Sabres Sign Stafford to Two-Year Deal

by David Oleksy on Sep 13, 2009 10:57 AM EDT Comment 14 comments

The Buffalo Sabres and GM Darcy Regier announced this morning that they had signed restricted free agent forward Drew Stafford. Stafford signed a two year contract which allows the Sabres to have him locked down next year. It was my belief that the term was always the hold up in this contract and money was never an issue. The Buffalo Sabres did not give all the contract details.

[Note by David Oleksy, 09/13/09 3:03 PM EDT ] The Contract is a very cap-friendly one for the Sabres. The Buffalo News is reporting that the contract is $4 million over two years. He will cost the Sabres $1.5 million this season and $2.5 million next season. After seeing the numbers I understand why Stafford would only want to sign for two-years.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

sweet

with stafford signed I wonder what the 3rd and 4th lines will look like. One spot less now that he has been signed and Ruff said in his interview the other day that regardless of stature as a veteran or not, he’s looking for whoever of any age can fill the void. Lets Go Buffalo!

Got some work to do before being a playoff team let alone a contender again!

by thenewhockeytown on Sep 13, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stafford generally plays on one of the top two lines.

It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.

by BeastMode on Sep 13, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great deal for a kid with his potential. Let him play his tail off for the next 2 years in hope for his “big” contract and then we either resign him for fair value (unlikely) or he can go elsewhere and hopefully someone will be able to step up (I’m looking at you Mr Kassian).

Delightfully Ignoring The Truth since 1995.

by NeverendingOptimism on Sep 13, 2009 4:09 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

I think this is an absolute steal, especially with comparables like Nathan Horton getting 4 per for 6 years.

It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.

by BeastMode on Sep 13, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Horton comparisons, while convenient, are not applicable. Horton had put up 60+ points two seasons in a row before landing that deal. Stafford faded when the team needed him most (with Vanek and Miller out) and wound up with 45 points. This deal gives him a big carrot to play for in two crucial years for the franchise.

Ta,

by Tom Luongo on Sep 14, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could not agree more. For a top-line scorer, he doesn’t seem to score very often. Also it appears to me, he lands many of his points in blow-out wins. He needs to learn to rise to the occasion if he wants to keep playing on the top line or two.

"Potential just means you haven’t done sh## yet"

by willgarr15 on Sep 14, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does Darcy have pictures on this guy? I never would have thought he’d come so cheap. Good job DR.

[Self-editor’s note – It felt wierd to type “Good job DR.” It hasn’t happened in so long, that I forgot how to do that]

by krytime on Sep 13, 2009 9:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stafford’s contract is actually a little higher than I thought he’d get given the financial shape of so many teams and the forward revenue projections. I honestly felt he’d get signed to a 1 year 1.75 mil contract. The longer this went on, the lower the price would be. Holding out is not in Stafford’s interest, so he was signing on the Sabres’ terms. They had the leverage via the CBA. The league around them was in cap hell, so no offer sheets were forthcoming that wouldn’t have been trivial for Regier to match.

Ta,

by Tom Luongo on Sep 14, 2009 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sabres would never give him a 1 year deal. It was always 2 years or nothing.

by SabreBowie on Sep 14, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True. But, to get him into camp they might have flinched. This year is too important to Regier’s job not to have a legitimate threat on the RW on the Top 2 lines.

But, yes, essentially, I agree the Sabres needed to get 2 years minimum with this contract.

Ta,

by Tom Luongo on Sep 15, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The Sabres would have buckled if they had to. The Sabres definitely had leverage because Stafford didn’t get an offer sheet but Stafford had more bargaining power than Brandon Dubinsky has in New York. They are trying to rip off Dubinsky and he will be forced to accept it at some point.

D.O.
www.diebytheblade.com - An SB nation destination for Sabres fans everywhere

by David Oleksy on Sep 15, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hilarious

a month ago everybody was saying Stafford was gonna get more than Callahan and be around $2.5-3 million per year. Now he signs for under $2 million (the official contract was at $3.8 million over 2 years).

Now there is people saying they are surprised he got so much.

by SabreBowie on Sep 14, 2009 6:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not people. Just me. A month ago I would have been surprised if the price hadn’t been higher than this, but once we got close to camp Stafford’s leverage would dry up and he’d be signable at practically any price.

There are no holdouts in this CBA, so there is, for all intents and purposes, an ‘options expiry date’ for RFA’s.

Ta,

by Tom Luongo on Sep 15, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs