shrader Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I edited my post because I totally misread his. Yes I do, what does that have to do with sending a wrong message by signing a bunch of veteran UFA's? One division title doesn't mean that everything is headed in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 One division title doesn't mean that everything is headed in the right direction. You're right, it doesn't. That roster was temporary for one season. But it doesn't prove that signing veteran UFA's sends the wrong message. If anything Tallon wasn't even planning on making the playoffs so as it turns out, signing a bunch of low to mid $$ UFA's can turn out better than planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 , signing a bunch of low to mid $$ UFA's can turn out better than planned. Or worse if your goal was to pick top three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 -_- You making QRS piano rolls now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 You making QRS piano rolls now? Play me off, Ghost! Vaudeville is dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 This nightmare is officially seven years old today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Everybody is screaming for Stafford to be traded, and fail to see why he isn't being scratched. The reason he isn't being scratched is because it would kill any remote value he has. They're showcasing him. I honestly see no reason that Stafford is gone before the end of his deal. Nobody is trading for his full contract but Buffalo is going to be using their final "keeping salary in a trade" on Miller. An offseason buyout makes no sense because you need to field a team and there's a salary floor to be met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotentPowerPlay22 Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Everybody is screaming for Stafford to be traded, and fail to see why he isn't being scratched. The reason he isn't being scratched is because it would kill any remote value he has. They're showcasing him. I honestly see no reason that Stafford is gone before the end of his deal. Nobody is trading for his full contract but Buffalo is going to be using their final "keeping salary in a trade" on Miller. An offseason buyout makes no sense because you need to field a team and there's a salary floor to be met. They tried to trade Stafford last year. No takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 I'd trade Stafford and a 2nd for an AHLer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Everybody is screaming for Stafford to be traded, and fail to see why he isn't being scratched. The reason he isn't being scratched is because it would kill any remote value he has. They're showcasing him. I honestly see no reason that Stafford is gone before the end of his deal. Nobody is trading for his full contract but Buffalo is going to be using their final "keeping salary in a trade" on Miller. An offseason buyout makes no sense because you need to field a team and there's a salary floor to be met. If he was being showcased he'd still be playing with Hodgson and Moulson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 There is no trade market for Stafford. I would guess that McBain maybe is being showcased but that means we have a plan other than suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 If he was being showcased he'd still be playing with Hodgson and Moulson. He's being showcased more than if he were being scratched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 He's being showcased more than if he were being scratched. and that's not saying much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 He's being showcased more than if he were being scratched. If Regier thinks Stafford is ever going to be tradeable, then he should not only be fired, he should be admitted to a mental facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 If Regier thinks Stafford is ever going to be tradeable, then he should not only be fired, he should be admitted to a mental facility. Everybody is tradeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Everybody is tradeable. Not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Not true. No, it's true. Just depends on what you want and if it is worth it. Realistically, the Sabres could move Stafford if they were willing to take something like a 5th rounder. But there's no point in making that move. He serves more of a purpose in Buffalo in filling the lineup and helping them stay at the cap floor during the rebuild. There are some guys/contracts that you'd have to add more to make the deal enticing for them (for instance, giving a team a decent prospect so they'll take on a bad contract). I'm not saying every player has positive value. There are a lot of guys who have negative value, but if you compensate with enough positive value assets then you can entice certain teams to take anybody. Edited November 5, 2013 by DStebb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 No, it's true. Just depends on what you want and if it is worth it. Realistically, the Sabres could move Stafford if they were willing to take something like a 5th rounder. But there's no point in making that move. He serves more of a purpose in Buffalo in filling the lineup and helping them stay at the cap floor during the rebuild. No it is not true. There are times where there is simply no taker at any price out there. This is especially true this season with the cap dropping and stafford being 4million in salary. Also guys get waived because no one wants them, thats why Kaleta made it to the AHL. No one wants him. You could waive Stafford right now and no one would claim him. Sometimes players are untradeable and it is painfully obvious no one is interested in Stafford at this moment in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 No it is not true. There are times where there is simply no taker at any price out there. This is especially true this season with the cap dropping and stafford being 4million in salary. Also guys get waived because no one wants them, thats why Kaleta made it to the AHL. No one wants him. You could waive Stafford right now and no one would claim him. Sometimes players are untradeable and it is painfully obvious no one is interested in Stafford at this moment in time. Read my edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 5, 2013 Report Share Posted November 5, 2013 Read my edit. So if we trade Girgensons and Ristolainen to someone they will take Stafford as well because he is the spoiled milk that comes with your Filet Mignon and Lobster dinner. Stafford without a ton of added crap is untradeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 How about eating the $6 million or so owed and just send him packing? Time has proved that he's not an underachiever, he just can't play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted November 6, 2013 Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 No, it's true. Just depends on what you want and if it is worth it. Realistically, the Sabres could move Stafford if they were willing to take something like a 5th rounder. But there's no point in making that move. He serves more of a purpose in Buffalo in filling the lineup and helping them stay at the cap floor during the rebuild. There are some guys/contracts that you'd have to add more to make the deal enticing for them (for instance, giving a team a decent prospect so they'll take on a bad contract). I'm not saying every player has positive value. There are a lot of guys who have negative value, but if you compensate with enough positive value assets then you can entice certain teams to take anybody. This is true. How about eating the $6 million or so owed and just send him packing? Time has proved that he's not an underachiever, he just can't play. This is also not only true, but the appropriate route to take. We don't need to actually have him on the ice if were worried about the cap floor. We merely have to have him as a cap hit. Let him sit in the press box all season, ######'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2013 How about eating the $6 million or so owed and just send him packing? Time has proved that he's not an underachiever, he just can't play. Not necessary if they use a compliance buyout this summer; that way, it only costs $2M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts