BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Vanek is about the same size as Stafford. Why don't you get on him for not fighting, too? If Drew had to sit because he got a broken hand in some stupid fight that had no bearing on a game anyway, I'd be pissed. He's right. It isn't his job to fight. Vanek's a far more valuable and proven asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Hang on a second......I think I have to sneeze.......Ahh......ahhh.....ahhh.........CHEECHOO!!! This. Thought about bringing up this very scenario last night, glad someone pulled the trigger on it. Is it quite that bad in terms of inflated numbers? no, but it's definitely a prime example of what happens when you rate a players abilities based off one solid season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 This. Thought about bringing up this very scenario last night, glad someone pulled the trigger on it. Is it quite that bad in terms of inflated numbers? no, but it's definitely a prime example of what happens when you rate a players abilities based off one solid season. If you look to the entire sum of his work, he is valued at $4.3M-$5.5M, If you completely remove the 22 goals in 32 games, as deluca did, then he is still on par with Renee Bourque ($3.3/yr) problem is you can't just ignore 10% of a guys games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 How can you call into question Staffords streaks without looking at every other player. You know how streaky a some of the players on that list are but you(deluca) choose to ignore it because it weakens your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Cheechoo's numbers were inflated by different rules and one of the best passing centers in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 How can you call into question Staffords streaks without looking at every other player. You know how streaky a some of the players on that list are but you(deluca) choose to ignore it because it weakens your argument. Good point, Loui Eriksson had a streak of 20 goals in 36 games. take that out and he's 20.8 average pace. Nearly identical to staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Cheechoo's numbers were inflated by different rules and one of the best passing centers in the game. Cheechoo's numbers were inflated by the Zimbabwe Treasury Secretary. Young "power forward" goes bonkers in his contract year, gets the big deal and takes 4 years combined to total same goal output. I actually think Stafford could be a semi-impact player, but not under Lindy Ruff. Remember who jumped Chris Neil and fought him when he hit Drury? Stafford did it out of instinct. Again, now we have Lindy stressing "responsibility" and he gets into these young kids heads so much that they lose their gut. Gaustad was another example. Stafford isn't a power forward because he doesn't a) take a hacking in front of the net b) hit or fight c) cycle or take on bodies to set up others Everyone got excited because he dipped his shoulder a few times and drove to the net. Holy Crap! What a novel idea.....play the game like it is supposed to be played! Stafford is probably worth $3 million a year and good for 20-25 goals for the Sabres. He's probably worth $4.5 million and worth 30+ goals on Philly, Boston, Vancouver, et. al. Not because they have more talent, but because they know how to use guys with Stafford's skill set. Look at Hartnell. Everyone got giddy because Gaustad got into a few good wraslin matches with him. Sad thing is, Gaustad has turned into a defensive specialist when at a time he looked to have the same constitution as Hartnell. In the right environment Stafford can have that combo of skill and grit that so many other teams seem to "mysteriously" bring out in guys. I won't get mad if the Sabres sign Stafford to a big deal, he does have potential and has shown to be at least a 2nd line player with some consistancy. However once again we will probably go into the season without anyone who can show Stafford how the game is played. When Grier and Niedermayer are your best examples of gritty offense, you are missing the boat somewhere. That boat has been lost at sea since 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Cheechoo's numbers were inflated by different rules and one of the best passing centers in the game. Agreed. Anson Carter looked pretty good playing w/ the Sedins as well. I forget, was it Hecht that was Thornton feeding Stafford and Connolly was Sedin feeding him, or was it the other way 'round? <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Agreed. Anson Carter looked pretty good playing w/ the Sedins as well. I forget, was it Hecht that was Thornton feeding Stafford and Connolly was Sedin feeding him, or was it the other way 'round? <_< 56 goals to 9 goals...... Please get off the Sabre Daisychain and be realistic for once. It is possible to severly overpay for a player who had a "spurt". I even say I am in favor of signing Stafford all things being equal. If you want to use your example of inflated numbers, maybe Pominville getting $5.3 million in a contract year is a better example....and he had 40% less goals than Cheechoo who has the ability to play physical as well. It is possible for this administration to overpay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 56 goals to 9 goals...... Please get off the Sabre Daisychain and be realistic for once. It is possible to severly overpay for a player who had a "spurt". I even say I am in favor of signing Stafford all things being equal. If you want to use your example of inflated numbers, maybe Pominville getting $5.3 million in a contract year is a better example....and he had 40% less goals than Cheechoo who has the ability to play physical as well. It is possible for this administration to overpay. Please get off the hyperbole highway and show me where I have claimed otherwise. And wtf are you talking about 56 goals to 9 goals? