How much should the Sabres pay to keep Stafford?

[nfreeman]

I know everyone would rather package Stafford with Tallinder in exchange for Pronger/Marleau/Heatley/Gretzky, but I'm assuming that isn't an option. So, if the choices are either pony up for Stafford or let him go for a draft pick that is quite likely to become a washout, what would you prefer? Just remember that if we give him a fat 3-year deal, there is a very real likelihood that it will turn into a Tallinder/Max albatross contract that will limit the Sabres' ability to make other moves for the length of the contract. Accordingly, at what point is he too rich for your blood?

 

My limit is $3MM x 2 years. He just hasn't shown enough to merit a 3-year deal, and the Sabres still own his rights after a 2-year deal expires.

[stenbaro]

I know everyone would rather package Stafford with Tallinder in exchange for Pronger/Marleau/Heatley/Gretzky, but I'm assuming that isn't an option. So, if the choices are either pony up for Stafford or let him go for a draft pick that is quite likely to become a washout, what would you prefer? Just remember that if we give him a fat 3-year deal, there is a very real likelihood that it will turn into a Tallinder/Max albatross contract that will limit the Sabres' ability to make other moves for the length of the contract. Accordingly, at what point is he too rich for your blood?

 

My limit is $3MM x 2 years. He just hasn't shown enough to merit a 3-year deal, and the Sabres still own his rights after a 2-year deal expires.

..He has shown some very small flashes of what type of player he could turn into..With that said the only contract I offer him is 2 yrs in the 2 million range and no more..He hasnt been consistent enuff for any more if they are looking to keep him..But I would definatley be looking into signing and trading him way before someone offered him the contract where all we get back is a 2nd rdr..His potential upside is to great to let go for another 3yr projsect if come maybe that he is already putting them through

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

I know everyone would rather package Stafford with Tallinder in exchange for Pronger/Marleau/Heatley/Gretzky, but I'm assuming that isn't an option. So, if the choices are either pony up for Stafford or let him go for a draft pick that is quite likely to become a washout, what would you prefer? Just remember that if we give him a fat 3-year deal, there is a very real likelihood that it will turn into a Tallinder/Max albatross contract that will limit the Sabres' ability to make other moves for the length of the contract. Accordingly, at what point is he too rich for your blood?

 

My limit is $3MM x 2 years. He just hasn't shown enough to merit a 3-year deal, and the Sabres still own his rights after a 2-year deal expires.

 

Does 3MM x 2 years mean $3MM over 2 years (e.g. $1.5MM a year), or $3MM each year for two years?

[nfreeman]

Does 3MM x 2 years mean $3MM over 2 years (e.g. $1.5MM a year), or $3MM each year for two years?

$3MM per year for 2 years (total $6MM).

[nfreeman]

..He has shown some very small flashes of what type of player he could turn into..With that said the only contract I offer him is 2 yrs in the 2 million range and no more..He hasnt been consistent enuff for any more if they are looking to keep him..But I would definatley be looking into signing and trading him way before someone offered him the contract where all we get back is a 2nd rdr..His potential upside is to great to let go for another 3yr projsect if come maybe that he is already putting them through

 

Well, you assumed away the problem. I didn't mean lose him because someone signs him to an offer sheet (although that is still possible, if unlikely). I meant that if the Sabres decide they can't afford him, they will trade him, but the poll question assumes that they won't be able to get back anything better than a 2nd-rounder. A team isn't going to give the Sabres any more than that for him, because all that team would have to do is sign him to an offer sheet for $3MM or less per year, and the compensation would only be a 2nd-rounder.

 

In other words, the uncomfortable decision to be made is: at what price would you say that you'd rather give up on him and take a 2nd rounder as opposed to being stuck with the contract?

[R_Dudley]

I originally had the 2.5 for 3 then decided on 2 for 2. IMHO he needs to decide if hockey or his rock band is more important. He hasn't shown that yet. My fear is hockey is his hobby not the other way around...

[wonderbread]

I put in 3 for 3. I think the kid is going to explode. I am not prepared to have this team lose anymore offense. I say he is worth it. He will be coming into his prime years and he should continue to grow. I am not down on this guy as it appears others here are.

[...]

I hate that the Sabres are forced into paying for "potential" a lot lately. You can say Connolly is the same thing, although he has proven a lot more than Stafford while in their respective contract years. I don't like the idea of more than 2 years for the guy at a max of $2.5 million a year. I think that's too much but the league seems to be paying for "potential" these days, so reality is reality.

 

Almost makes me wish DR could have stayed with the 2 or 3 year contract plan he had a few seasons ago. Looks like he was right on that one thanks to Hecht and JJ Pommers.

[VansTheMans]

3 for 3.

 

Its realistically what we'll have to pony up for him. He could still develop into a great power forward; he has the hands and has shown flashes of brilliance.

 

He is definitely lazy and inconsistent, but he'd be worth keeping around for a few more years. And keeping him around means signing him to that deal; he will not sign for less than 2.75 per season. The market has been set for players like him, and 2.75 per season is the going rate.

[darksabre]

I voted 2.5 for 3. But honestly I really would only want to give him two years. I don't want to pay him any more for any longer unless he breaks out this season and shows some consistent game. Anyone saying the Sabres will miss his offense are insane. Stafford did a great job this past season of contributing when it didn't matter, much like a good number of other players.

 

I'd be inclined to take that 2nd rounder.

[deluca67]

I would offer a total of $3 million over two years. He hasn't done enough to warrant doubling his salary. If he doesn't like it make him sit home for the next three years.

