
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,949
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
The only thing I would trade Stafford for right now is a potential #1 center. Otherwise, he's too valuable an asset to not re-sign through at least age 29.

Ta,
Agreed. Given Dallas's need for a right-handed winger, I wonder if they'd dangle Ribeiro for him now. Looking at my comparables chart, even signing him to a 4yr/$16m contract--which buys two UFA years--does not restrict our ability to remedy several of our deficiencies. We'd still be $16-$17m under the cap, with the ability to get even further under the cap if someone like Hecht is moved.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:46 AM
  #41
goooal
Registered User
 
goooal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 581
vCash: 500
If what Ruff is saying is really the organizations belief (that Staff really turned the corner this year) I say lock him in with a deal, at least three years but I'd prefer four (maybe even five, but I'm not sure hed do it if he has confidence in himself). If you get him to four years you can achieve a reasonable cap hit for an impact player (3.5/per maybe?). A 4 year should also satisfy him as he would come out when he'd still (if he is in fact the real deal) be in his prime and ready to sign a 4~6 year big, till end of career deal.

Also, the organization needs to start negotiations. It will be a nice show of confidence for him I think, and life is easier (generally) when you dont wait till a week before free agency.

Yes, I would say it's a risk, but risks need to be taken to go far. I'd rather take the (reasonable) risk than never go anywhere for fear of a mistake.

goooal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 10:56 AM
  #42
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,204
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I'm of the opinion that an investment in certain off ice staff (Player Development, Goalie Coach, etc.) can have a very high ROI when compared to spending that money on player salaries.

For instance, I believe that spending $2M a year to get Gary Roberts and Mitch Korn would add more to the on ice results than spending $2M more on NHL players.

And if you gave those two a nice budget to say hire Steve McKichan as an assistant to Mitch to help work with the guys in the pipeline (Portland and in College/Jrs) and scout goalie prospects for the draft, that would have a huge return down the line.

To me, I think too much can be made about NHL salaries and nobody really knows how much is spent on the support staff around the NHL roster that can make a huge difference in your on ice results.

Another thing I'm wondering about is the NHL scouting. Did the pro scouting staff get whacked big time in the great purge and "move to video scouting"?

If so, has pro scouting gotten way worse and led to things like dealing for Torres & Moore the past two deadlines with less than hoped for results?

I just believe that you get really good bang for the buck if you spend extra to get the right people on staff.
Preaching to the choir about improvements within dollars spent regarding the hockey department. More good sets of eyes in both the pro and amateur teams is a must as far as any on-ice dollars spent.

I have no issue with improving their developmental staff. My point is that Roberts and Niewie are long-time (30+ year) friends and the relationship aspect of the position is something Roberts both sought and enjoys. That he's good at it goes without saying. That he'd simply follow the money to leave that work arrangement though... not likely.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:00 AM
  #43
Buffalo87
thehosers dot com
 
Buffalo87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rochester
Posts: 7,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I'm of the opinion that an investment in certain off ice staff (Player Development, Goalie Coach, etc.) can have a very high ROI when compared to spending that money on player salaries.

For instance, I believe that spending $2M a year to get Gary Roberts and Mitch Korn would add more to the on ice results than spending $2M more on NHL players.

And if you gave those two a nice budget to say hire Steve McKichan as an assistant to Mitch to help work with the guys in the pipeline (Portland and in College/Jrs) and scout goalie prospects for the draft, that would have a huge return down the line.

To me, I think too much can be made about NHL salaries and nobody really knows how much is spent on the support staff around the NHL roster that can make a huge difference in your on ice results.

Another thing I'm wondering about is the NHL scouting. Did the pro scouting staff get whacked big time in the great purge and "move to video scouting"?

If so, has pro scouting gotten way worse and led to things like dealing for Torres & Moore the past two deadlines with less than hoped for results?

I just believe that you get really good bang for the buck if you spend extra to get the right people on staff.
Completely agree, the things that a Gary Roberts/Mitch Korn could do for the organization go way beyond the 3rd liner we could spend taht extra $2 mil on.

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:04 AM
  #44
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 goooal View Post
If what Ruff is saying is really the organizations belief (that Staff really turned the corner this year) I say lock him in with a deal, at least three years but I'd prefer four (maybe even five, but I'm not sure hed do it if he has confidence in himself). If you get him to four years you can achieve a reasonable cap hit for an impact player (3.5/per maybe?). A 4 year should also satisfy him as he would come out when he'd still (if he is in fact the real deal) be in his prime and ready to sign a 4~6 year big, till end of career deal.

Also, the organization needs to start negotiations. It will be a nice show of confidence for him I think, and life is easier (generally) when you dont wait till a week before free agency.

Yes, I would say it's a risk, but risks need to be taken to go far. I'd rather take the (reasonable) risk than never go anywhere for fear of a mistake.
I'm thinking a Derek Roy contract, but I think that's unreasonable given the number of UFA years that buys. If you can get 4/$16 great. If he's willing to sign longer at a slightly lower number, definitely.... but that outcome is very unlikely.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:13 AM
  #45
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,949
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Preaching to the choir about improvements within dollars spent regarding the hockey department. More good sets of eyes in both the pro and amateur teams is a must as far as any on-ice dollars spent.

