carpandean Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/489/story/671828.html The Vancouver Canucks re-signed forward Steve Bernier to a two-year, $4 million contract extension on Thursday, keeping him away from free agency. Steve Bernier 16th Overall Pick (2003) 6'2", 225lbs 2005-06 39GP, 14G, 13A, 27P (0.69 PPG) 2006-07 63GP, 15G, 16A, 31P (0.49 PPG) 2007-08 76GP, 16G, 16A, 32P (0.42 PPG) 2008-09 81GP, 15G, 17A, 32P (0.40 PPG) Drew Stafford 13th Overall Pick (2004) 6'1", 202lbs 2006-07 41GP, 13G, 14A, 27P (0.65 PPG) 2007-08 64GP, 16G, 22A, 38P (0.59 PPG) 2008-09 79GP, 20G, 25A, 45P (0.57 PPG) How much is Bernier's physical play worth vs. Stafford's production? Steve was demoted for the top line to the second line and, finally, to the third line after not producing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/489/story/671828.htmlSteve Bernier 16th Overall Pick (2003) 6'2", 225lbs 2005-06 39GP, 14G, 13A, 27P (0.69 PPG) 2006-07 63GP, 15G, 16A, 31P (0.49 PPG) 2007-08 76GP, 16G, 16A, 32P (0.42 PPG) 2008-09 81GP, 15G, 17A, 32P (0.40 PPG) Drew Stafford 13th Overall Pick (2004) 6'1", 202lbs 2006-07 41GP, 13G, 14A, 27P (0.65 PPG) 2007-08 64GP, 16G, 22A, 38P (0.59 PPG) 2008-09 79GP, 20G, 25A, 45P (0.57 PPG) How much is Bernier's physical play worth vs. Stafford's production? Steve was demoted for the top line to the second line and, finally, to the third line after not producing. What is interesting to me is that he actually took a cut in pay although he did get an extra year. Could be the first contarct where the threat of a lower cap number in 2011 got a player to sign for less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I think the Sabres are going to have to come very close to $2.5MM to keep Stafford. Otherwise someone will sign him to an offer sheet since the compensation below that number is modest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 This deals a bit of a head scratcher from Bernier's point of view. He would've gotten more for the one year QO required by Vancouver to retain his rights. I'd understand taking a little less if this deal ate up the remainder of his RFA time, but it doesn't. This deal will take him through his 6th season, but 7 are required for UFA status. Sure he can earn a much better deal by playing well, but he still won't have complete control after it's over. I don't get it at all. Vancouver saves a bit of money though, so it's a great deal from their perspective. As for the Stafford comparison, I don't think it is one Drew will be looking at. I think he'd much rather try to go with a guy like Andrei Kostitsyn, nearly identical NHL numbers and significantly more money ($3.25 million per year). Kostitsyn: 186 GP, 52-56-108 Stafford: 184 GP, 49-61-110 I'm glad I happened to luck my way across Kostitsyn's numbers. It's crazy just how similar they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 What is interesting to me is that he actually took a cut in pay although he did get an extra year. Could be the first contarct where the threat of a lower cap number in 2011 got a player to sign for less. IMHO, he was worth only the 2 mill before, but got the 2.5 in the trade, if my memory is correct without JFGI, he left and the team took him higher pay so the pick would go? IRT Stafford, I def wouldn't place him at 3 mill like some said before. Especially for longer term 2-5 year contracts that are going into the lower cap era for a few years. These guys will have to suck it up and if the GM's are wise will work together to not set the bar sooo high. Maybe agents will be looking more at years and average pay than big hits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Bernier got what he deserved. Plus he gets to play in a hockey mad city and the most beautiful city in the world, so why not sign for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Bernier got what he deserved. Plus he gets to play in a hockey mad city and the most beautiful city in the world, so why not sign for that? Geez, why did they have to pay Sundin so much then ;) I think Stafford could get $3 million a year depending on the length of the deal. If they believe in him like they did Roy and want to lock him up into his UFA years like they did with Roy, the end of the deal will have to be bigger numbers. Not saying he should make $3 million next season, but when you average it all out ... in light of Kostitsyn's deal, it's not that outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Geez, why did they have to pay Sundin so much then ;) I think Stafford could get $3 million a year depending on the length of the deal. If they believe in him like they did Roy and want to lock him up into his UFA years like they did with Roy, the end of the deal will have to be bigger numbers. Not saying he should make $3 million next season, but when you average it all out ... in light of Kostitsyn's deal, it's not that outrageous. The Canucks had a tonne of room last year and took a shot at the big name. I think that Sundin was a good addition, although highly overpaid. If he hadn't waited so long to come back, he'd have had better success. But he wasn't as big a bust as some suggest. He gave the Canucks another option and in turn, freed up other players. It has a snowball effect. The team will move on, and so will he, hopefully retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'll