TMLfans.ca

Maple Leafs News and Views => Leafs Rumours & Speculation => Topic started by: sickbeast on June 03, 2015, 09:39:38 PM

Title: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 03, 2015, 09:39:38 PM
Please take this with a grain of salt, I heard this from my father...

He was saying that the Leafs may be about to sign Steve Stamkos.

I assume he heard this somewhere in the media.

Anyhow I just thought I would throw that one out there.  Enjoy. :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on June 03, 2015, 09:45:31 PM
That's going to be awfully difficult for them to do, since Stamkos still has a season left on his contract with Tampa Bay.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on June 03, 2015, 09:50:41 PM
That's going to be awfully difficult for them to do, since Stamkos still has a season left on his contract with Tampa Bay.

Tampa is going to buy him out during the 2nd intermission.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on June 03, 2015, 10:33:41 PM
As much as I'd love for Stamkos to be a Leaf, I know it's not going to happen. I really hope he signs an extension with the Bolts this summer so we don't have to deal with a year full of absurd rumours and speculation about how he's sure to sign with the Leafs, only to see him re-sign with Tampa.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on June 03, 2015, 11:20:39 PM
I had given the arrival of Babcock a very slim chance of happening, similar to how I look at Stamkos. The difference could be that getting Stamkos might not really be in the best interest of a true tank/rebuild where Babcock is and perhaps/hopefully he'd be one of the voices saying no to signing him.
Title: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on June 04, 2015, 05:02:29 AM
I found some of Babcock's comments about UFA's rather interesting.

He said something along the lines of: "How many guys in the NHL are from Ontario? We are going to make this team a safe place and then they're coming home, mark my words, they're coming home."

It gives a somewhat optimistic perspective on things I suppose.

How many years it'll be before they establish this team as that place, who knows?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on June 04, 2015, 11:03:17 AM
I actually thought he was a UFA this summer.

As to the Babcock comments, that's the second time I've read him using the term "safe" when it comes to the environment for the players.

I wonder if there's a real perception out there that the Toronto market is problematic for the players.  I know we talk about it around here, but I wonder if it actually exists as a deterrent for signing players.  I'm of the opinion that if the team sucks, it makes the environment suck.  The way Babcock uses it, it's almost like he's attributing it to something outside of the talent level or team record. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 11:14:27 AM
I wonder if there's a real perception out there that the Toronto market is problematic for the players.  I know we talk about it around here, but I wonder if it actually exists as a deterrent for signing players.  I'm of the opinion that if the team sucks, it makes the environment suck.  The way Babcock uses it, it's almost like he's attributing it to something outside of the talent level or team record.

I don't think so. I think what Babcock is saying is addressing the perception you're talking about rather than the reality of it. I think there are some players who, if given the choice between playing for a terrible Leafs team and, say, a terrible Carolina team might choose Carolina because at least then they don't have the added burden of the media pressure.

But I think what some people have misinterpreted that to mean is that the media pressure in Toronto is bad no matter what and that people will choose signing with a pretty good Carolina team over a pretty good Toronto team or a great Carolina team over a great Toronto team.

To me Babcock's comments were more in the vein of what you're saying. Along the lines of "Toronto's media will make it hard to build through free agency because nobody wants to sign up for the media pressure and losing. So the key to making this place attractive to free agents, to make the "environment" better is to win."
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on June 04, 2015, 11:16:05 AM
I actually thought he was a UFA this summer.

As to the Babcock comments, that's the second time I've read him using the term "safe" when it comes to the environment for the players.

I wonder if there's a real perception out there that the Toronto market is problematic for the players.  I know we talk about it around here, but I wonder if it actually exists as a deterrent for signing players.  I'm of the opinion that if the team sucks, it makes the environment suck.  The way Babcock uses it, it's almost like he's attributing it to something outside of the talent level or team record.

I think he is referring 100% to the team not performing well.  By making it "safe" he means making the team good so that the fans/media aren't turning on the players and contributing to a toxic environment. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Big Daddy on June 04, 2015, 11:42:52 AM
If we are talking about stealing someone from under Tampa Bay Please tell me that we are stealing Yzerman.  Lets hope the GM position isn't filled yet because we are waiting for the season to finish so Shanahan can introduce his best buddy Stevie Y as the GM.  Then I would believe we have a shot at Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on June 04, 2015, 12:46:51 PM
I wonder if there's a real perception out there that the Toronto market is problematic for the players.  I know we talk about it around here, but I wonder if it actually exists as a deterrent for signing players.  I'm of the opinion that if the team sucks, it makes the environment suck.  The way Babcock uses it, it's almost like he's attributing it to something outside of the talent level or team record.

I don't think so. I think what Babcock is saying is addressing the perception you're talking about rather than the reality of it. I think there are some players who, if given the choice between playing for a terrible Leafs team and, say, a terrible Carolina team might choose Carolina because at least then they don't have the added burden of the media pressure.

But I think what some people have misinterpreted that to mean is that the media pressure in Toronto is bad no matter what and that people will choose signing with a pretty good Carolina team over a pretty good Toronto team or a great Carolina team over a great Toronto team.