[Mbossy]

Two things, realistically, he's not signing for less than two mill. We aren't paying him more than 2.8 per.

 

So realistically 3 years 8 million. Or, 2 years 2.5 each.

[deluca67]

Two things, realistically, he's not signing for less than two mill. We aren't paying him more than 2.8 per.

 

So realistically 3 years 8 million. Or, 2 years 2.5 each.

$5-8 million for Drew Stafford is insane. :wacko:

[Mbossy]

$5-8 million for Drew Stafford is insane. :wacko:

They paid 2.5 for Goose. insane? That may have been a PR move, but Staff, at his best is worth that much. This isn't the dark ages where players get 20 grand to buy beer after the game. the teams make money (well Most do) and the players want their piece.

 

I think the question is "Can you afford to let him go and develop a second rounder to replace him cheaper in 5 years"?

[deluca67]

They paid 2.5 for Goose. insane? That may have been a PR move, but Staff, at his best is worth that much. This isn't the dark ages where players get 20 grand to buy beer after the game. the teams make money (well Most do) and the players want their piece.

 

I think the question is "Can you afford to let him go and develop a second rounder to replace him cheaper in 5 years"?

Absolutely. Gaustad is nowhere near worth getting paid $2.5 million.

 

You think they should pay Stafford the rate for being "at his best?" How often is he at his best? How about paying what he is worth?

[Mbossy]

Absolutely. Gaustad is nowhere near worth getting paid $2.5 million.

 

You think they should pay Stafford the rate for being "at his best?" How often is he at his best? How about paying what he is worth?

Agreed. Some nights 1 mill, others 4 million. Split the difference or walk away?

[deluca67]

Agreed. Some nights 1 mill, others 4 million. Split the difference or walk away?

I don't know what pains me more to look at. The salaries of Connolly, Hecht and Tallinder or Gaustad, Macarthur and Paille? This team seems to have more than it's fair share of really bad contracts.

[Mbossy]

I don't know what pains me more to look at. The salaries of Connolly, Hecht and Tallinder or Gaustad, Macarthur and Paille? This team seems to have more than it's fair share of really bad contracts.

Seems more like DR is trying to keep them "together" sometimes.

[deluca67]

Seems more like DR is trying to keep them "together" sometimes.

Almost as if he is trying to make up for letting Briere and Drury walk. Regier has a history of chasing his mistakes. Just look at Tim Connolly and the horrid back up goalies the Sabres have had since Marty Biron left.

[shrader]

I don't know what pains me more to look at. The salaries of Connolly, Hecht and Tallinder or Gaustad, Macarthur and Paille? This team seems to have more than it's fair share of really bad contracts.

 

Just out of curiousity, do you even know what Paille and MacArthur's salaries are?

[darksabre]

Seems more like DR is trying to keep them "together" sometimes.

 

Quoted for emphasis. This is something that has nagged at me but I'm not sure about. I almost wonder if he is afraid to part with certain players based on the backlash of the under analyzing masses. I could see that being part of his issue.

[deluca67]

Just out of curiousity, do you even know what Paille and MacArthur's salaries are?

$1.1 and $1.4 I believe. Neither are worth the money. Both are prime examples how Regier can spend $50 million and only produce a 10th place team.

[Sabre Dance]

Quoted for emphasis. This is something that has nagged at me but I'm not sure about. I almost wonder if he is afraid to part with certain players based on the backlash of the under analyzing masses. I could see that being part of his issue.

 

Well, it appears that the pendulum has swung the other way. Now Regier is getting ripped for NOT moving certain players. I think he tends to over-analyze the situation and by the time he is done working out the details, the players he may have wanted are already locked up elsewhere.

I have a friend who decided to go back to work full time after a number of years (he worked only part-time to be able to raise his son after his wife passed away). It literally took him three years to decide what he wanted to do and where he wanted to work. Those were three years that he could have been paying into a retirement system (he is 52 years old, same as me...) It's very good that he put his son first, but meanwhile, he sought input about where to work from me, his siblings, his parents, me again.....ad nauseum. Maybe Darcy has this same need to obsessively review each possible deal/contract and in the end, he winds up doing nothing.

I don't know if it is better to have a shoot-from-the-hip guy like Brian Burke running the show, but A) it IS entertaining and B) he has produced results before.

[darksabre]

Well, it appears that the pendulum has swung the other way. Now Regier is getting ripped for NOT moving certain players. I think he tends to over-analyze the situation and by the time he is done working out the details, the players he may have wanted are already locked up elsewhere.

I have a friend who decided to go back to work full time after a number of years (he worked only part-time to be able to raise his son after his wife passed away). It literally took him three years to decide what he wanted to do and where he wanted to work. Those were three years that he could have been paying into a retirement system (he is 52 years old, same as me...) It's very good that he put his son first, but meanwhile, he sought input about where to work from me, his siblings, his parents, me again.....ad nauseum. Maybe Darcy has this same need to obsessively review each possible deal/contract and in the end, he winds up doing nothing.

I don't know if it is better to have a shoot-from-the-hip guy like Brian Burke running the show, but A) it IS entertaining and B) he has produced results before.

 

I think it'd be nice if Darcy did a little of both. I know I can often be accused of not only planning things to death, but also acting completely on a whim or on gut instinct. I think Darcy Regier with a dash of Burke thrown in might make for a better GM, or at least one that wouldn't be so easy to criticize.

[North Buffalo]

As little as possible until he proves he can be consistent. Any shot they can build some incentives into the contract or is that only the NFL?