spndnchz Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Okay, I've crunched some numbers. Took a look at players around the league with similar stats as Stafford. Now, not 70pt producers, but more like 60pt producers. While Staff is on pace for 70, his three year average is more like 52pts (assuming he played all 82 games). This brings up some older guys (Stafford is 25) like McDonald, Whitney, Huselius. With caps @ 4.7, 3, 4.75 respectively. These guys generally got deals that took them to @ age 35. Then you've got guys in the late 20's. Weiss, age 27, got 6 year deal started in 07-08. Pretty similar to Stafford's two year deal the first two years 1.8 and 2.5. If you looked at the final four years it's a cap hit of 3.57 million over those four years. Now others include: Booth, age 26, six years 4.25 cap hit Ryan, age 23, 5yr, 5.1 cap Wolski, age 24, 2yr deal, 3.8 per Zherdev. Interesting enough, talking about what the arby award may be. He was offered 3.25 mill by the Rangers, he went to arbitration, got 3.9 million and NYR said no. Zherdev and Weiss, I'd say are the closest you'd get to a reasonable number for Stafford to sign. Would Sabres offer him 4 year deal? With years 3 mill, 3.2 mill, 4 mill, and 4.1 cap hit is 3.575 million. For Stafford to get a offer sheet I'd think it would have to be around a Bergeron deal, 3 years, 5 million ish? If the Sabres didn't match that, Sabres would get a first round, 2nd round, and a third round pick. I don't think someone who goes under the 4.12 million or so cap hit on an offer sheet to Stafford wouldn't get matched by the Sabres. If we didn't we'd only get a 1st and 3rd back. Let's remember Stafford was a 13th pick overall.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 I think it's real development for Stafford. Forwards that play his sort of game take extra time to develop. Personally I would like to see them simply tender him a contract and see if anyone throws in a monster bid for em. If we can get a 1st rounder or 2 in compensation walk away. If not see how he does first couple months of upcoming season and decide then on him He's most likely going to command a 3.5 to 4 mil a season salary if his pace keeps up. I'll say 3.5 for 3 seasons sounds reasonable. I'd keep him with Ennis and get these cats a center that fits in the middle. Who that would be is anyone's guess, I'll leave it up to everyone to debate the issue. But there is no mistake that since Stafford and Ennis have been together on a line it has boosted both of their production numbers.
X. Benedict Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Does NHL have incentive based contracts? Is that an option, like $20,000 a point or something? No incentives pre-35 Y.O. I think.
Doohicksie Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Going with Other: Now that Roy is out, TOI and playing with new linemates has made a difference. Addition by subtraction. It's been a Catch 22 with Stafford- he always does better with more ice time, but he's never quite that top player that gets all the ice time. When his TOI gets cut he doesn't do nearly as well and gets even less ice time. I hope this proves to Lindy once and for all that Stafford needs more ice time and continues to give it to him.
nobody Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Easier said than done, but I'd rather give Stafford 2-3 more years as a Sabre instead of guys like Connolly, Pominville and Hecht who all seem to have peaked in terms of potential and now have settled back into a level of play not equal to their salary. I have no problem going forward for 2-3 years with Stafford, Vanek and Roy in the top 6(along with Ennis). I just don't know who the other two top 6 forwards will be. Hopefully that is addressed this off-season. I'm probably at the same thinking as that. As long as they get Connolly and Hecht off the team - I can live with Stafford. Pominville - I don't know, trade him or don't - either get something decent in return or he needs to kick his game back in gear.
BuffalOhio Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 I think they need to keep him and like others have said, give him more ice time; he does better with more (most players do).
gregkash Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 I don't think he gets too huge a salary. Keep in mind Stempniak last year. His arbitration ruling wasn't that bad and he scored a bunch of goals out of nowhere.
