Weave Posted April 13, 2013 Report Posted April 13, 2013 I moved the quote to respond in the appropriate thread. These numbers are a reflection of a talented player with with motivational issues. His most productive season came in his contract year. The other seasons pretty much mirror each other. Stafford would show some signs of great talent by going on a decent hot streak to pad his numbers mixed in with stretches of games where he completely disappears. I have thought for a while now that Stafford plays the game of hockey because of his natural talent and not for an love of the game. What we can be seeing right now from Stafford is that he has banked enough cash where the game of hockey is no longer a priority. He is going through the motions. I suspect the bolded part is spot on.
JJFIVEOH Posted April 13, 2013 Report Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) As much as I hate to say it, I'd like to see Stafford stay. His trade value has dwindled to nothing and now cap space isn't an issue. If this team goes through a rebuild there will be holes to fill in the lineup for a year or two. There are going to be a few FA signings that will be far from groundbreaking. Edited April 13, 2013 by JJFIVEOH
Taro T Posted April 13, 2013 Report Posted April 13, 2013 As much as I hate to say it, I'd like to see Stafford stay. His trade value has dwindled to nothing and now cap space isn't an issue. If this team goes through a rebuild there will be holes to fill in the lineup for a year or two. There are going to be a few FA signings that will be far from groundbreaking. I absolutely do not want Stafford 'leading' the young kids on this team. The only trait of his that I'd like to see instilled in more of the team is the 'you just ####ed one of our smaller guys, why don't you try that with me' attitude. Unfortunately, he only displays it when someone gets seriously ####ed and his 'I will make less body contact than Pomms did' actions and attitude are more contagious than the 'we'll stand up for each other under EXTREME duress' actions are. Ott and Scott bring the 'don't #### with our little guys' attitude far better than Stafford ever will; and that is the ONLY thing he brings now. He seemed to actually like playing with Ennis last year, that's gone now. He's a big kid that should be a power forward, but he just doesn't have the attitude to do it. They traded away the captain to change the 'leadership' (or more accurately lack thereof) on this squad. They have to keep that movement going. Take the 'A' away from Vanek and trade Stafford this off-season.
Tondas Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Realistically, what can we get for Drew and his $4 million salary in July? I think a second is all given his salary.
IKnowPhysics Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Realistically, what can we get for Drew and his $4 million salary in July? I think a second is all given his salary. There's this thread over here where we've had pretty good luck at guessing trade values. http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/21783-sabres-predicted-trade-value/ Most people think Stafford could still fetch between a low 1st rounder or a 2nd-and-3rd and a mid 2nd rounder. Mostly we're antsy because we want that return sooner than later.
Tondas Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 There's this thread over here where we've had pretty good luck at guessing trade values. http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/21783-sabres-predicted-trade-value/ Most people think Stafford could still fetch between a low 1st rounder or a 2nd-and-3rd and a mid 2nd rounder. Mostly we're antsy because we want that return sooner than later. Thanks, didn't realize the other thread. I think with Stafford we take the best deal on July 1 and move on. He is really a zombie out there. Need to cut losses and move on, whatever the value may be.
Robviously Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 There's this thread over here where we've had pretty good luck at guessing trade values. http://forums.sabres...ed-trade-value/ Most people think Stafford could still fetch between a low 1st rounder or a 2nd-and-3rd and a mid 2nd rounder. Mostly we're antsy because we want that return sooner than later. Well, that and the part where his value can't possibly be going up right now.
qwksndmonster Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Well, that and the part where his value can't possibly be going up right now. I think his value is more of an unknown quantity. Nobody remembers seeing him make any plays, good or bad. Stafford for Malkin.
