Grinder Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 For those complaining about this contract, I am curious as to what you would have done. If the Sabres do not sign him to a multiple-year deal, he goes to arbitration where as a 30 goal scorer last year he almost certainly would have received at least $5 mil, perhaps closer to $6 mil. That really puts the team in a box. Now you have a one year player with an over valued contract who would be next to impossible to trade given that over value and pending UFA status. So what would they do - let him walk? 4x4 is a good deal for Stafford. I think we are all concerned that he reverts to his previous level of play, but clearly Sabres management is in a better position to judge that than any of us. They have locked up a significant asset in an affordable contract. As for the NTC discussion, I have not seen that reported from any credible source so I do not think that should be taken as fact. Good post. You nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 So I guess you won't be a Sabres fan anymore. That's too bad. Not likely. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 For those complaining about this contract, I am curious as to what you would have done. If the Sabres do not sign him to a multiple-year deal, he goes to arbitration where as a 30 goal scorer last year he almost certainly would have received at least $5 mil, perhaps closer to $6 mil. That really puts the team in a box. Now you have a one year player with an over valued contract who would be next to impossible to trade given that over value and pending UFA status. So what would they do - let him walk? 4x4 is a good deal for Stafford. I think we are all concerned that he reverts to his previous level of play, but clearly Sabres management is in a better position to judge that than any of us. They have locked up a significant asset in an affordable contract. As for the NTC discussion, I have not seen that reported from any credible source so I do not think that should be taken as fact. Walk or trade his rights. They have just tied up $4 mil on a 15-20 goal scorer when that money should have been used elsewhere to actually improve the team. The team is not better today because Stafford is signed and they are no closer to being a Cup contender because Stafford has been signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 This is exactly where I would have pegged Stafford's value after this season. The fact the Sabres locked him up for 4 years at this contract is huge. If he performs like he did this year throughout the contract, this could end up being a total bargain in much the same way Derek Roy's contract is. However, if he goes into contractitis like he has been known to in the past next year, this may be a waste. However, I will say that I saw a different Stafford on the ice this year, and I think he will elevate his game to the next level. This is a very good deal for both sides in my opinion. Like he did in the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Like he did in the playoffs? Sounds like you want Briere back and his lack of backchecking. At least he scores in the playoffs, eh? Admit it, you love Briere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 For those complaining about this contract, I am curious as to what you would have done. If the Sabres do not sign him to a multiple-year deal, he goes to arbitration where as a 30 goal scorer last year he almost certainly would have received at least $5 mil, perhaps closer to $6 mil. That really puts the team in a box. Now you have a one year player with an over valued contract who would be next to impossible to trade given that over value and pending UFA status. So what would they do - let him walk? 4x4 is a good deal for Stafford. I think we are all concerned that he reverts to his previous level of play, but clearly Sabres management is in a better position to judge that than any of us. They have locked up a significant asset in an affordable contract. As for the NTC discussion, I have not seen that reported from any credible source so I do not think that should be taken as fact. My issue with the contract isn't that Stafford isn't worth it (although I believe that is very much debateable), it is that this contract makes it all the more difficult to go out and get the 2 centers that we really, really need to move the team forward. Signing Stafford at $4M/yr is a status quo signing. Even moreso if the NTC turns out to be accurate. This isn't great news. Great news would have been signing Stafford to a deal that leaves room for a #1 and #3 center. I don't think this contract leaves room for two centers to get signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Darcy apparently likes not being able to operate freely. 4 mill. a year isn't bad, but a NTC for a guy like Stafford is ridiculous. Another "core" player who isn't going anywhere - ever - added to the list. What incentive exactly does Drew have for showing up now? His will to win and compete? If that's what we're hanging our hats on, I expect a 7 goal 15 assist season coming up. Oh well, could've been 5 mill. :wallbash: Haven't seen anything written regarding a no trade clause other than the original rumored contract, which was way off. Safer to assume there isn't one than fly off the handle with opinions as though there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 For those complaining about this contract, I am curious as to what you would have done. If the Sabres do not sign him to a multiple-year deal, he goes to arbitration where as a 30 goal scorer last year he almost certainly would have received at least $5 mil, perhaps closer to $6 mil. That really puts the team in a box. Now you have a one year player with an over valued contract who would be next to impossible to trade given that over value and pending UFA status. So what would they do - let him walk? 4x4 is a good deal for Stafford. I think we are all concerned that he reverts to his previous level of play, but clearly Sabres management is in a better position to judge that than any of us. They have locked up a significant asset in an affordable contract. As for the NTC discussion, I have not seen that reported from any credible source so I do not think that should be taken as fact. I would have traded him for a second round pick. Hope I'm wrong, but I think we just got taken by a contract year effort and now this kid just goes back to playing in his garage band most of the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 If it's 4x4 w/ no NTC, it's a good deal. They'll still be able to fit a couple of high priced players into the cap. (Especially if a rostered player or 2 are part of the price of bringing in a high price tag.