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 56 goals to 9 goals...... Please get off the Sabre Daisychain and be realistic for once. It is possible to severly overpay for a player who had a "spurt". I even say I am in favor of signing Stafford all things being equal. If you want to use your example of inflated numbers, maybe Pominville getting $5.3 million in a contract year is a better example....and he had 40% less goals than Cheechoo who has the ability to play physical as well. It is possible for this administration to overpay. i agree with the bolded part. But Pommers had earned at least a $5M deal, his averages were significantly higher that the other comparables I listed for 2009 and he was incredibly consistant. On top of that he was a career +37 an appeared to be made of steel as far as injuries. His numbers have dropped since then, and he's proven human this past season, but if he was up for signing a contract right now based on the last 3 years only, he's still a 23 goal scorer with significant penalty kill time (PK time costs you 5-5 minutes where you might actually score). He's still worth over $4.5M. He might be slightly overpaid for what he's produced since he signed the contract in sept of 08, but not by more than $500k. Gazuntite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 How can you call into question Staffords streaks without looking at every other player. You know how streaky a some of the players on that list are but you(deluca) choose to ignore it because it weakens your argument. Talk about "weak arguments." Many of those "every other players" have actually had more than one good year. Many of those same players bring more to the rink night after night than Stafford. Here you are trying to defend Stafford yet you are unable to provide anything other than these other guys scored this many goals and got paid X, so Stafford should get paid X. At least LPF is trying to build a case for Stafford's defensive play. Last season Stafford scored 14 goals and was benched in the playoffs. This season in the playoffs, after the season he had, he should have been benched. He was a complete no-show. There is no way that is worth $4-$5 mil a season no matter what his free-agency status is. I will continue to devalue his 32 game streak until he proves he can do it on a consistent basis in more than just one contract year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Talk about "weak arguments." Many of those "every other players" have actually had more than one good year. Many of those same players bring more to the rink night after night than Stafford. Here you are trying to defend Stafford yet you are unable to provide anything other than these other guys scored this many goals and got paid X, so Stafford should get paid X. At least LPF is trying to build a case for Stafford's defensive play. Last season Stafford scored 14 goals and was benched in the playoffs. This season in the playoffs, after the season he had, he should have been benched. He was a complete no-show. There is no way that is worth $4-$5 mil a season no matter what his free-agency status is. I will continue to devalue his 32 game streak until he proves he can do it on a consistent basis in more than just one contract year. I agree with this, it will be interesting to see what he does next year. I hope he either [A] makes us look dumb by scoring 30 again for the sabres, or makes us look smart by screwing some team's cap for $5.5M, costing them a first, second, and third round pick, and scores 12 goals in 60 games. What I really don't want is to lose him for nothing in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Please get off the hyperbole highway and show me where I have claimed otherwise. And wtf are you talking about 56 goals to 9 goals? :unsure: Jonathon Cheechoo's league leading 56 goal season that was followed up by the nine goal effort he had the year after. I'm not saying he's a bad player, i'm just agreeing when deluca says that stafford should not receive an enormous raise based off a hot streak that he's had once. People claiming that most players are streaky would be correct, but the big money guys are consistently streaky. We have no way of knowing if stafford can be consistently streaky because this is the first time he's done it. As for the "cheechoo had an amazing passer for a center argument", yes he did, but he had the same center the year he scored nine. The cheechoo example is the most exaggerated example i can think of, but it drives the point home well. Stafford is a good player no question, but it's too early to award him the big money based off of one year. That's been this teams Achilles heel for as long as i can remember (inflated contracts). It wouldn't be a bad idea to set the bar with drew and send a message to the locker room and say look, if you want the big money, you gotta earn it on a consistent basis, because one good year isn't going to cut it anymore. have two or three solid seasons and then we'll talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Jonathon Cheechoo's league leading 56 goal season that was followed up by the nine goal effort he had the year after. ... As for the "cheechoo had an amazing passer for a center argument", yes he did, but he had the same center the year he scored nine. :blink: Cheechoo scored 37 the next season, followed by 23, then 12, and finally 5 this year. The only year that he scored 9 was his first season, three years (two seasons due to the lockout) before scoring 56. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Jonathon Cheechoo's league leading 56 goal season that was followed up by the nine goal effort he had the year after. I'm not saying he's a bad player, i'm just agreeing when deluca says that stafford should not receive an enormous raise based off a hot streak that he's had once. People claiming that most players are streaky would be correct, but the big money guys are consistently streaky. We have no way of knowing if stafford can be consistently streaky because this is the first time he's done it. As for the "cheechoo had an amazing passer for a center argument", yes he did, but he had the same center the year he scored nine. The cheechoo example is the most exaggerated example i can think of, but it drives the point home well. Stafford is a good player no question, but it's too early to award him the big money based off of one year. That's been this teams Achilles heel for as long as i can remember (inflated contracts). It wouldn't be a bad idea to set the bar with drew and send a message to the locker room and say look, if you want the big money, you gotta earn it on a consistent basis, because one good year isn't going to cut it anymore. have two or three solid seasons and then we'll talk. Not exactly. The 37 goal season was followed up with a 23 goal season. The 9 goal season happend 2 seasons and 3 years PRIOR to the 56 goal season. :doh: :doh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'd love somebody to do an analysis of this "contract year" phenomenon. Seems to be they are more the exception then the rule. A lot of times contract year just means year of maturity. I could come up with 5 "successes" for every name mentioned so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not exactly. The 37 goal season was followed up with a 23 goal season. The 