Sterling Archer Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Posted February 11, 2011 I still say close to Horton contract. About the same age. Seen as the same type of player. Just really see it going that way.
shrader Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 I don't think he gets too huge a salary. Keep in mind Stempniak last year. His arbitration ruling wasn't that bad and he scored a bunch of goals out of nowhere. Stafford is younger, bigger, and has put up more points per game in the NHL than Stempniak. Also, Lee never got any contract through arbitration, so he can't be used as an example here.
deluca67 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Exactly. There is no point whatsoever in trading him/letting him leave in exchange for a first-rounder. Then the question is how much are you willing to pay for 35 games of production? The Sabres have played this game before with Connolly and Pominville. The Sabres are at a point with Stafford were they either over pay on a long term deal or get burned by arbitration. I would hate to see the Sabres make the same mistake again. Stafford has been on a hot goal scoring streak. He doesn't dominate games and even as hot as he has been he not a point a game player. He has 20 goals in 35 games. 9 came in three games. That leaves 11 in the other 24 games. That is still a good number just not good enough to commit big money.
nfreeman Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Then the question is how much are you willing to pay for 35 games of production? The Sabres have played this game before with Connolly and Pominville. The Sabres are at a point with Stafford were they either over pay on a long term deal or get burned by arbitration. I would hate to see the Sabres make the same mistake again. Stafford has been on a hot goal scoring streak. He doesn't dominate games and even as hot as he has been he not a point a game player. He has 20 goals in 35 games. 9 came in three games. That leaves 11 in the other 24 games. That is still a good number just not good enough to commit big money. This is a very legitimate view on Stafford. Still, I would not trade him at the deadline except in a package for a true top-line forward. If you hold onto him, he either keeps scoring like crazy, which is good for you, or he slips back into mediocrity for the rest of the year, in which case you can re-sign him less expensively or trade him/let him leave for decent compensation (pretty close to what you would've gotten at the deadline) as an RFA. The Sabres still have the bulk of the leverage since Stafford is an RFA. They don't have to rush a decision on him at the deadline.
deluca67 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 This is a very legitimate view on Stafford. Still, I would not trade him at the deadline except in a package for a true top-line forward. If you hold onto him, he either keeps scoring like crazy, which is good for you, or he slips back into mediocrity for the rest of the year, in which case you can re-sign him less expensively or trade him/let him leave for decent compensation (pretty close to what you would've gotten at the deadline) as an RFA. The Sabres still have the bulk of the leverage since Stafford is an RFA. They don't have to rush a decision on him at the deadline. Doesn't he have arbitration rights this year? If not, I would offer him the mandatory 10% and see if he can repeat this performance.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Doesn't he have arbitration rights this year? If not, I would offer him the mandatory 10% and see if he can repeat this performance. NHL salary arbitration is a tool available to settle some contract disputes. The player and team each propose a salary for the coming season, and argue their cases at a hearing. The arbitrator, a neutral third party, then sets the player's salary. Most players must have four years of NHL experience before they are eligible for salary arbitration (the term is reduced for those who signed their first NHL contract after the age of 20). The process is used by restricted free agents, because it is one of the few bargaining options available to them. The deadline for players to request salary arbitration is July 5, with cases heard in late July and early August. A player and team can continue to negotiate up until the date of the hearing, in hopes of agreeing on a contract and avoiding the arbitration process. Teams can also ask for salary arbitration. But a player can be taken to arbitration only once in his career, and can never receive less than 85 per-cent of his previous year's salary. There are no such restrictions on the number of times a player can ask for arbitration, or the size of the salary awarded. A decision must be made within 48 hours of the hearing. When the decision is announced, the team has the right to decline, or "walk away" from the award. If the team exercises this right, the player can declare himself an unrestricted free agent. The evidence that can be used in arbitration cases: •The player's "overall performance" including statistics in all previous seasons. •Injuries, illnesses and the number of games played. •The player's length of service with the team and in the NHL. •The player's "overall contribution" to the team's success or failure. •The player's "special qualities of leadership or public appeal." •The performance and salary of any player alleged to be "comparable" to the player in the dispute. Evidence that is not admissible: •The salary and performance of a "comparable" player who signed a contract as an unrestricted free agent. •Testimonials, video and media reports. •The financial state of the team. •The salary cap and the state of the team's payroll. He is eligible for arbitration. Given his impact, he'll most likely end up around the 3.5 mil range.