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 My issue with the contract isn't that Stafford isn't worth it (although I believe that is very much debateable), it is that this contract makes it all the more difficult to go out and get the 2 centers that we really, really need to move the team forward. Signing Stafford at $4M/yr is a status quo signing. Even moreso if the NTC turns out to be accurate. This isn't great news. Great news would have been signing Stafford to a deal that leaves room for a #1 and #3 center. I don't think this contract leaves room for two centers to get signed. I don't think so. The cap is going to be over $60M with the new TV contract. There should still be enough room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 I don't think so. The cap is going to be over $60M with the new TV contract. There should still be enough room. We went through this in the July 1 thread yesterday. There isn't room for 2 centers and a stud defenceman with this contract. About $3-4M has to move to make room for 2 centers and a top pair defenceman. Edit- that isn't entirely accurate. I assumed Brad Richards would be the #1 center, and he doesn' fit if we get another C and a top D. If we settle for less than Richards there is probably room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 My issue with the contract isn't that Stafford isn't worth it (although I believe that is very much debateable), it is that this contract makes it all the more difficult to go out and get the 2 centers that we really, really need to move the team forward. Signing Stafford at $4M/yr is a status quo signing. Even moreso if the NTC turns out to be accurate. This isn't great news. Great news would have been signing Stafford to a deal that leaves room for a #1 and #3 center. I don't think this contract leaves room for two centers to get signed. I'm not too sure about this. According to capgeek, after signing Stafford, the Sabres still have $14.5 million left against the current cap number of $59.4 million. If you assume it would take about $5 million total to re-sign all of the RFAs (which would seem reasonable if you re-sign Enroth, Gerbe, Sekera, MAG, and Weber), that's about $9.5 million leftover with the assumption that you don't keep Butler. Then, if you assume the cap goes up to about $62.5 million next year, in reality you have about $12 million to go after a top line center, a third line center, and likely a top four defenseman to replace Montador. Assume $6.5 million for a top line center, $3 million for a third line center and maybe about $2 million for a defenseman to replace Montador. Other option would be to sign the top line center, work with what you have now and bring in a top pair defenseman and you still have plenty of money. I don't think the Stafford signing takes as much money away to sign a top flight center. There really is not a $10 million center on the market available either in free agency or through trades, so even after the Stafford signing, it would appear that there is plenty of money to get the guys the Sabres need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 I don't think so. The cap is going to be over $60M with the new TV contract. There should still be enough room. About 9 million, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 I've said in the past that I can live with Stafford being resigned if Connolly is not coming back. So I will withhold my judgement for now. But there better not be a NTC. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 About 9 million, IMO. Agreed, they'll prob leave a cushion of $1-2M for call-ups etc, giving them =/- $7M to spend. Probably not enough to get Richards without moving any money off the roster, but I'm not sure that was going to be an option anyway. Assume $6.5 million for a top line center, $3 million for a third line center and maybe about $2 million for a defenseman to replace Montador. Other option would be to sign the top line center, work with what you have now and bring in a top pair defenseman and you still have plenty of money. I don't think the Stafford signing takes as much money away to sign a top flight center. There really is not a $10 million center on the market available either in free agency or through trades, so even after the Stafford signing, it would appear that there is plenty of money to get the guys the Sabres need. Unfortunately I dont think these guys exist in free agency this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Assume $6.5 million for a top line center, $3 million for a third line center and maybe about $2 million for a defenseman to replace Montador. Agreed, they'll prob leave a cushion of $1-2M for call-ups etc, giving them =/- $7M to spend. Probably not enough to get Richards without moving any money off the roster, but I'm not sure that was going to be an option anyway. Unfortunately I dont think these guys exist in free agency this year. Richards could've been in play, but it won't happen now. And you are right, the guys Sabresfan526 thinks we can get don't exsist in free agency this year. That is where his train of thought becomes