X. Benedict Posted June 1, 2011 Report Posted June 1, 2011 This about sums things up, although I think I could make an argument that Stafford doesn't really fit the 21st century desctiption either, but it would come down to semantics and perception more than anything concrete. Well put. Stafford has all of the tools to be a classic power forward. Unfortunately he uses them in power forward fashion a couple times a year just to prove to himslef that he can still do it. And I am pretty sure that is the point that Deluca is making. Stafford acts like a power forward about as frequently as any other forward on our team. Stafford is much stronger than he's given credit for. Mostly I think fans perception are weighed down by familiarity and an underwhelming Sophomore year.What you don't see from Stafford that doesn't fit is the hitting....Buffalo dumps and chases less than even Detroit and they tend to hold possession under the goal-line. Hell, Neidstoretire made a helluva power move during the Philly series too. And IMO Boyes spent more time within arms reach of the net than Stafford did in the playoffs. Is he really a power forward if he has the tools but only opens the toolbox a couple times each season? Boyes was at net more because he was moved to center. I don't think it's a natural slot for him. He gonna make most of his points on those 12-15 footers. Again...a great look at what decent center depth can do is Boston. Chiarelli is looking like a genius for locking up Krejci..(instead of kessle) and assuring depth at center. Krejci and Bergereon and Peverly are never going to be confused for being the best in the game...but they certainly have the depth to open up their wings Lucic, Horton.
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2011 Report Posted June 1, 2011 Well put. Stafford is much stronger than he's given credit for. Mostly I think fans perception are weighed down by familiarity and an underwhelming Sophomore year.What you don't see from Stafford that doesn't fit is the hitting....Buffalo dumps and chases less than even Detroit and they tend to hold possession under the goal-line. Boyes was at net more because he was moved to center. I don't think it's a natural slot for him. He gonna make most of his points on those 12-15 footers. Again...a great look at what decent center depth can do is Boston. Chiarelli is looking like a genius for locking up Krejci..(instead of kessle) and assuring depth at center. Krejci and Bergereon and Peverly are never going to be confused for being the best in the game...but they certainly have the depth to open up their wings Lucic, Horton. AND THIS^ is what the sabres need. Not the best in the league (although I'd take it if it's available and fits in the cap after the defense is improved) but guys who aren't converted wingers(Hecht/Boyes) and aren't going to hurt their wingers chances(connolly). If I could have 2 Roys and 2 Gooses I'd sign on the dotted line immediately. If we can do better than that, I'd put a paycheck down on us playing in the ECF.
Weave Posted June 1, 2011 Report Posted June 1, 2011 Stafford is much stronger than he's given credit for. Mostly I think fans perception are weighed down by familiarity and an underwhelming Sophomore year.What you don't see from Stafford that doesn't fit is the hitting....Buffalo dumps and chases less than even Detroit and they tend to hold possession under the goal-line. Boyes was at net more because he was moved to center. I don't think it's a natural slot for him. He gonna make most of his points on those 12-15 footers. I agree with all that but it doesn't really address the point being made. A power forward plays a physical game. And not just in terms of hitting. It includes play in traffic and battles for position with defenders. Stafford usually seems content to play a no touch brand of hockey. He prefers to move into open spots on the ice instead of battling for real estate and he tends towards finesse over force along the boards. As observed upthread, Vanek probably plays more of a power forward game than Stafford does.
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2011 Report Posted June 1, 2011 I agree with all that but it doesn't really address the point being made. A power forward plays a physical game. And not just in terms of hitting. It includes play in traffic and battles for position with defenders. Stafford usually seems content to play a no touch brand of hockey. He prefers to move into open spots on the ice instead of battling for real estate and he tends towards finesse over force along the boards. As observed upthread, Vanek probably plays more of a power forward game than Stafford does. What you are describing is what Vanek and Stafford do without the puck. I look at it more with what he does with the puck. Stafford drives through traffic a lot. Vanek is more fancy dekes and magic short-stick puck movement down low.
