deluca67 Posted June 29, 2009 Report Posted June 29, 2009 You are a bitter man. Forgive and Forget man. Its so much easier going thru life with out all that weight on you. Let me guess, you have no problem if the Bills were to sign Mike Vick.
bob_sauve28 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Let me guess, you have no problem if the Bills were to sign Mike Vick. Watch out! Eckland will use you as a source for his first NFL rumor of Vick heading to Buffalo!
wonderbread Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Let me guess, you have no problem if the Bills were to sign Mike Vick. No way, you can't goad me into that discussion.
connee Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Regier said signing him before Wednesday is not a priority It would be dumb to sign him before July 1. Get him for a lot cheaper after, or let some sucker overpay the underachiever and get some picks.
connee Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 I am on the fence with Stafford. He is the player I think of when posters call for Lindy's head. He was the one that went after Neil when he hit Drury which tells me the kid has it in him. He has the talent and size. He's not a "kid" he's a grown man. Sabres can lose just as well without him as with him. Jason Dawe Jr.
Two or less Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 It would be dumb to sign him before July 1. Get him for a lot cheaper after, or let some sucker overpay the underachiever and get some picks. Seriously? The guy was 3rd on the team in goals scored and is 23 years of age. If someone offers $3 million, that will probably be a bit too much for him so if we match, we overpay, if we don't, we get a 2nd round pick. How does that make sense? He's inconsistent i agree, but the guy is only 23. And he's never really had a true center to work with.
wjag Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 I think Stafford is one of the grittier players on the team. Letting him walk for draft picks is foolish. Clearly the Sabres are gambling here. It won't surprise me one bit to see some team like Tampa or Atlanta or Columbus offer him a sheet. Let's see positives: 20+ goals Gritty, fights, scraps in the corners good in shoot out 23 years old negatives: plays for Buffalo where speed and agility are valued over grit and tenacity use to playing with soft players Now if the plan is to take him and others and deal on 1-2 July I got no problem at all...
Guest Sloth Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Darcy talked of this summer being more active than previous one's. In this mornings article, he did stress the idea of making trades. Get Hecht and Tallinder out, Darcy!
X. Benedict Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 He's not a "kid" he's a grown man. Sabres can lose just as well without him as with him. Jason Dawe Jr. Dawes...3 years with the Amerks....by age 23 he had about 10 NHL points. People always seem surprised by lack of production on the RW.
nfreeman Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Seriously? The guy was 3rd on the team in goals scored and is 23 years of age. If someone offers $3 million, that will probably be a bit too much for him so if we match, we overpay, if we don't, we get a 2nd round pick. How does that make sense? He's inconsistent i agree, but the guy is only 23. And he's never really had a true center to work with. Below $2.6MM, it's just a 2nd-rounder. Above that amount, it's a 1st and a 3rd. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took a shot at him for the 2nd-rounder, but I'd be a bit surprised if anyone went to the more expensive level. FYI, the RFA compensation levels are here.
nobody Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 Sabres right wing Drew Stafford is a restricted free agent, but Regier said signing him before Wednesday is not a priority despite the fact the 23-year-old could attract an offer sheet. The Sabres were victimized by a bid two years ago when Edmonton signed Thomas Vanek to a $50 million offer, which Buffalo matched. "It's something that we balanced out and weighed, and we want to do what's right for both the player and the organization, and so I think you're going to see it go beyond July 1," Regier said. "I think ownership made a very serious statement in Thomas' case, and I would hope that would send a signal to the rest of the league that as an organization we're going to protect the assets we have, we're going to make decisions that are best for the organization." --------------------------------- So...What have we learned.... The Sabres will not sign Stafford prior to July 1. Then....DR annouces to everyone (Including the other GM's) Sure...go ahead and "victimize" us again because we will simply match your off the wall deal. If you want to protect the assets that you have then be proactive and don't allow another team (Ala Edmonton) to dictate contract terms for one of "our" players. Is it just me or does this team, this front office not learn from its mistakes. I've never seen a group of people talk out of both sides of thier mouth when it suited them best. I see this as Darcy being told he can not overspend on a player. So by waiting for another team to make an offer then Darcy can say that the price is market price now so he is not overspending.
nfreeman Posted June 30, 2009 Report Posted June 30, 2009 I see this as Darcy being told he can not overspend on a player. So by waiting for another team to make an offer then Darcy can say that the price is market price now so he is not overspending. I would guess that it is more a situation where Darcy has been given a total $ amount that he can spend on player payroll -- so every dollar he "overspends" on Stafford or any other RFA is a dollar he can't spend on an FNG to be acquired in trade or FA.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.