Jsixspd Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) So when can we reasonably expect Stafford to go? - July? It's been a month since the last post in this topic and he's still on the roster - he's like a stubborn dose of clap that's hard to treat. I'll probably do an Irish Jig as soon as I get the text from WGR stating that he's gone. Edited May 14, 2013 by Jsixspd
chileanseabass Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 So when can we reasonably expect Stafford to go? - July? It's been a month since the last post in this topic and he's still on the roster - he's like a stubborn dose of clap that's hard to treat. I'll probably do an Irish Jig as soon as I get the text from WGR stating that he's gone. They won't get rid of him. Just wait... after Miller and Vanek are dealt this summer, this will become "Drew's team," as he's named the new captain.
IKnowPhysics Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) There's probably three times when the chances he could be moved would be higher: before/at the draft, within a week or two after July 1, and immediately before training camp/season. If you move him at the draft, you get draft picks (I like this). If you move him after July 1, you're selling him to someone who couldn't sign UFAs. If you move him before the season, you're selling to someone who couldn't sign UFAs and is now desparate. The problem is that IF Regier thinks Stafford is viable as a top six forward (he may not think this), then he might hold onto him until he knows he has something better, and that would be after signing UFAs on July 1. But I believe that if he waits, the teams looking for what Stafford brings may sign UFAs first, reducing demand for Stafford. The second problem is that every GM is aware of the first problem, and may just wait until after July 1 anyways. I believe Darcy's been trying to trade Stafford, but he's not finding the right deals. I hope he finds the right deal, maybe any deal, before the draft. The Trade Value thread puts Stafford at an average return of about a 2nd and a 3rd. I think this declines a little after the draft. Edited May 14, 2013 by IKnowPhysics
Jsixspd Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 There's probably three times when the chances he could be moved would be higher: before/at the draft, within a week or two after July 1, and immediately before training camp/season. If you move him at the draft, you get draft picks (I like this). If you move him after July 1, you're selling him to someone who couldn't sign UFAs. If you move him before the season, you're selling to someone who couldn't sign UFAs and is now desparate. The problem is that IF Regier thinks Stafford is viable as a top six forward (he may not think this), then he might hold onto him until he knows he has something better, and that would be after signing UFAs on July 1. But I believe that if he waits, the teams looking for what Stafford brings may sign UFAs first, reducing demand for Stafford. The second problem is that every GM is aware of the first problem, and may just wait until after July 1 anyways. I believe Darcy's been trying to trade Stafford, but he's not finding the right deals. I hope he finds the right deal, maybe any deal, before the draft. The Trade Value thread puts Stafford at an average return of about a 2nd and a 3rd. I think this declines a little after the draft. I was just checking stats - in plus minus, Stafford ranks almost at the very bottom - 722 out of 730 offensive players in the entire league. And only 6 goals in 46 games - that's abysmal for a guy pulling down the salary he does. Maybe Regier should just consider it cutting his losses and trade him for a loss? Who cares??? Yeah, it's a great ego-stroking thing for Darcy to say he got this great trade, and he robbed another team or whatever. But the OVER-ARCHING goal is to build a winning team! The owner of the team - the guy writing the checks - has said HIS over-arching goal is to build a winning team. And you're not gonna do it with dead-wood like Stafford on the roster. Get him out of there! Regier shouldn't just sit there dreaming wistfully of a pot o' gold in return for Stafford - cut him loose, and start to mend the team!
Doohicksie Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 Stafford will score 36 goals for the Sabres this year. Just you wait and see.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 (edited) Stafford will score 36 goals for the Sabres this year. Just you wait and see. Don't you mean the year after next? He still has two years left on that sweetheart of a deal. Edited May 14, 2013 by Sabres Fan In NS
IKnowPhysics Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 Yeah, it's a great ego-stroking thing for Darcy to say he got this great trade, and he robbed another team or whatever. But the OVER-ARCHING goal is to build a winning team! I don't think it's an ego thing, I think he genuinely wants to improve the team and tries to do that with every transaction. My fear is that if it's not clear to Regier that another player that we have can step up and play or another player is available to be acquired to take Stafford's spot, he won't risk trading Stafford away for fear that it will be a net minus on team performance. That said, if he's truly ready to make this team worse to make this team better in the long haul, I think he can execute that trade.