deluca67 Posted June 1, 2011 Report Posted June 1, 2011 This about sums things up, although I think I could make an argument that Stafford doesn't really fit the 21st century desctiption either, but it would come down to semantics and perception more than anything concrete. Stafford has all of the tools to be a classic power forward. Unfortunately he uses them in power forward fashion a couple times a year just to prove to himslef that he can still do it. And I am pretty sure that is the point that Deluca is making. Stafford acts like a power forward about as frequently as any other forward on our team. Hell, Neidstoretire made a helluva power move during the Philly series too. And IMO Boyes spent more time within arms reach of the net than Stafford did in the playoffs. Is he really a power forward if he has the tools but only opens the toolbox a couple times each season? If Stafford is considered a "power forward" than it is time to retire the phrase. There is no way Stafford qualifies as a "power forward" in any century. The #1 criteria from being a power forward is the physicality. Stafford is a perimeter player that doesn't go into the corners to take out defensemen. He's not a forward that will crash the crease or battle in front of the net to set up the screen. Vanek is more of a "power forward." Stafford may show a flash here and there. If he were under contract this conversation doesn't take place. Timing as it is he is up for a contract. A contract that will likely far exceed Stafford's value as a player. Sure Pegula has a lot of money and seems willing to spend it. Wouldn't the Sabres be better off as a franchise if that money is spent wisely?
BuffaloFansR_Crazy Posted June 2, 2011 Author Report Posted June 2, 2011 If Stafford is considered a "power forward" than it is time to retire the phrase. There is no way Stafford qualifies as a "power forward" in any century. The #1 criteria from being a power forward is the physicality. Stafford is a perimeter player that doesn't go into the corners to take out defensemen. He's not a forward that will crash the crease or battle in front of the net to set up the screen. Vanek is more of a "power forward." Stafford may show a flash here and there. If he were under contract this conversation doesn't take place. Timing as it is he is up for a contract. A contract that will likely far exceed Stafford's value as a player. Sure Pegula has a lot of money and seems willing to spend it. Wouldn't the Sabres be better off as a franchise if that money is spent wisely? Drew has been labelled as a power forward since he was in Grade 9 and found himself taller than all his classmates. Deluca is right, he is an opportunist who pounces on pucks, not a power forward. But with the size of D-Men and kick pads, is that not the ideal 2nd line forward? There seemed to be a major switch flipped in his game this year. At the beginning all i thought was contract. Was he so willing to play the PK because he wanted to increse his ice time/game for abritation or did he really learn how to back check and rush the point? Either way, I 'm willing to take a risk on this KID. If Darcy can get a 5 year at 3 or 3 year less than 4mil i'll be happy. Drew at <4 + Miller or Enroth= Sharpe P.S. Watch out for the Guyislanders.
... Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 If I could have 2 Roys and 2 Gooses I'd sign on the dotted line immediately. If we can do better than that, I'd put a paycheck down on us playing in the ECF. Please. God. No. I'm happy with one Goose, and no Roys, frankly. I can't remember if I mentioned it in this thread - it is really old, after all - but I hope they trade the rights to Stafford along with all of Roy and get a good center in here. If Roy stays, okay, I guess he wins face-offs, but I'd rather a lateral trade for someone with size and smash if that's possible.
LastPommerFan Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Please. God. No. I'm happy with one Goose, and no Roys, frankly. I can't remember if I mentioned it in this thread - it is really old, after all - but I hope they trade the rights to Stafford along with all of Roy and get a good center in here. If Roy stays, okay, I guess he wins face-offs, but I'd rather a lateral trade for someone with size and smash if that's possible. What don't you like about roy? He's just shy of a point a game over the last 4 seasons, and other than october 2009, hasn't had a significant cold streak over that entire period. Yes please, I'll take two.