say 3 year $8.25 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Fan Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I think the Sabres are going to have to come very close to $2.5MM to keep Stafford. Otherwise someone will sign him to an offer sheet since the compensation below that number is modest. What is the compensation? If it's low, I'd say sign and trade him. I really think he is overrated. He disappears for long stretches when he is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 He hasnt earned it yet...2 mill a year is dead on..No more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 At this point, there might only be about 3-4 players that I would be upset upon departure. Sabres need a WHOLE new attitude adjustment so the more new guys in here, the better. Anything over 2 million and I have no problem seeing him on another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 At this point, there might only be about 3-4 players that I would be upset upon departure. Sabres need a WHOLE new attitude adjustment so the more new guys in here, the better. Anything over 2 million and I have no problem seeing him on another team. They'll resign him for 3, you watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 IMHO, he was worth only the 2 mill before, but got the 2.5 in the trade, if my memory is correct without JFGI, he left and the team took him higher pay so the pick would go? IRT Stafford, I def wouldn't place him at 3 mill like some said before. Especially for longer term 2-5 year contracts that are going into the lower cap era for a few years. These guys will have to suck it up and if the GM's are wise will work together to not set the bar sooo high. Maybe agents will be looking more at years and average pay than big hits? Shush! Collusion is an ugly word amongst player unions. GO SABRES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 He hasnt earned it yet...2 mill a year is dead on..No more.. At this point, there might only be about 3-4 players that I would be upset upon departure. Sabres need a WHOLE new attitude adjustment so the more new guys in here, the better. Anything over 2 million and I have no problem seeing him on another team. You guys are on record ... not saying you are dead wrong, maybe the kid will never pan out, I just disagree. He is just 23 years old and is not a finished product. What is the hurry to play hardball with him or run him out of town? I have no problem with them purging guys who are very unlikley to get any better (Hecht, Tallinder, etc.), and if Stafford is moved in a good trade that is fine. I'm not saying he is untouchable, as far as I am concerned anyone is fair game if it is the right deal. But if Bernier is a $2 million/year guy, Stafford deserves more. His numbers are better across the board and he is younger. Bernier's production has not improved a bit the last 3 years (31-32-32 pts) whereas Stafford has every year (27-38-45) ... given the current market, he probably doesn't get the $3.25 million mentioned that Kostitsyn got, but somewhere between that and Bernier is very fair. Perhaps he hasn't "earned" every penny of it yet, but if you wait for them to fully develop it's too late and they are playing somewhere else for $7 million a year. Roy certainly had not earned his deal when he signed it, but they believed in him and they are getting their money's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 He hasnt earned it yet...2 mill a year is dead on..No more.. At this point, there might only be about 3-4 players that I would be upset upon departure. Sabres need a WHOLE new attitude adjustment so the more new guys in here, the better. Anything over 2 million and I have no problem seeing him on another team. So -- you'd rather have a 2nd-round pick than have Stafford at $2.5MM per year? Because if another team signs him to, say, a 3-yr, $7.5MM offer sheet and the Sabres don't match, we get a 2nd-round pick. And I think there are quite a few teams that would give him an offer sheet at that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 So -- you'd rather have a 2nd-round pick than have Stafford at $2.5MM per year? Because if another team signs him to, say, a 3-yr, $7.5MM offer sheet and the Sabres don't match, we get a 2nd-round pick. And I think there are quite a few teams that would give him an offer sheet at that level. Thank you. I didn't know the cutoff for the compensation and was too tired last night to look it up ... exactly my point. They invested a first round pick in the kid, he has improved every year and he's just 23. Has he been SO bad you are willing to let him go for a 2nd-round pick? No way. NO WAY. Another first-round talent walks out the door for nothing but a second-round pick and you'd be screaming about another asset lost for nothing, and rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 So -- you'd rather have a 2nd-round pick than have Stafford at $2.5MM per year? Because if another team signs him to, say, a 3-yr, $7.5MM offer sheet and the Sabres don't match, we get a 2nd-round pick. And I think there are quite a few teams that would give him an offer sheet at that level. WELL here is my response to this.. First off If i were Darcy I would have all of my hockey minds informing me on what there thoughts are in his progression with the