nfreeman Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 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. If he's not eligible for UFA for another 3 seasons, I don't think they'll go for the long-term deal. I can see them giving him a 2-yr deal, like they did with Paille, in the $2.5MM per year range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster 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...
Barnabov Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You should really read this thread about McCormick, our latest acquisition. Seriously? He's supposed to be Peters replacement? Okay - if everyone says so that's good with me. At least nice to see a change. I thought this was another one of DR's plug the roster in Portland moves with the 2 way contract. At least he should play more than 28 games. So what's the call on Defense? 7 guys counting Butler plus Weber & Paetsch. Bit crowded - gives faint hopes of a trade - would guess Tallinder & Lydman are prime candidates to be moved right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 No way Stafford is over 6" You know this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 No way Stafford is over 6" so what do tyou think he is 5", 5" 1/2. better ask Roy. He'd probably know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 You know this! I am 6'2" and stood near him outside a Ranger Game at MSG this past winter. I had at least two inches on him and he looked barely taller than Kaleta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I am 6'2" and stood near him outside a Ranger Game at MSG this past winter. I had at least two inches on him and he looked barely taller than Kaleta. WE ALREADY HIJACKED ANOTHER THREAD AND DETAILED THIS ENTIRE TOPIC. WHY ARE YOU BRINING IT UP AGAIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 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 I know!, p.s. your link I can't seem to click on, though I figured that is what it referred to... so in response... because this list brought it and really because I am bored and dying for some hockey news as I edit photos... Why?.... Because! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 It's too bad that "I am NOT Drew Stafford" 'cause I'm actually 6'2", as well. <----------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 It's too bad that "I am NOT Drew Stafford" 'cause I'm actually 6'2", as well. <----------- Bored too I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 So DR is probably offering 5 years, 20 million i can't find the sick emoticon - but the idea of committing to stafford for that long at that price is nauseating. vanek-man or another poster who watches the league closely had indicated a while back that there was a comparable signing somewhere -- can't recall who, can't recall the value. that said, my guess would be that the team has offered 3/~9 (2.75, 3, 3.25) and stafford's countered for more like 3/~11.5-12. my guess is that we will sign him for 3 years and a cap hit of ~3.5 or less. but in the present market, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 i can't find the sick emoticon - but the idea of committing to stafford for that long at that price is nauseating. vanek-man or another poster who watches the league closely had indicated a while back that there was a comparable signing somewhere -- can't recall who, can't recall the value. that said, my guess would be that the team has offered 3/~9 (2.75, 3, 3.25) and stafford's countered for more like 3/~11.5-12. my guess is that we will sign him for 3 years and a cap hit of ~3.5 or less. but in the present market, who knows. Andrei Kostitsyn, essentially identical numbers, $3.25 million per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Andrei Kostitsyn, essentially identical numbers, $3.25 million per year. If that's the price for Stafford than deal him to someone willing to pay it. The kid hasn't proven a thing in the NHL and certainly doesn't deserve that type of raise. This franchise has enough bad contracts on the books. They can't afford any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Andrei Kostitsyn, essentially identical numbers, $3.25 million per year. good man. so, yeah, what is the hold-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 If that's the price for Stafford than deal him to someone willing to pay it. The kid hasn't proven a thing in the NHL and certainly doesn't deserve that type of raise. This franchise has enough bad contracts on the books. They can't afford any more. I also don't like the idea of committing $3MM x 3 years to a player with lots of potential but who seems pretty immature and disappears for long stretches. The Sabres have been burned quite a few times by expensive contracts for underperforming players. I also think since he has 3 more years until UFA, the Sabres have lots of leverage and aren't going to be strong-armed into a contract at that level. I'd like to see 2 years x $2.5MM, but that is likely wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 If he's not eligible for UFA for another 3 seasons, I don't think they'll go for the long-term deal. I can see them giving him a 2-yr deal, like they did with Paille, in the $2.5MM per year range. Right. If Stafford is due for UFA in 3 years then Darcy probably is trying for the 2 year contract now so he can try to resign him then for a 3 year contract to get 2 years into UFA. He may be trying for the 5 year contract but I don't know if either side would be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 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 think Darcy is afraid of arbitration. He probably likes it so he doesan't have to decide how much to offer a player. So, potentially sign Stafford for 1 year contract then next year take it to arbitration hoping that he gets a 1 year award? If arbitration gave him a 2 year award then Stafford would be a UFA. Would Darcy like that? I would still think that