Weave Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 What don't you like about roy? He's just shy of a point a game over the last 4 seasons, and other than october 2009, hasn't had a significant cold streak over that entire period. Yes please, I'll take two. The big problem alot of us have with Stafford, and also with Roy (hell, why stop at just those 2 names) is that they represent mediocrity. These were the young guys that were supposed to lead us beyond that dark July 1. And they weren't up to the task. And they still aren't up to the task. They will never be more than support players but are paid like front liners. They put up nice stats but never can make it over the hump to move this team forward. Why settle for guys with nice stats when we can bring in a few winners instead. Keeping them on the roster ties up cap space that could be used to bring in guys that win. Granted, given our situation at center right now, I'd rather Roy is kept around. But that changes for me once we've got center depth in the organization.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 The big problem alot of us have with Stafford, and also with Roy (hell, why stop at just those 2 names) is that they represent mediocrity. These were the young guys that were supposed to lead us beyond that dark July 1. And they weren't up to the task. And they still aren't up to the task. They will never be more than support players but are paid like front liners. They put up nice stats but never can make it over the hump to move this team forward. Why settle for guys with nice stats when we can bring in a few winners instead. Keeping them on the roster ties up cap space that could be used to bring in guys that win. Granted, given our situation at center right now, I'd rather Roy is kept around. But that changes for me once we've got center depth in the organization. I understand where you are going, but Roy and Stafford are not really paid like front-liners, even if Stafford gets $4 million ... they are basically paid like second-liners. Vanek is paid like a first-liner. They need a true No. 1 center who would be paid more than Roy. Also, they are 27 and 25 ... they may have had too much responsibility put on them too early, but it's not insane to say they would make up a nice second line entering their primes for around $8 million/year combined. If anything, your issue should be with Pominville and Hecht sucking up $8.8 million ... just sayin' ... I don't know how you can cherry-pick which guys "represent mediocrity" ... I guess they all do, really, and Roy and Stafford produce more for less than Pommer and Hecht (although I really like Pominville's game, he's just overpaid).
Weave Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I understand where you are going, but Roy and Stafford are not really paid like front-liners, even if Stafford gets $4 million ... they are basically paid like second-liners. Vanek is paid like a first-liner. They need a true No. 1 center who would be paid more than Roy. Also, they are 27 and 25 ... they may have had too much responsibility put on them too early, but it's not insane to say they would make up a nice second line entering their primes for around $8 million/year combined. If anything, your issue should be with Pominville and Hecht sucking up $8.8 million ... just sayin' ... I don't know how you can cherry-pick which guys "represent mediocrity" ... I guess they all do, really, and Roy and Stafford produce more for less than Pommer and Hecht (although I really like Pominville's game, he's just overpaid). I'm not cherry picking (see my "hell, why stop at just those 2 names" qualifier). Hecht and Pommer represent mediocrity at a higher pay scale and they are bigger problems IMO. But the convo was about Staff, and Roy is being dragged in so I commented about them specifically. I'll have plenty to opine about in the next Hecht and Pommer threads. :P
X. Benedict Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 If Stafford is considered a "power forward" than it is time to retire the phrase. There is no way Stafford qualifies as a "power forward" in any century. The #1 criteria from being a power forward is the physicality. Stafford is a perimeter player that doesn't go into the corners to take out defensemen. He's not a forward that will crash the crease or battle in front of the net to set up the screen. Vanek is more of a "power forward." Stafford may show a flash here and there. If he were under contract this conversation doesn't take place. Timing as it is he is up for a contract. A contract that will likely far exceed Stafford's value as a player. Sure Pegula has a lot of money and seems willing to spend it. Wouldn't the Sabres be better off as a franchise if that money is spent wisely? I think Taro T's point was that Power Fowards take the longest to develop. It's a role that players don't exactly figure out well until their late 20's, with some notable exceptions. It's generally a slow evolution to figure out how to make space in the kitchen. That Stafford doesn't fit the definition was part of the point. But at the same time....look where and how his goals are coming...they aren't perimeter goals.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I'm not cherry picking (see my "hell, why stop at just those 2 names" qualifier). Hecht and Pommer represent mediocrity at a higher pay scale and they are bigger problems IMO. But the convo was about Staff, and Roy is being dragged in so I commented about them specifically. I'll have plenty to opine about in the next Hecht and Pommer threads. :P I'm sure ;) I guess what I was saying is your problem seems to be with Roy and Stafford as players, regardless of salary ... when you bring up the idea of them draining the cap, I think your argument loses steam.