derailed. We have shut oursleves out of the Richards market if we want to get another C and D-man, unless we depend on the trade market to make those other moves. So that means instead of going out and buying what we need we will have to give up some of our good talent or top prospects to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Richards could've been in play, but it won't happen now. And you are right, the guys Sabresfan526 thinks we can get don't exsist in free agency this year. That is where his train of thought becomes derailed. We have shut oursleves out of the Richards market if we want to get another C and D-man, unless we depend on the trade market to make those other moves. So that means instead of going out and buying what we need we will have to give up some of our good talent or top prospects to get it. Firstly, why would you want Richards who will get a huge contract solely because this years FA pool is very thin. Secondly, let's not take trades out of the equation. If the deal is 4x4 and there is no NTC then for his production he can be moved. It's not a terrible, untradeable contract. Also, we could trade another winger if desired to clear up some cap room. You also posted on the last page that this was a 'status quo' signing. How do you figure? Many complain about DR's inability to sign his guys and let's them walk for nothing. Well we just locked up a 30 goal scorer for atleast a reasonable rate IMO. Not sure how its' status quo with all the DR hatred around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Richards could've been in play, but it won't happen now. And you are right, the guys Sabresfan526 thinks we can get don't exsist in free agency this year. That is where his train of thought becomes derailed. We have shut oursleves out of the Richards market if we want to get another C and D-man, unless we depend on the trade market to make those other moves. So that means instead of going out and buying what we need we will have to give up some of our good talent or top prospects to get it. According to capgeek, the Sabres currently have about $17.5 million available after the Stafford signing if you assume the cap goes up to about $62.5 million. Let's assume they keep about $2 million in cap space for injuries, call-ups, etc. That leaves about $15.5 million available after the Drew Stafford signing. You don't think the Sabres can "buy" the pieces they need in the UFA market and still re-sign their RFAs? If the Sabres try to make a play for Brad Richards, they will have to drop $8 million/year minimum no matter what, which the Sabres have enough cap room to spend even after the Stafford signing. However, the free agent market this year is so bad that if the Sabres miss on Richards (a high probability as he will likely choose where he wants play and money may not be the end all be all for him) the only route the Sabres can go to getting the top line center is through trades. There are trades available for cap strapped teams like Philadelphia, San Jose, and others. The Sabres are in a good position to make these trades as they have plenty of cap space and they have enough tradeable assets in the minors and on the roster plus draft picks that can do it. Here's my point, the Sabres have enough money to play in the UFA market this year, but it's a thin crop and if you miss on Richards, there are no other UFAs available. So my train of thought assumes that you will have to make some trades of roster players such as Morrisson, Butler, Boyes, Hecht, others. Even after the Stafford signing, the money is there to play, it's just a terrible market. The most likely scenario if we are in agreement that the Sabres need a 1st line center, 3rd line center, and top pair defenseman (which I'm not sure is unanimous), they will likely have to make a trade for the top line center and it would cost a 1st round pick, prospect, and roster player. They will still have money though to get a top pair defenseman and 3rd line center on the UFA market with the money available. This is what I think is the most likely scenario to play out subsequent to the Stafford signing. The money is there, the quality of free agents are not this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 And you are right, the guys Sabresfan526 thinks we can get don't exsist in free agency this year. That is where his train of thought becomes derailed. We have shut oursleves out of the Richards market if we want to get another C and D-man, unless we depend on the trade market to make those other moves. So that means instead of going out and buying what we need we will have to give up some of our good talent or top prospects to get it. Perhaps they didn't want to be in the Richards market, he would have been an easy fix, however it could be viewed just as risky to give a 31 year old a long term contract worth $7-8M per year. Firstly, why would you want Richards who will get a huge contract solely because this years FA pool is very thin. Secondly, let's not take trades out of the equation. If the deal is 4x4 and there is no NTC then for his production he can be moved. It's not a terrible, untradeable contract. Also, we could trade another winger if desired to clear up some cap room. You also posted on the last page that this was a 'status quo' signing. How do you figure? Many complain about DR's inability to sign his guys and let's them walk for nothing. Well we just locked up a 30 goal scorer for atleast a reasonable rate IMO. Not sure how its' status quo with all the DR hatred around here. It's not very good form to sign a guy to an extension and then trade him weeks later. Not sure if that's what you're implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Perhaps they didn't want to be in the Richards market, he would have been an easy fix, however it could be viewed just as risky to give a 31 year old a long term contract worth $7-8M per year. It's not very good form to sign a guy