I have no issue with improving their developmental staff. My point is that Roberts and Niewie are long-time (30+ year) friends and the relationship aspect of the position is something Roberts both sought and enjoys. That he's good at it goes without saying. That he'd simply follow the money to leave that work arrangement though... not likely.
Agreed. The thing that most stood out to me when watching 24/7 was the relationships forged between and amongst players, coaches, management, and ownership. We on message boards--and I include myself in this statement--sometimes look at players, coaches, and GM's as chattels worth little more than the paper their contracts are printed on. But that's just not how these organizations operate. There are intrinsic and extrinsic variables that we often fail to consider--such as the relationship between a coach and GM, or that not every player/coach will leave a comfortable situation for more money or a promotion--when we're "running the organization" from our keyboards. I'm not knocking any one poster, just adding on to Chain's bolded statement above.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:15 AM
  #46
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
I have no issue with improving their developmental staff. My point is that Roberts and Niewie are long-time (30+ year) friends and the relationship aspect of the position is something Roberts both sought and enjoys. That he's good at it goes without saying. That he'd simply follow the money to leave that work arrangement though... not likely.
True.

How about plan B: Pry Joe N. out of Dallas?

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:17 AM
  #47
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,093
vCash: 500
So with that Stafford logic as i see it ...
Stafford
06-07 - 41 gms. played - 27 pts (so a full season would be around 54 pts) on pace
07-08 - 64 gms. played - 38 pts (so a full season would be around 48 pts) on pace
08-09 - 79 gms. played - 45 pts (so a full season would be around 46 pts) on pace
09-10 - 71 gms. played - 34 pts (so a full season would be around 38 pts) on pace
10-11 - 34 gms. played - 30 pts (so a full season would be around 72 pts) on pace


So 1 out of 5 seasons stafford is doing very good, the others he was mediocre

Nathan Gerbe
10-11 - 35 gms. played - 14 pts (so a full season would be around 32 pts) on pace

Well Gerbe had the majority of his season as an underperformer, but since dec. 21st he has been better (about a 5th of the season) lets sign him to a multi year deal, he gets it now?

No, i don't think Stafford gets it .... yet, he has proved nothing playing 34 games as a "changed" player. If he has a great finish to the season, you sign him to a 1-2 yr deal with a small bump in pay. If he proves in 11-12 that he is on pace as a 60+ pt. producer again, then it shows NOW that he has a respectable history of "getting it". He is a "changed" player. All the excuses or stat padding and altering doesn't change a thing.
His history right now is way too sketchy to throw multi year 3+ mil/per at him. I refer to Pominville, and Hecht as a brutal example of what could happen with overpaying Stafford, and no one TODAY can say that absolutely won't happen, and be grounded in reality.

ZZamboni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:26 AM
  #48
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 12,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
So with that Stafford logic as i see it ...
Stafford
06-07 - 41 gms. played - 27 pts (so a full season would be around 54 pts) on pace
07-08 - 64 gms. played - 38 pts (so a full season would be around 48 pts) on pace
08-09 - 79 gms. played - 45 pts (so a full season would be around 46 pts) on pace
09-10 - 71 gms. played - 34 pts (so a full season would be around 38 pts) on pace
10-11 - 34 gms. played - 30 pts (so a full season would be around 72 pts) on pace


So 1 out of 5 seasons stafford is doing very good, the others he was mediocre

Nathan Gerbe
10-11 - 35 gms. played - 14 pts (so a full season would be around 32 pts) on pace

Well Gerbe had the majority of his season as an underperformer, but since dec. 21st he has been better (about a 5th of the season) lets sign him to a multi year deal, he gets it now?

No, i don't think Stafford gets it .... yet, he has proved nothing playing 34 games as a "changed" player. If he has a great finish to the season, you sign him to a 1-2 yr deal with a small bump in pay. If he proves in 11-12 that he is on pace as a 60+ pt. producer again, then it shows NOW that he has a respectable history of "getting it". He is a "changed" player. All the excuses or stat padding and altering doesn't change a thing.
His history right now is way too sketchy to throw multi year 3+ mil/per at him. I refer to Pominville, and Hecht as a brutal example of what could happen with overpaying Stafford, and no one TODAY can say that absolutely won't happen, and be grounded in reality.
Fantasy land sure is fun. If he has a great finish to the season, why would he accept a 1-2 year contract for little raise in salary? Someone will throw money at him if he finishes with 65-70 points or more. Even IF he did sign a 1-2 year contract, and he becomes the player he has been so far this season, what happens after that contract? Now you're stuck paying him a ton more to keep him here, which again, probably isn't going to happen when 10 other teams will want to do the same thing.

Your Gerbe comparison is pointless, too.