SabresFan526 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I think Taro T's point was that Power Fowards take the longest to develop. It's a role that players don't exactly figure out well until their late 20's, with some notable exceptions. It's generally a slow evolution to figure out how to make space in the kitchen. That Stafford doesn't fit the definition was part of the point. But at the same time....look where and how his goals are coming...they aren't perimeter goals. I agree with this. I think Stafford's game is evolving more into a Power Forward game. Previously, he showed flashes, but no consistency whatsoever. He was a flashy perimeter player that may make a power move here or there and score a really pretty goal. I noticed that his game was very different this year, and he was consistently physical along the boards, penetrated into scoring areas, and developed into what some might call a "Power" Forward. Having said that, the $4 million question is, did Stafford simply perform like this during a contract year or is he genuinely evolving into a Power Forward that can become an elite player in the NHL? I am beginning to believe it is the latter, but I would not blame or disagree with anyone who believes that this was Contractyearitis. We saw Contractyearitis for Stafford during the 2008-2009 season when he scored 20 goals only to disappear the following season only to magically reappear this season which happened to be a contract year. I'm hoping he has matured and will display consistency moving forward contract year or not and develop into a true power forward, but I am a bit skeptical right now.
dudacek Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I think it's not about getting rid of Stafford (or Roy, or Pominville, or...) because they haven't taken the team to the next step. It is about building a team that allows them to slot into the proper roles where they can shine. I'm not saying Roy will be Henrik Sedin, but three years ago Sedin was Roy — he produced in similar fashion and was regarded by many to be good, but not good enough. Roy is three years younger. Sedin became a heck of a lot better around the same time Ryan Kesler emerged. The growth of one likely helped the growth of the other. Canuck fans were moaning and groaning about how Kevin Bieksa was never going to fulfill their early hopes. As recently as last sumer he was trade 'em material. Add Dan Hamhuis and most people suddenly think Bieksa is a steal at $5 million. I want to make it very clear that I don't think Stafford will become Kesler, but compare their numbers at similar points in their careers (Kesler was drafted one year earlier, turned pro three years earlier): Kesler Stafford 28 2 3 5 -2 College LOCKOUT 41 13 14 27 +5 82 10 13 23 +1 64 16 22 38 +3 48 6 10 16 +1 79 20 25 45 +3 80 21 16 37 +1 71 14 20 34 +4 82 26 33 59 +8 62 31 21 52 +13 82 25 50 75 +1 ???? 82 41 32 73 +24 ???? My point is most players take time, and putting better players beside them helps. That's why I think the Sabres may only be an impact centre and a good defenceman away.
waldo Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Stafford is not and will not become , a "Power Forward" under any definition of the term past or present.
X. Benedict Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Stafford is not and will not become , a "Power Forward" under any definition of the term past or present. Does Rick Nash fit the definition? Johan Frazen? Nathan Horton? report back.
Samson's Flow Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Does Rick Nash fit the definition? Johan Frazen? Nathan Horton? report back. Those are some good players there X. Would anyone here really say Stafford belongs in a discussion with those guys in terms of play?
X. Benedict Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Those are some good players there X. Would anyone here really say Stafford belongs in a discussion with those guys in terms of play? Not making a HOF arguement here.. The question is, are they Power Forwards? If not ....then the description is far too narrow. Franzen and Nash don't fight. Horton doesn't hit much. Can they be considered Power Fowards...broadly I would argue yes. That is what the role has become...playing near the net and slot. The Gary Roberts and Cam Neely types were what the role was 15 years ago. The game has adjusted.