San Diego Sabres Fan Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It appears that Drew Stafford and Mark Mancari are the last of the Sabres RFA's, what's the hold up? They need Mancari's size up front, replacing Gerbe for Max works, if they end up resigning both of these guys I see the lines looking like this. LW Center RW 1st line Vanek Connolly Pommiville 2nd Line MacArthur Roy Stafford 3rd Line Hecht Gaustad Gerbe 4th Line Mair Mancari Kaleta Odd man out Matt Ellis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Roy on the first line, they need another playmaking center, trade Hecht and move Kennedy up. Not sure about Mac and Stafford on the same line, I think that is a recipe for a disaster. Stafford might be playing musical chairs with Ellis. Not sure, but I don't like that second line, nor choices of center on the third line. Can you say 12th place in the East! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It appears that Drew Stafford and Mark Mancari are the last of the Sabres RFA's, what's the hold up? They need Mancari's size up front, replacing Gerbe for Max works, if they end up resigning both of these guys I see the lines looking like this. LW Center RW 1st line Vanek Connolly Pommiville 2nd Line MacArthur Roy Stafford 3rd Line Hecht Gaustad Gerbe 4th Line Mair Mancari Kaleta Odd man out Matt Ellis You missed Paille. With Gerbe or, more likely, Kennedy coming up, I don't see a spot for Mark in the NHL. I'd expect to see: Vanek-Connolly-Stafford MacArthur-Roy-Pominville Hecht-Kennedy-Gaustad Paille-Mair-Kaleta Alt: Ellis That will depend on Kennedy's showing at camp. I also don't know how Kennedy is on faceoffs, but having Goose on that line allows him to take important draws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 You missed Paille. With Gerbe or, more likely, Kennedy coming up, I don't see a spot for Mark in the NHL. I'd expect to see: Vanek-Connolly-Stafford MacArthur-Roy-Pominville Hecht-Kennedy-Gaustad Paille-Mair-Kaleta Alt: Ellis That will depend on Kennedy's showing at camp. I also don't know how Kennedy is on faceoffs, but having Goose on that line allows him to take important draws. Whew... much better line-up. I forgot about Paille and how Pommer likes to play with Roy. Connolly Stafford Vanek could be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 In general, Mark turned down his two-way qualifying offer, so either he wants more money or a one-way deal. I doubt the Sabres feel compelled to give him either, right now. And, by the way, they need his size specifically in the top six, not any line. I don't believe that the Sabres feel that he would crack the top six. What they really need is someone in MacArthur's slot with a physical presence. Stafford and Vanek aren't super physical, but more so than, say, Pominville. That second line needs someone to do the hard work in the corners. Hecht used to do that, but he didn't show it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I just don't think Mancari has what it takes to be a full time NHL'er. I'll be surprised if he is anything more than an injury call up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabresman17 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I just don't think Mancari has what it takes to be a full time NHL'er. I'll be surprised if he is anything more than an injury call up. If Mancari and Stafford stay Paille is in the line up and eathier mac or Mancari is in minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 If Mancari and Stafford stay Paille is in the line up and eathier mac or Mancari is in minors. I'm fairly certain that Mac got a one-way deal and I doubt that they will pay him $1.4 million to play in the AHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Zherdev just got awarded $3.9MM per year in arbitration. Holy mackarel. Last year: Zherdev 23-35-58, 16:50 avg ice time, 6'2", 197, age 24, RW Stafford 20-25-45, 15:38 avg ice time, 6'1", 202, age 23, RW Zherdev's numbers are better, but Stafford is in the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Zherdev has more seasons and more 50 plus point seasons than Stafford. Yeah, he's worth a bunch, but not that much. FWIW, I don't think the Rangers have signed on the dotted line yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 FWIW, I don't think the Rangers have signed on the dotted line yet. No, and there was talk about them parting ways with Zherdev even before the award came down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 No, and there was talk about them parting ways with Zherdev even before the award came down. They were paying him 3.25 last year. geez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Zherdev just got awarded $3.9MM per year in arbitration. Holy mackarel. Last year: Zherdev 23-35-58, 16:50 avg ice time, 6'2", 197, age 24, RW Stafford 20-25-45, 15:38 avg ice time, 6'1", 202, age 23, RW Zherdev's numbers are better, but Stafford is in the neighborhood. I stopped reading right before the ice times. I think past decisions have shown that the arbitrators look at nothing but the point production. But does that really matter with Stafford anyway? I really wonder if he has any leverage at all. I really can't see anyone throwing an offer sheet in his direction. At this point, I'm starting to think that he may end up accepting a 1 year deal so he can go to arbitration in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I stopped reading right before the ice times. I think past decisions have shown that the arbitrators look at nothing but the point production. But does that really matter with Stafford anyway? I really wonder if he has any leverage at all. I really can't see anyone throwing an offer sheet in his direction. At this point, I'm starting to think that he may end up accepting a 1 year deal so he can go to arbitration in the future. If he did that, would he still be able to be "RFA'd"? or does he move to a different class with his age/years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I stopped reading right before the ice times. I think past decisions have shown that the arbitrators look at nothing but the point production. But does that really matter with Stafford anyway? I really wonder if he has any leverage at all. I really can't see anyone throwing an offer sheet in his direction. At this point, I'm starting to think that he may end up accepting a 1 year deal so he can go to arbitration in the future. I agree that he doesn't have much leverage, except that I think the