9 goal season happend 2 seasons and 3 years PRIOR to the 56 goal season. :doh: :doh: :doh: So what you are saying, is that after a potential power forward in his early 20's scored 56 in a contract year after having lackluster to average numbers previously, then signed a very healthy contract only to see his production dwindle 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% in each year afterwards?? Thank you for finding my error and setting me straight. And thank you for proving DeLuca incorrect in his concerns that signing Stafford to a large deal may be a large mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Please get off the hyperbole highway and show me where I have claimed otherwise. And wtf are you talking about 56 goals to 9 goals? :unsure: You were correct, 56 to 5 in 4 years. That is the go-to for staunch supporters of status quo. "Well he played with the Sedins", "Well he played with Alfredsson", "Well he played with Thornton". In one breath you say Darcy is quality and needs to have the key to the HSBC urinal another 13 years, yet for some reason other teams always seem to land the types of players who raise the play and production of those around them. You make fun of Hecht and Connolly, yet your savior was the one who signed them to their $8 million a year combined contract. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 You were correct, 56 to 5 in 4 years. Glad to see you ignored the other part of my post. The sun has finally come out and I'm going to go enjoy what's left of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Glad to see you ignored the other part of my post. The sun has finally come out and I'm going to go enjoy what's left of the day. I was editing, as I found another error on my part. See....I admitted to being incorrect about something twice in the same thread!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 PS....I enjoy thunderstorms and darkness so that little children are locked in their homes and singing birds are rendered mute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Jonathon Cheechoo's league leading 56 goal season that was followed up by the nine goal effort he had the year after. I'm not saying he's a bad player, i'm just agreeing when deluca says that stafford should not receive an enormous raise based off a hot streak that he's had once. People claiming that most players are streaky would be correct, but the big money guys are consistently streaky. We have no way of knowing if stafford can be consistently streaky because this is the first time he's done it. As for the "cheechoo had an amazing passer for a center argument", yes he did, but he had the same center the year he scored nine. The cheechoo example is the most exaggerated example i can think of, but it drives the point home well. Stafford is a good player no question, but it's too early to award him the big money based off of one year. That's been this teams Achilles heel for as long as i can remember (inflated contracts). It wouldn't be a bad idea to set the bar with drew and send a message to the locker room and say look, if you want the big money, you gotta earn it on a consistent basis, because one good year isn't going to cut it anymore. have two or three solid seasons and then we'll talk. This idea seems to be completely accepted by most people here, and I have two problems with it. But I'll start that I agree we have made bad management decisions before. But mostly those bad decisions have been letting people get away by not paying them, not getting hamstrung by expensive contracts. Right now, Jochen Hecht is only contract that is massively out of whack with reality. He plays like a $2M vet, not $3.5M. He's a 18-20 goal scorer, but we've got him playing out of position. I'll let the jury still be out on Brad Boyes. The Tim Connolly contract was an absolutely unmitigated disaster. Not only for what he failed to produce, but he hurt the team beyond doing nothing to help. but that contract is gone now. January - December 2010 Derek Roy was an ABSOLUTE STEAL at his current contract level. If he plays within 10% of that next season we'll have that #1 center we're looking for, and at $4M. I don't think anyone can argue that the Tylers are also a deal with their production and impact at less than $2.2M combined. Vanek, Pominville, and Goose are paid in line with their peers in the rest of the league. Miller is a big fat questionmark right now, but the odds of his contract being in line with his performance are in our favor. For his career he is paid with the rest of his peers across the league. His GAA and Save% went down this past year for the first time in a while, if he's fading away (as golies often do) then we are screwed with the deal for the next 3 years. If he returns to form, his pay is in line with the rest of the consistantly top performing goalies. You probably have to go down to Morrisonn to find another remaining contract that is way out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Talk about "weak arguments." Many of those "every other players" have actually had more than one good year. Many of those same players bring more to the rink night after night than Stafford. Here you are trying to defend Stafford yet you are unable to provide anything other than these other guys scored this many goals and got paid X, so Stafford should get paid X. At least LPF is trying to build a case for Stafford's defensive play. Last season Stafford scored 14 goals and was benched in the playoffs. This season in the playoffs, after the season he had, he should have been benched. He was a complete no-show. There is no way that is worth $4-$5 mil a season no matter what his free-agency status is. I will continue to devalue his 32 game streak until he proves he can do it on a consistent basis in more than just one contract year. a) The bolded part. Did he have a good year or did he have a good spurt. When it fits you want to devalue his year, when it doesn't you want to say it was only one good year. Almost every goal scorer on that list is lambasted by their own fan base because they don't bring it every night. Stafford didn't just have a good year, he had a great year. His progression isn't out of line with other players of his ilk. b) Again the "contract year." A media creation until I see otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not exactly. The 37 goal season was followed up with a 23 goal season. The 9 goal season happend 2 seasons and 3 years PRIOR to the 56 goal season. :doh: :doh: :doh: this is what i get when i don't check my facts. My B errbody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.