Kristian Posted May 14, 2013 Report Posted May 14, 2013 I was just checking stats - in plus minus, Stafford ranks almost at the very bottom - 722 out of 730 offensive players in the entire league. And only 6 goals in 46 games - that's abysmal for a guy pulling down the salary he does. Maybe Regier should just consider it cutting his losses and trade him for a loss? Who cares??? Yeah, it's a great ego-stroking thing for Darcy to say he got this great trade, and he robbed another team or whatever. But the OVER-ARCHING goal is to build a winning team! The owner of the team - the guy writing the checks - has said HIS over-arching goal is to build a winning team. And you're not gonna do it with dead-wood like Stafford on the roster. Get him out of there! Regier shouldn't just sit there dreaming wistfully of a pot o' gold in return for Stafford - cut him loose, and start to mend the team! At this point, it would make sense to waive him. Some would say "no, you need some sort of veteran presence on the team, otherwise all the AHL kids will be lost", but tell me - Does anyone SERIOUSLY belive Stafford adds any sort of experience, or veteran presence? All I see from Stafford, is a green light for youngsters to float and coast through their careers, while still getting one improved deal after another - The Regier Way. I wouldn't want this lazy, hideously overpaid bum anywhere NEAR the AHL call-ups.
dudacek Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 It is inevitable Stafford will score 20 goals next year with a healthy season, no matter what team he is on. I hope to God it is not with us. Darcy needs to pencil Joel Armia in as Stafford's replacement, take the best offer this summer and move on.
MattPie Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 At this point, it would make sense to waive him. Some would say "no, you need some sort of veteran presence on the team, otherwise all the AHL kids will be lost", but tell me - Does anyone SERIOUSLY belive Stafford adds any sort of experience, or veteran presence? I don't think anyone considers Stafford veteran leadership, other than maybe what the Front Office says to the media (perhaps they think Drew will get it if they say it enough times). As for waivers, there has to be a team (at the cap floor or otherwise) that'll give up a late pick for him. There's no way he makes it thru waivers (IMHO).
Sabres Fan in NS Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 I don't think anyone considers Stafford veteran leadership, other than maybe what the Front Office says to the media (perhaps they think Drew will get it if they say it enough times). As for waivers, there has to be a team (at the cap floor or otherwise) that'll give up a late pick for him. There's no way he makes it thru waivers (IMHO). So, what? Stafford just needs to go away. Anyway, anyhow.
MattPie Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 So, what? Stafford just needs to go away. Anyway, anyhow. I don't disagree, but you don't give away a player for nothing if you can get anything for him. Someone out there with an early 5th round pick has to be itching to pull the trigger. :)
LabattBlue Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) I have a feeling if Vanek is traded, Stafford is staying in 13-14. Not that Stafford is a long term answer, but you have to have some players in your top 6... Hodgson Ennis and..... Edited May 15, 2013 by LabattBlue
waldo Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) It would be nice to see Stafford in the playoffs next season on a team, not named the Sabres, and contributing, at critical times, like so many other x Sabres. Edited May 15, 2013 by waldo
IKnowPhysics Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 It would be nice to see Stafford in the playoffs next season on a team, not named the Sabres, and contributing, at critical times, like so many other x Sabres. Derek Roy? Jason Pominville? Just kidding. Regehr's playing well.
Jsixspd Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) Nice to see Regehr enjoying some success. Kings must think he's a good asset for the D - he's played every game, and been averaging 21 minutes of ice time per game in the post season so far. Edited May 15, 2013 by Jsixspd
IKnowPhysics Posted May 15, 2013 Report Posted May 15, 2013 Nice to see Regehr enjoying some success. Kings must think he's a good asset for the D - he's played every game, and been averaging 21 minutes of ice time per game in the post season so far. In no small part due to being paired with Doughty and working under former Flames coach Darryl Sutter.
Recommended Posts