Myllz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:28 AM
  #49
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
So with that Stafford logic as i see it ...
Stafford
06-07 - 41 gms. played - 27 pts (so a full season would be around 54 pts) on pace
07-08 - 64 gms. played - 38 pts (so a full season would be around 48 pts) on pace
08-09 - 79 gms. played - 45 pts (so a full season would be around 46 pts) on pace
09-10 - 71 gms. played - 34 pts (so a full season would be around 38 pts) on pace
10-11 - 34 gms. played - 30 pts (so a full season would be around 72 pts) on pace


So 1 out of 5 seasons stafford is doing very good, the others he was mediocre

Nathan Gerbe
10-11 - 35 gms. played - 14 pts (so a full season would be around 32 pts) on pace

Well Gerbe had the majority of his season as an underperformer, but since dec. 21st he has been better (about a 5th of the season) lets sign him to a multi year deal, he gets it now?

No, i don't think Stafford gets it .... yet, he has proved nothing playing 34 games as a "changed" player. If he has a great finish to the season, you sign him to a 1-2 yr deal with a small bump in pay. If he proves in 11-12 that he is on pace as a 60+ pt. producer again, then it shows NOW that he has a respectable history of "getting it". He is a "changed" player. All the excuses or stat padding and altering doesn't change a thing.
His history right now is way too sketchy to throw multi year 3+ mil/per at him. I refer to Pominville, and Hecht as a brutal example of what could happen with overpaying Stafford, and no one TODAY can say that absolutely won't happen, and be grounded in reality.
This is the exact logic that destroyed the team we had in 05-07. In the salary cap world you need to be proactive, the plan you ourlined here (albeit with less risk) is purely reactive.

Buffalo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2011, 11:34 AM
  #50
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,949
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Zamboni View Post
So with that Stafford logic as i see it ...
Stafford
06-07 - 41 gms. played - 27 pts (so a full season would be around 54 pts) on pace
07-08 - 64 gms. played - 38 pts (so a full season would be around 48 pts) on pace
08-09 - 79 gms. played - 45 pts (so a full season would be around 46 pts) on pace
09-10 - 71 gms. played - 34 pts (so a full season would be around 38 pts) on pace
10-11 - 34 gms. played - 30 pts (so a full season would be around 72 pts) on pace


So 1 out of 5 seasons stafford is doing very good, the others he was mediocre
Mediocre? In three of the four "mediocre" seasons, he had 82-game averages of 45+ points. That's a 2nd-line forward in the NHL. And he put up those numbers in his early 20's.

Quote:
Nathan Gerbe
10-11 - 35 gms. played - 14 pts (so a full season would be around 32 pts) on pace

Well Gerbe had the majority of his season as an underperformer, but since dec. 21st he has been better (about a 5th of the season) lets sign him to a multi year deal, he gets it now?
Nice strawman. Nobody is saying that about Gerbe for a multitude of reasons, few of which are relevant to this thread. Stop trying to distract from the issue.

Quote:
No, i don't think Stafford gets it .... yet, he has proved nothing playing 34 games as a "changed" player. If he has a great finish to the season, you sign him to a 1-2 yr deal with a small bump in pay.
Then you can't sign him, because he ain't taking it. See ya in arbitration! And is that really where we want to go? The arbitrators suck at setting the market.

Stafford has leverage now.

Quote:
All the excuses or stat padding and altering doesn't change a thing.
Read: objective facts. Sorry that they run counter to your emotional assessments.

Quote:
I refer to Pominville, and Hecht as a brutal example of what could happen with overpaying Stafford, and no one TODAY can say that absolutely won't happen, and be grounded in reality.
Take the inverse: nobody can say today that this absolutely will happen. Welcome to the NHL, friend, where you have to pay for potental under this CBA because players become free agents and have arbitration rights at a much younger age. I've posted it once, and I'll do it again until you address it--here's the list of comparables:

Quote:
1) Wojtek Wolski [25]: 20 G, 32 A, 52 pts-- Signed 2yr/$7.6m ($3.8 cap hit) at 24 yrs old**

2) Milan Michalek [26]: 24 G, 27 A, 51 pts--Signed 6yr/$26m ($4.33 cap hit) at 23 yrs old

3) Drew Stafford [25]: 24 G, 25 A, 49 pts-- Making $2.3m this season, 25 yrs old

4) David Backes [26]: 22 G, 26 A, 48 pts-- Signed 5yr/$22.5m ($4.5 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

5) R.J. Umberger [28]: 22 G, 25 A, 47 pts-- Signed 4yr/$15m ($3.75 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

6) Andrei Kostitsyn [26]: 22 G, 25 A, 47 pts-- Signed 3yr/$9.75m ($3.25 cap hit) at 23 yrs old**

7) Tuomo Ruutu [27]: 20 G, 27 A, 47 pts-- Signed 3yr/$11.4m ($3.8 cap hit) at 26 yrs old

8) Joffrey Lupul [27]: 23 G, 23 A, 46 pts-- Signed 4yr/$17m ($4.25 cap hit) at 25 yrs old

**denotes contracts that did not buy any UFA years
Take a look at the cap hits of the comparables, and then give your head a shake for thinking 2yrs/$5 mil is anywhere in the ballpark. Good luck convincing his agent that he should sign for over $1mil less per year than all these guys, many of which Stafford has better numbers than. Objective stats are a *****, aren't they?

Zip15 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 03:27 AM.

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.