to an extension and then trade him weeks later. Obviously it doesn't happen nearly as much as the NBA but sign and trades happen. Doen't see how it'd be bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Richards could've been in play, but it won't happen now. And you are right, the guys Sabresfan526 thinks we can get don't exsist in free agency this year. That is where his train of thought becomes derailed. We have shut oursleves out of the Richards market if we want to get another C and D-man, unless we depend on the trade market to make those other moves. So that means instead of going out and buying what we need we will have to give up some of our good talent or top prospects to get it. not necessarily true, if we want to go out and get say a stud defenseman, from a team that has cap room, i.e edmonton, toronto, winnipeg etc, you could trade some high priced players that no longer fit into the equation here, aka one of our right wingers, possibly hecht or gaustad, and sweeten the deal with a pick or prospect. If they end up getting more salary than we take in, it could happen. Hockey heaven is certainly not "out of the running" for any player. we have just as good of a shot as anyone. If Richards gives Buffalo a serious look, we will make room. It's the first signing of an INCREDIBLY promising offseason, and the contract at 4.4 is BETTER than what i was expecting. As far as we know, there's no NTC, which is FANTASTIC. For all of the negative nancy's on this board complaining about the status quo, i get the feeling that your incessant complaining and gloomy outlook is part of your own status quo. This is a good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 According to capgeek, the Sabres currently have about $17.5 million available after the Stafford signing if you assume the cap goes up to about $62.5 million. Let's assume they keep about $2 million in cap space for injuries, call-ups, etc. That leaves about $15.5 million available after the Drew Stafford signing. You don't think the Sabres can "buy" the pieces they need in the UFA market and still re-sign their RFAs? If the Sabres try to make a play for Brad Richards, they will have to drop $8 million/year minimum no matter what, which the Sabres have enough cap room to spend even after the Stafford signing. However, the free agent market this year is so bad that if the Sabres miss on Richards (a high probability as he will likely choose where he wants play and money may not be the end all be all for him) the only route the Sabres can go to getting the top line center is through trades. There are trades available for cap strapped teams like Philadelphia, San Jose, and others. The Sabres are in a good position to make these trades as they have plenty of cap space and they have enough tradeable assets in the minors and on the roster plus draft picks that can do it. Here's my point, the Sabres have enough money to play in the UFA market this year, but it's a thin crop and if you miss on Richards, there are no other UFAs available. So my train of thought assumes that you will have to make some trades of roster players such as Morrisson, Butler, Boyes, Hecht, others. Even after the Stafford signing, the money is there to play, it's just a terrible market. The most likely scenario if we are in agreement that the Sabres need a 1st line center, 3rd line center, and top pair defenseman (which I'm not sure is unanimous), they will likely have to make a trade for the top line center and it would cost a 1st round pick, prospect, and roster player. They will still have money though to get a top pair defenseman and 3rd line center on the UFA market with the money available. This is what I think is the most likely scenario to play out subsequent to the Stafford signing. The money is there, the quality of free agents are not this year. Sabre fans have been waiting since the lockout to see the Sabres take advantage of the "cap strapped teams." I like the idea of moving pieces out or whatever it takes to get them off the books. I think the roster as it is now is pretty much how it is going to look the season opener. There maybe a token trade or signing, nothing big. We may be facing yet another season of "we like our team." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Obviously it doesn't happen nearly as much as the NBA but sign and trades happen. Doen't see how it'd be bad form. It happens in the NBA as a predetermined deal to allow the player to sign for more money, as they can resign with their current team for more than the team they're going to. If you're signing a guy to an extension with the intent to trade him without the players knowledge it's bad business & looks poorly to other players either on the roster or UFAs who would consider signing with your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 It happens in the NBA as a predetermined deal to allow the player to sign for more money, as they can resign with their current team for more than the team they're going to. If you're signing a guy to an extension with the intent to trade him without the players knowledge it's bad business & looks poorly to other players either on the roster or UFAs who would consider signing with your team. Anything which can be done to make your hockey club better is not bad business in my eyes. Either way, my point regarding trades of other wingers on this team holds true. The cap space this club has can change in a second with a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Anything which can be done to make your hockey club better is not bad business in my eyes. Either way, my point regarding trades of other wingers on this team holds true. The cap space this club has can change in a second with a trade. It'd be shortsighted. Does it make your team better when none of your players trust you to resign with your team? Or UFAs trust you to sign with your team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.