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Just some food for thought when trying to determine how much Stafford is "worth" ... we have spent a lot of time debating his "comparables" ... guys who are of similar age, similar production, etc ... but it breaks down because you get different answers when you say he's a 30-goal scorer (big money?) but also an inconsistent young guy still who had one good season (not big money?) ... One thing that cannot be disputed is that Stafford IS a top 4 winger on a playoff team, right? So here is the average salary for a top 4 winger on each playoff team: (And I only say PLAYOFF TEAM because I didn't want to take the time to do this research for all 30 teams ... I doubt it changes all that much) Anaheim – $4.73 million Boston - $3.04 Buffalo - $3.80 (using Vanek, Pominville, Stafford and Ennis, who is a bargain … obviously goes up using Hecht or Boyes) Chicago - $4.17 Detroit - $3.69 L.A. - $4.3 Montreal - $3.94 Nashville - $3.83 Rangers - $4.5 Philly - $2.73 (If Briere is considered a winger, as he is listed on their official website, this goes up to $3.86 … ) Pittsburgh - $3.25 San Jose - $3.54 (If Marleau is considered a winger, as he is listed on their official website, this goes up to $4.82 … ) Tampa Bay - $4.22 Vancouver - $3.29 Washington - $5.46 EDIT - duh ... that averages to $3.656 Million ... forgot to include it. We are spending a lot of time arguing if he deserves to be paid like "top-line power forward" ... but even if he is just paid like an average top 4 winger, that's somewhere between $3.5 and $4 million a year ... for better or worse, that is the going rate. Yeah, maybe Ovechkin and Vanek and Heatly drive that number up, but Ennis and Couture and VanRiemsdyk drive it down too, so it evens out pretty well looking at 64 guys ... I'm not saying he should be paid close to $4 million ... he is still a RFA and maybe should be on the second line at this point, so he shouldn't get top-end money ... probably more like below that average. But $3.5/year is not outlandish given the market when you look at it from a more broad angle than "30 goal scorer." The other interesting thing is, it shows how much less money good teams like Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh and Vancouver have tied up on the wings .... granted, Philly will have to pay for VanRiemsdyk eventually, and Pittsburgh WANTS to upgrade on the wing ... but still, i wish the Sabres could shift some cash to the middle. But it might take more than one offseason to get it where it should be.
Weave Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 The other interesting thing is, it shows how much less money good teams like Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh and Vancouver have tied up on the wings .... granted, Philly will have to pay for VanRiemsdyk eventually, and Pittsburgh WANTS to upgrade on the wing ... but still, i wish the Sabres could shift some cash to the middle. But it might take more than one offseason to get it where it should be. I think this is the biggest issue really. If we sign and keep Stafford we are looking at tying up around $14+M in RW's). Can we really afford to tie up $14M in RW's? Makes more sense to move one and dump the extra $4M into centermen.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I think this is the biggest issue really. If we sign and keep Stafford we are looking at tying up around $14+M in RW's). Can we really afford to tie up $14M in RW's? Makes more sense to move one and dump the extra $4M into centermen. No doubt ... they CAN'T give Stafford even $3 million and put together much of a team with so many wingers and so few centers ... I mean, unless Hecht is your No. 2 center and your 3rd line wingers are Gerbe and Boyes ... ugh I just threw up in my mouth ...
Derrico Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 I don't watch a ton of the games out west so don't throw me under the bus if this isn't a good comp. Having said that, is Chris Stewart (formerly of Colorado) now playing for the Blues a good comp? He's pretty big at 6'2, 228 pounds and plays right wing. Ironically they share the same birthdate (Oct. 30) but Stafford is two years older. Here are the stats for the past season: Stafford: 62 GP, 31 G, 21 A, 52 Points, +13 Stewart: 62 GP, 28 G, 25 A, 53 Points, +6 Stewart made $2,500,000 last season and is set to make $3,250,000 next year in the last of his two year deal (according to Capgeek.com) Obviously the two additional years of RFA are big but if we see a long term deal signed by Stewart, I would think that is comparable money to what Staff should/will sign.
Weave Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 ... I mean, unless Hecht is your No. 2 center and your 3rd line wingers are Gerbe and Boyes ... ugh I just threw up in my mouth ... :sick:
Samson's Flow Posted June 2, 2011 Report Posted June 2, 2011 Not making a HOF arguement here.. The question is, are they Power Forwards? If not ....then the description is far too narrow. Franzen and Nash don't fight. Horton doesn't hit much. Can they be considered Power Fowards...broadly I would argue yes. That is what the role has become...playing near the net and slot. The Gary Roberts and Cam Neely types were what the role was 15 years ago. The game has adjusted. I wasn't arguing HOF status either. I would tend to agree with you that these players listed are generally considered power forwards due to their size and tendency to score within 5 feet of the net. In this regard i think Stafford is more like them than say a sniper/dangler like St. Louis would be. The old school power forward is most certainly dead then since we don't see anyone play like that on a consistent basis...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.