deluca67 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 He is eligible for arbitration. Given his impact, he'll most likely end up around the 3.5 mil range. If that is a realistic number then trading him at the deadline becomes a better option. To pay $3+ mil for such a small sample of games, no matter the numbers during that stretch, is ridiculous. I am hoping the era of spending foolishly is over in Buffalo.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 If that is a realistic number then trading him at the deadline becomes a better option. To pay $3+ mil for such a small sample of games, no matter the numbers during that stretch, is ridiculous. I am hoping the era of spending foolishly is over in Buffalo. I believe that is a fair price for Stafford given his increased production of late. Would that translate into consistency in future seasons? I don't know. Stafford could be the next Jochen Hecht for all we know, or, he could explode into a 30 goal scorer the next couple of seasons. He has definitely found a linemate in Ennis, they just need a Center. Where that Center comes from I have no clue, but I would imagine it's going to play a large role in his progression.
deluca67 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 I believe that is a fair price for Stafford given his increased production of late. Would that translate into consistency in future seasons? I don't know. Stafford could be the next Jochen Hecht for all we know, or, he could explode into a 30 goal scorer the next couple of seasons. He has definitely found a linemate in Ennis, they just need a Center. Where that Center comes from I have no clue, but I would imagine it's going to play a large role in his progression. $3.5 million based on 35 games? This has the possibility of becoming another Tim Connolly situation. Where you are paying a player a huge sum based on a flash here and there. The Sabres paid millions to Tim Connolly for production that just never materialized. To make the decision on Stafford you have to look at the entire 290 games he has played not just the sample that happens to come during a contract year. IMO, it would be a continuation of the foolish spending practices that have hampered this team for years.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 $3.5 million based on 35 games? This has the possibility of becoming another Tim Connolly situation. Where you are paying a player a huge sum based on a flash here and there. The Sabres paid millions to Tim Connolly for production that just never materialized. To make the decision on Stafford you have to look at the entire 290 games he has played not just the sample that happens to come during a contract year. IMO, it would be a continuation of the foolish spending practices that have hampered this team for years. The number isn't solely based on this season. With 29 games remaining, he may very well see 30 to 35 goals this year. I would look more at what new ownerships plans are. But yea, 3.5 is roughly what he is going to get.
spndnchz Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 $3.5 million based on 35 games? This has the possibility of becoming another Tim Connolly situation. Where you are paying a player a huge sum based on a flash here and there. The Sabres paid millions to Tim Connolly for production that just never materialized. To make the decision on Stafford you have to look at the entire 290 games he has played not just the sample that happens to come during a contract year. IMO, it would be a continuation of the foolish spending practices that have hampered this team for years. Not to toot my horn, by I thought my analysis was pretty spot on. http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/18551-drew-stafford/page__view__findpost__p__249940 Anything under 3 million we got a good deal, anything over 3.6 cap hit we got problems.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Not to toot my horn, by I thought my analysis was pretty spot on. http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/18551-drew-stafford/page__view__findpost__p__249940 Anything under 3 million we got a good deal, anything over 3.6 cap hit we got problems. Looks correct. Good analysis by the way.
North Buffalo Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 spndnchz is my hero :wub: Mine too :wub:
North Buffalo Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 I think its a mix of the first two. If it was just the pay day, we would see signs of him slipping. We made this guy a high pick for a reason - he has always had the tools - it was his head that was the problem. He is FINALLY developing into the power forward with elite size, soft hands and the wicked shot we envisioned when he was drafted. Remember how everyone was drooling over Bobby Ryan earlier this year? Well he is our Bobby Ryan. Players like Staff are rare. He has shown us, infrequently in the past but much more frequently lately, that he has the ability to completely take over a game. No way do we let him go. He's an RFA, and I see a 3-4 year contract at 3-4 million coming his way. Someone mentioned Nathan Horton - that is a pretty fair comparison, but THIS YEAR he is much more consistent than Horton. And that has always been my problem with him. He has the tools but plays one game out of eight and the rest he is more concerned with chasing tail after the game than actually playing it. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is the old show me question. Pay Day or new attitude and the only that proves it is consistency and time. I don't give him a longterm for another year. It may cost the Sabres next year more, but his inconsistency proves it is too risky to do one now. The other option is trade him for a top six forward and draft pick or package him with a young D like Butler and send to Dallas for Richards.