Darcy would want to have Stafford locked up for 2 years of UFA but perhaps the thinking will be that Stafford will price himself out of Buffalo in 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I don't think Darcy is afraid of arbitration. He probably likes it so he doesan't have to decide how much to offer a player. So, potentially sign Stafford for 1 year contract then next year take it to arbitration hoping that he gets a 1 year award? If arbitration gave him a 2 year award then Stafford would be a UFA. Would Darcy like that? I would still think that Darcy would want to have Stafford locked up for 2 years of UFA but perhaps the thinking will be that Stafford will price himself out of Buffalo in 3 years. They haven't had anyone make it through to an arbitration hearing in a couple years now. I'd say that pretty clearly rules out the idea that Darcy likes arbitration. They got burned back in '06 and they'll do whatever they can to avoid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 They haven't had anyone make it through to an arbitration hearing in a couple years now. I'd say that pretty clearly rules out the idea that Darcy likes arbitration. They got burned back in '06 and they'll do whatever they can to avoid that. Maybe I should have said he likes the arbitration process. The process helps to get both sides at more realistic starting points on value. You can't really high ball/low ball when you are getting into arbitration since you risk losing the award. So you come up with more realistic value figures. Obviously the team's is a little lower and the players is a little higher. But the team isn't going to go into arbitration saying a player should get 500k and the player saying he should get 10mil. In a contract negotiation i'm sure both sides think closer to that way (or they're hoping more that way.) So by having more realistic starting numbers because of the arbitration process helps Darcy, and the player, with the contract negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Maybe I should have said he likes the arbitration process. The process helps to get both sides at more realistic starting points on value. You can't really high ball/low ball when you are getting into arbitration since you risk losing the award. So you come up with more realistic value figures. Obviously the team's is a little lower and the players is a little higher. But the team isn't going to go into arbitration saying a player should get 500k and the player saying he should get 10mil. In a contract negotiation i'm sure both sides think closer to that way (or they're hoping more that way.) So by having more realistic starting numbers because of the arbitration process helps Darcy, and the player, with the contract negotiation. But the numbers coming out of arbitration have been pretty high over the last couple seasons. Couple that with the fact that they're short-term deals, 1 or 2 years, and I don't think any team wants a part of it anymore. But then again, if you're saying that it clearly paints a picture of what each side wants so that they can then work it out before ever getting to the hearing, then I'm with you on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 But the numbers coming out of arbitration have been pretty high over the last couple seasons. Couple that with the fact that they're short-term deals, 1 or 2 years, and I don't think any team wants a part of it anymore. But then again, if you're saying that it clearly paints a picture of what each side wants so that they can then work it out before ever getting to the hearing, then I'm with you on that one. Good point. It seems that most of the arb deals that are out there are only 1-2 year deal and they appear on the high side as well. It seems that arbitration primarily benefits the player. If a couple of these players went and got rock bottom deals it would help level the playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 But the numbers coming out of arbitration have been pretty high over the last couple seasons. Couple that with the fact that they're short-term deals, 1 or 2 years, and I don't think any team wants a part of it anymore. But then again, if you're saying that it clearly paints a picture of what each side wants so that they can then work it out before ever getting to the hearing, then I'm with you on that one. Yes, eventually I would get to my point. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Good point. It seems that most of the arb deals that are out there are only 1-2 year deal and they appear on the high side as well. It seems that arbitration primarily benefits the player. If a couple of these players went and got rock bottom deals it would help level the playing field. All arbitration awards are either 1 year or 2 year. That is the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 i can't find the sick emoticon - but the idea of committing to stafford for that long at that price is nauseating. vanek-man or another poster who watches the league closely had indicated a while back that there was a comparable signing somewhere -- can't recall who, can't recall the value. that said, my guess would be that the team has offered 3/~9 (2.75, 3, 3.25) and stafford's countered for more like 3/~11.5-12. my guess is that we will sign him for 3 years and a cap hit of ~3.5 or less. but in the present market, who knows. Andrei Kostitsyn, essentially identical numbers, $3.25 million per year. Look at Plekanec, Callahan, Grabovski, Zajac. All in the ballpark in numbers and salaries. Now, go look at Briere's numbers from his first seasons and compare them to Stafford. Very similiar. Another tidbit, Hudler. Gets an arby award of 2 years 5.75 million yesterday, but took a one year deal for 2 million with Dynamo. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 All arbitration awards are either 1 year or 2 year. That is the rule. carry on then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.