Why overpay at all if you don't have to? Offer him 2 years, $2.6m-ish . That gives him a raise to credit what he's doing now, and a chance to prove that he can do it consistently.

He either takes it, or goes to arbitration. No way an arbitrator gives him much more than $2.6m. There are enough guys on this roster that got deals based on potential that haven't worked out. Why add more to the pile?

Yes, I did and I don't say he doesn't deserve 4mil if plays like he does right now every season but I think the risk is to high to bet on his work ethic and determination just because it's there this season.
Other players on that list have shown up over a longer period of time and that's worth some money.

3mil seems reasonable to me but paying him 33,3% more is overpaying by much. With our already overpaid players on the roster we can't afford any more overpaid or underperforming players if we want to be competitive.

_________________

I can also think of plenty of guys who haven't done jack during their contract years, so I'd be interested in seeing non-anecdotal data to support this claim. Maybe it does exist, as you claim, but I've never seen it. All I'm saying is that there's a huge amount of hidden crap that influences how a guy plays that never gets disclosed or discussed, so to hinge outcome on one variable seems a stretch.

In Staff's case as well, he's had stretches before where he put up 20+ points in 25-30 games, which is what he's done during the first 26 games of this year -- it's WAY too premature to say he's putting up better stats than he has intermittently during his career, contract year or not, worthy of a high-end new deal.

A player's worth is relative to the team that's paying him.

Allowing Stafford to leave would be worse for this team than paying him 4 million to match a hypothetical offer sheet.

That's all that I have left to say.

_________________
Wheelhouse

With new ownership I'm hoping they rebuild. Like I said earlier, I hope to hell he has a sick year....then is traded while his value is high. I'll be more than happy to eat my crow but I honestly see him slipping back to his usual self next year. If we keep him and he ends up proving me wrong, well then I'll owe ya a beer.

_________________

The idea that a player is playing better because they're in a contract year is pretty much universal in all professional sports. Not every player will do this, but it's not uncommon.

Just because you've never seen it, which I can't fathom unless you pay no attention to sports at all, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The guy has only been out of the 30 point range once in his career. Matching a hypothetical $4M offer sheet would be a worse deal than the Tim Connolly extension.

I know this is about baseball adn hockey is different, but it's professional sport and about the relation of money as motivation to improve your game.
http://economics-files.pomona.edu/GarySmith/MLBFreeAgency.pdf

_________________

but hes also never been able to play a whole season. close to, but that doesnt count.

_________________

That means he's injury prone and that's MORE of a reason to get him out.

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

I think that reinforces the point that you don't pay him $4M. I'm not sure that you call him injury prone, but he has had some health issues, so it should be considered at least.

Hey hey now....that extension was a pretty big stinker.

_________________

No reason to run him out of town, it just means that if someone comes calling with a bag of money, you don't bother matching it.

For under $3m I think it's reasonable to keep a guy based on potential. Once you start getting past that, you should have more certainty with what you're getting.

He's only had 3 full seasons of NHL hockey. 3.

_________________
Wheelhouse

All the more reason to not pay him anything close to $4M.

All the more reason to believe the best is yet to come.

_________________
Wheelhouse

i dont want staff getting anything over 2.5 a season till he can prove he can do this on a regular basis. dont reward on potential. 4 million? no thanks, not yet.

that being said, i still believe the light is going on. thats what i believe.

_________________

Then you replace Stafford with who? Luke Adam? The Sabres certainly aren't picking someone up during the Free agency period. You overpay out the ass for players during that time, too.

Let Stafford walk, and our scoring becomes even more one dimensional.

You can afford to pay Stafford 4 million. You can't afford to let him walk and leave the Sabres with an even more anemic offense.

_________________
Wheelhouse

If Drew Stafford is the linchpin of the offense, the team is fucked.

Until he proves otherwise, Stafford is an occasional 20 goal guy. He's a slightly larger Jochen Hecht, who's barely worth the $3.25M he makes.

he aint gonna walk. hes not going to sign a 4 mil a year deal though. 2.5-3 sure. anything above that, take your picks and move on, as much as i hate to say it. i want stafford to stay. but not for 4.

_________________