way they had envisioned him being in three years and where they think his ceiling is going to end up in the next three.. From there you either decide to sign him and keep him or sign him and trade him..YOu dont let him go for a second rd pick..You have to evaluate the roster and see where your needs are and fill it with what you can get the most for Stafford. IF they feel he is worth more then they are gonna pay him..IN either case a smart Gm is not gonna let it get to the point where another team is going to dictate what you have to sign a player for if you want to keep him..Especially a GM who already got his ass handed to him before..These contracts should never get to the last year if you plan on keeping that player..You never win that way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 WELL here is my response to this.. First off If i were Darcy I would have all of my hockey minds informing me on what there thoughts are in his progression with the way they had envisioned him being in three years and where they think his ceiling is going to end up in the next three.. From there you either decide to sign him and keep him or sign him and trade him..YOu dont let him go for a second rd pick..You have to evaluate the roster and see where your needs are and fill it with what you can get the most for Stafford. IF they feel he is worth more then they are gonna pay him..IN either case a smart Gm is not gonna let it get to the point where another team is going to dictate what you have to sign a player for if you want to keep him..Especially a GM who already got his ass handed to him before..These contracts should never get to the last year if you plan on keeping that player..You never win that way.. there's a few really weak links among the forwards, and Staffo is NOT one of them. agreed he disappears for long stretches and needs to apply himself more physically, but we saw that this year - i can recall quite a few situations where his increased upper body strength helped him muscle his way around the net. his talent is unmistakeable, he definitely has the moves - anyone remember this against the Leafs?? at only 23 now, he should be given a 3yr deal, $8.25-9.0mil. the fact that the FO has that much faith in him will be repaid in bucketloads, plus we're not letting him walk for a 2nd rd. pick. the only time i see us letting him go is if some retarded Kevin Lowe-type comes up with a blockbuster $4mil-per type deal - IMO, i doubt that though, i'm not sure he's attracted that much attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 there's a few really weak links among the forwards, and Staffo is NOT one of them. agreed he disappears for long stretches and needs to apply himself more physically, but we saw that this year - i can recall quite a few situations where his increased upper body strength helped him muscle his way around the net. his talent is unmistakeable, he definitely has the moves - anyone remember this against the Leafs?? at only 23 now, he should be given a 3yr deal, $8.25-9.0mil. the fact that the FO has that much faith in him will be repaid in bucketloads, plus we're not letting him walk for a 2nd rd. pick. the only time i see us letting him go is if some retarded Kevin Lowe-type comes up with a blockbuster $4mil-per type deal - IMO, i doubt that though, i'm not sure he's attracted that much attention How does that make him not a weak link? It's cool drew, you can dick around all season and play no better than anyone else, but here's 3mil/yr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimiVbaby Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 How does that make him not a weak link? It's cool drew, you can dick around all season and play no better than anyone else, but here's 3mil/yr. I may be mistaken, but power forwards do have a tendency to take a little longer to develop into premier players. Drew was a first round pick that has shown flashes of great offensive ability and a tendency to play a physical brand of hockey albeit inconsistently up until this point. I do remember this thread when he was really stepping it up midway through the season. With time he really could be a big time player for the team. If Darcy were to go out and find a number 1 or 2 center with some grit and playmaking ability I think Drew would use the body more and have more space to work with if his line mates actually hit someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Good post. I may be mistaken, but power forwards do have a tendency to take a little longer to develop into premier players. Drew was a first round pick that has shown flashes of great offensive ability and a tendency to play a physical brand of hockey albeit inconsistently up until this point. I do remember this thread when he was really stepping it up midway through the season. With time he really could be a big time player for the team. If Darcy were to go out and find a number 1 or 2 center with some grit and playmaking ability I think Drew would use the body more and have more space to work with if his line mates actually hit someone. g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calti Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 gil perrault made $350,000 at his peak...lets say that = $2,000,000 with inflation. Times have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.