Sabres, having been burned by the 2-year deal they gave Soupy (which ended right when he was eligible for UFA), will want to sign him to a longer-term deal that will eat up a couple of his UFA years. If that's correct, that gives him some leverage. It's hard to see him agreeing to a 4-year deal for much less than $3MM per year. BTW: is he eligible for arbitration next summer, and then UFA the summer after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 You missed Paille. With Gerbe or, more likely, Kennedy coming up, I don't see a spot for Mark in the NHL. I'd expect to see: Vanek-Connolly-Stafford MacArthur-Roy-Pominville Hecht-Kennedy-Gaustad Paille-Mair-Kaleta Alt: Ellis That will depend on Kennedy's showing at camp. I also don't know how Kennedy is on faceoffs, but having Goose on that line allows him to take important draws. You know, looking at that top 6 on paper (or the internet), really causes one to shudder at how undersized that top 6 really is. Can we say: "Fragile"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 any word on what Stafford is holding out for, dollars wise? I'm not a big believer in him; as his play has not shown much. Right now, he's too inconsistent to warrant a large contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnabov Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 You know, looking at that top 6 on paper (or the internet), really causes one to shudder at how undersized that top 6 really is. Can we say: "Fragile"? So our predicted season starting lineup is this??? Vanek - Connolly - Stafford (providing he gets resigned) LW to be named (MacArthur, Gerbe or Kennedy) + Roy + Pominville Hecht - Gaustad + whoever doesn't make 2nd line LW Paille - Mair - Kaleta Reserve: Ellis What is the opinion on Kennedy making the team over Gerbe? To me, seems like they could both do with another full season in AAA. Are we all in agreement that this lineup has little or no improvement from last couple of years? We'd better hope someone (Gerbe or Kennedy) blows the competition away in camp and emerges as a legitimate NHL starter and the only other hope is that everyone has great seasons or it's going to be a long year. By the way, what happened to Andrew Peters? Is he definitely gone? Are we going without an enforcer? Too bad we couldn't get a true goon to play 4th line and at least have that to round out the lineup - unfortunately very few goons can skate and put in the minutes necessary to stick as a regular. Our defense hopefully stayed at par by replacing Spacek with Montador. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 By the way, what happened to Andrew Peters? Is he definitely gone? Are we going without an enforcer? Too bad we couldn't get a true goon to play 4th line and at least have that to round out the lineup - unfortunately very few goons can skate and put in the minutes necessary to stick as a regular. You should really read this thread about McCormick, our latest acquisition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I agree that he doesn't have much leverage, except that I think the Sabres, having been burned by the 2-year deal they gave Soupy (which ended right when he was eligible for UFA), will want to sign him to a longer-term deal that will eat up a couple of his UFA years. If that's correct, that gives him some leverage. It's hard to see him agreeing to a 4-year deal for much less than $3MM per year. BTW: is he eligible for arbitration next summer, and then UFA the summer after that? If he does sign a one year deal, he will be eligible for arbitration next year. 4 years is the longest time anyone would have to wait to be eligible. He won't reach UFA status until 2012, but the arbitration eligibility would definitely get him much more leverage next year. Those awards have been steep and it looks like most teams are very anxious to avoid going that route whenever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 If he does sign a one year deal, he will be eligible for arbitration next year. 4 years is the longest time anyone would have to wait to be eligible. He won't reach UFA status until 2012, but the arbitration eligibility would definitely get him much more leverage next year. Those awards have been steep and it looks like most teams are very anxious to avoid going that route whenever possible. So DR is probably offering 5 years, 20 million and Staff wants more money or less years? Arbitration scares DR so he's got to get by that. Plus he doesn't want to get bent over like he did with BC so he takes a few years into UFA status. I don't see how he does it/afford it. With under 5 million in cap space, not spending over their 'budget', having Paille, Kennedy, and then Gerbe, et al coming up in the next years. Wait, Lydman and Hank are gone, there's 6 million. Start staff at 3 mill, then 500 more each year, done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 So DR is probably offering 5 years, 20 million and Staff wants more money or less years? Arbitration scares DR so he's got to get by that. Plus he doesn't want to get bent over like he did with BC so he takes a few years into UFA status. I don't see how he does it/afford it. With under 5 million in cap space, not spending over their 'budget', having Paille, Kennedy, and then Gerbe, et al coming up in the next years. Wait, Lydman and Hank are gone, there's 6 million. Start staff at 3 mill, then 500 more each year, done. I won't even try to guess what either side wants, but arbitration can't be a major concern for Darcy right now. That's not an issue until next year. They control his rights for three more seasons, so at this moment, the Sabres are holding most of the chips. Obviously they'd like to lock him in now at a decent rate, but who knows what either side thinks that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 You know, looking at that top 6 on paper (or the internet), really causes one to shudder at how undersized that top 6 really is. Can we say: "Fragile"? They might be fragile but they aren't really that "undersized." Connolly 6'1" 199 Vanek 6'2" 205 Stafford 6'2" 202 Pominville 6'0" 186 Mac 6'1" 195 Roy 5'9" 188 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 They might be fragile but they aren't really that "undersized." Connolly 6'1" 199 Vanek 6'2" 205 Stafford 6'2" 202 Pominville 6'0" 186 Mac 6'1" 195 Roy 5'9" 188 Mac is top 6? That's a frighting thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 No way Stafford is over 6" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.