Eleven Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 I like chz's idea of waiting to see what offer sheets come in. Anything that lands the team a first-rounder, I suggest they let him go. He's scoring now, but he still doesn't do anything without the puck.
nfreeman Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Doesn't he have arbitration rights this year? If not, I would offer him the mandatory 10% and see if he can repeat this performance. If that is a realistic number then trading him at the deadline becomes a better option. To pay $3+ mil for such a small sample of games, no matter the numbers during that stretch, is ridiculous. I am hoping the era of spending foolishly is over in Buffalo. $3.5 million based on 35 games? This has the possibility of becoming another Tim Connolly situation. Where you are paying a player a huge sum based on a flash here and there. The Sabres paid millions to Tim Connolly for production that just never materialized. To make the decision on Stafford you have to look at the entire 290 games he has played not just the sample that happens to come during a contract year. IMO, it would be a continuation of the foolish spending practices that have hampered this team for years. Again, there is no reason to decide on Stafford before the deadline. Since he is an RFA, the Sabres have the luxury of waiting until the summer and seeing how the rest of his season goes -- so their decision won't be based on 35 games. If he finishes the year with 33 goals or so and plays well in the playoffs, then forcing a lowball offer on him or going to arbitration almost certainly will mean losing him as a UFA -- although they could trade him at the deadline next year. And that has always been my problem with him. He has the tools but plays one game out of eight and the rest he is more concerned with chasing tail after the game than actually playing it. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is the old show me question. Pay Day or new attitude and the only that proves it is consistency and time. I don't give him a longterm for another year. It may cost the Sabres next year more, but his inconsistency proves it is too risky to do one now. The other option is trade him for a top six forward and draft pick or package him with a young D like Butler and send to Dallas for Richards. I think the risk is not that it may cost the Sabres more $$ next year, it's the risk that it may cost them a good young forward with size who scores 30+ goals per year. If he has a strong conclusion to this year and isn't happy with how they treat him this summer, the most likely outcome is that he doesn't re-sign with them after next year. Now you (and many others) may be fine with this outcome, but you can't assume that the Sabres will be able to re-sign him next year if they lowball him this summer.
North Buffalo Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Again, there is no reason to decide on Stafford before the deadline. Since he is an RFA, the Sabres have the luxury of waiting until the summer and seeing how the rest of his season goes -- so their decision won't be based on 35 games. If he finishes the year with 33 goals or so and plays well in the playoffs, then forcing a lowball offer on him or going to arbitration almost certainly will mean losing him as a UFA -- although they could trade him at the deadline next year. I think the risk is not that it may cost the Sabres more $ next year, it's the risk that it may cost them a good young forward with size who scores 30+ goals per year. If he has a strong conclusion to this year and isn't happy with how they treat him this summer, the most likely outcome is that he doesn't re-sign with them after next year. Now you (and many others) may be fine with this outcome, but you can't assume that the Sabres will be able to re-sign him next year if they lowball him this summer. Agreed, that is the risk in not signing him now. If he will go for something reasonable, I doubt it then maybe. Otherwise shop him around this summer and see what bites. Sign and trade kind of thing. Either way DR should not be sitting on his hands with this kind of thing. If they can get a player and a number 1, I would go for it. Or near the equivalent of an arbitration settlement 1,2,and 3 why not. But I still think the best value would be to trade Staff and a young D for a top 10 forward like Richards.
bob_sauve28 Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Gees, just pay him to lock him up for five or six years
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.