To me Babcock's comments were more in the vein of what you're saying. Along the lines of "Toronto's media will make it hard to build through free agency because nobody wants to sign up for the media pressure and losing. So the key to making this place attractive to free agents, to make the "environment" better is to win."
I guess it's hard to really assess but I'm just having a hard time figuring out if a good team truly entices free agents to come to Toronto.  I mean a lot of the clownish media behaviour was going on during the Quinn/Sundin era too.  And while the Leafs certainly had good players it wasn't like they were signing top 10 players during the good years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
I guess it's hard to really assess but I'm just having a hard time figuring out if a good team truly entices free agents to come to Toronto.  I mean a lot of the clownish media behaviour was going on during the Quinn/Sundin era too.  And while the Leafs certainly had good players it wasn't like they were signing top 10 players during the good years.

It was pretty rare for top 10 players to be UFA's back then though. And the Leafs, with success fresh in people's minds did go through like a 6 or 7 year stretch where they convinced about 3 or 4 hall of fame or near hall of fame level players to sign with them(Gretzky, Joseph, Roberts, Mogilny). Obviously being able to offer a lot of money helped but given as it's all we can go on re: how effective they can be at signing free agents with a good team, I think it says something. Sure, they didn't go through the charade of signing Sakic or Fedorov to offer sheets but I don't think that's particularly relevant.

I mean, you know, I always say this but look at the Yankees or Lakers or Red Sox or Cowboys. If a team is good and has money to spend, a crazy media environment isn't really an impediment to signing people.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on June 04, 2015, 01:07:15 PM
I guess it's hard to really assess but I'm just having a hard time figuring out if a good team truly entices free agents to come to Toronto.  I mean a lot of the clownish media behaviour was going on during the Quinn/Sundin era too.  And while the Leafs certainly had good players it wasn't like they were signing top 10 players during the good years.

It was pretty rare for top 10 players to be UFA's back then though. And the Leafs, with success fresh in people's minds did go through like a 6 or 7 year stretch where they convinced about 3 or 4 hall of fame or near hall of fame level players to sign with them(Gretzky, Joseph, Roberts, Mogilny). Obviously being able to offer a lot of money helped but given as it's all we can go on re: how effective they can be at signing free agents with a good team, I think it says something. Sure, they didn't go through the charade of signing Sakic or Fedorov to offer sheets but I don't think that's particularly relevant.

I mean, you know, I always say this but look at the Yankees or Lakers or Red Sox or Cowboys. If a team is good and has money to spend, a crazy media environment isn't really an impediment to signing people.

If memory serves me right, Quinn used to get into it with some media guys, and that kind of exacerbated things a bit.

I wonder how Babcock fares with this bunch. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 01:51:13 PM
If memory serves me right, Quinn used to get into it with some media guys, and that kind of exacerbated things a bit.

Exacerbated what though? The team was plenty successful all things considered.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: louisstamos on June 04, 2015, 02:05:14 PM
If memory serves me right, Quinn used to get into it with some media guys, and that kind of exacerbated things a bit.

Exacerbated what though? The team was plenty successful all things considered.

Well, not according that one guy...  :P
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 02:24:25 PM
If memory serves me right, Quinn used to get into it with some media guys, and that kind of exacerbated things a bit.

Exacerbated what though? The team was plenty successful all things considered.

Well, not according that one guy...  :P

Why, I otter...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on June 04, 2015, 02:50:31 PM
If memory serves me right, Quinn used to get into it with some media guys, and that kind of exacerbated things a bit.

Exacerbated what though? The team was plenty successful all things considered.

We're not discussing how successful the team was.

We are talking about the "unsafe" environment that stems from the contentious relationship with the media, right?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 03:00:09 PM
We're not discussing how successful the team was.

We are talking about the "unsafe" environment that stems from the contentious relationship with the media, right?

Well, what I'm saying is that I think Babcock's statement makes it pretty clear that he thinks the "unsafe" environment is entirely a product of the team not being successful. That the way to make the environment "safe" isn't about having a better relationship with the media but in having the team win.

So in my, and I think you'd have to agree Babcock's, mind Quinn occasionally being contentious with the media didn't exacerbate the "safety" of the environment because it didn't make the team lose.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on June 04, 2015, 04:10:09 PM
We're not discussing how successful the team was.

We are talking about the "unsafe" environment that stems from the contentious relationship with the media, right?

Well, what I'm saying is that I think Babcock's statement makes it pretty clear that he thinks the "unsafe" environment is entirely a product of the team not being successful. That the way to make the environment "safe" isn't about having a better relationship with the media but in having the team win.

So in my, and I think you'd have to agree Babcock's, mind Quinn occasionally being contentious with the media didn't exacerbate the "safety" of the environment because it didn't make the team lose.

to paraphrase babcock...you don't mind coming out and facing the media every night when your winning.  When your playing well and winning alot the media suddenly become your friends.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 04, 2015, 05:06:48 PM
The players are a bunch of babies IMO.  They are payed millions of dollars to play a game and they can't talk to the media?  Come on, what a joke!  Kessel played like crap and doesn't want to talk about it?  Ship him out of town IMO.  Yes, the media can be harsh but part of being a celebrity is dealing with the media.  The media exists everywhere.  Yes, it's extreme in Toronto but seriously these players need to get over themselves.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on June 04, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Talking about Stamkos in the Kessel thread, Kessel in the Stamkos thread.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 04, 2015, 06:00:17 PM
I can talk about whoever I want wherever I want. Kessel and stamkos are both implicated in this discussion.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 06:22:58 PM

YEAH! Who does CTB think he is trying to tell us what we can talk about and where? And what the hell does "moderator" mean?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 04, 2015, 06:50:24 PM
I did not realize that he is a mod. He is spouting off nonsense though, I will say that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on June 04, 2015, 06:54:21 PM
I did not realize that he is a mod. He is spouting off nonsense though, I will say that.

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

Can we please get this thread back on-topic though guys: who else is super excited about Fallout 4?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on June 04, 2015, 07:34:12 PM
The players are a bunch of babies IMO.  They are payed millions of dollars to play a game and they can't talk to the media?  Come on, what a joke!  Kessel played like crap and doesn't want to talk about it?  Ship him out of town IMO.  Yes, the media can be harsh but part of being a celebrity is dealing with the media.  The media exists everywhere.  Yes, it's extreme in Toronto but seriously these players need to get over themselves.

As someone who has never had to deal with any of that I'm sure you're a great source on how others deal with it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 04, 2015, 08:20:07 PM
The players are a bunch of babies IMO.  They are payed millions of dollars to play a game and they can't talk to the media?  Come on, what a joke!  Kessel played like crap and doesn't want to talk about it?  Ship him out of town IMO.  Yes, the media can be harsh but part of being a celebrity is dealing with the media.  The media exists everywhere.  Yes, it's extreme in Toronto but seriously these players need to get over themselves.

As someone who has never had to deal with any of that I'm sure you're a great source on how others deal with it.
There are lots of people who deal with the media every day and they are paid way less.  Politicians for example.  They deal with it.  The players need to grow up.  They want us to feel sorry for them?  Come on!  They make more in one season than most of us will make in our entire lives!  Oh noes!  Someone wrote an article about me that says I suck!  Give me a break.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on June 04, 2015, 08:52:55 PM
The players are a bunch of babies IMO.  They are payed millions of dollars to play a game and they can't talk to the media?  Come on, what a joke!  Kessel played like crap and doesn't want to talk about it?  Ship him out of town IMO.  Yes, the media can be harsh but part of being a celebrity is dealing with the media.  The media exists everywhere.  Yes, it's extreme in Toronto but seriously these players need to get over themselves.

As someone who has never had to deal with any of that I'm sure you're a great source on how others deal with it.
There are lots of people who deal with the media every day and they are paid way less.  Politicians for example.  They deal with it.  The players need to grow up.  They want us to feel sorry for them?  Come on!  They make more in one season than most of us will make in our entire lives!  Oh noes!  Someone wrote an article about me that says I suck!  Give me a break.

haha...and now imagine its not just one bad article but dozens, and you're giving years of your life and putting your health on the line almost nightly.  You get asked the same stupid questions over and over, you have everything about how you go about your life questioned and examined in detail.  You can't even really leave your house because you get hounded for autographs and pictures everywhere you go.  Can't just go out to the bar, can't just go out for a movie, can't just go out to get groceries without fans who recognize you. 

anyways...money aint everything.  I must say I don't envy phil or dion.  I don't envy kadri and how his dirty laundry got aired out a little bit at the end of the season last year.  I don't want journalists calling my mother to get the latest on my injury or my wife getting skewered on twitter for no good reason.

Media can be an issue but fans can be way worse.  And then they say Oh you need to take whatever ridiculous sleazebag thing I might do to you because I am paying your salary and you make stupid amounts of money.

ok...end of rant...please continue with your days!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sickbeast on June 04, 2015, 09:11:12 PM
The players are a bunch of babies IMO.  They are payed millions of dollars to play a game and they can't talk to the media?  Come on, what a joke!  Kessel played like crap and doesn't want to talk about it?  Ship him out of town IMO.  Yes, the media can be harsh but part of being a celebrity is dealing with the media.  The media exists everywhere.  Yes, it's extreme in Toronto but seriously these players need to get over themselves.

As someone who has never had to deal with any of that I'm sure you're a great source on how others deal with it.
There are lots of people who deal with the media every day and they are paid way less.  Politicians for example.  They deal with it.  The players need to grow up.  They want us to feel sorry for them?  Come on!  They make more in one season than most of us will make in our entire lives!  Oh noes!  Someone wrote an article about me that says I suck!  Give me a break.

haha...and now imagine its not just one bad article but dozens, and you're giving years of your life and putting your health on the line almost nightly.  You get asked the same stupid questions over and over, you have everything about how you go about your life questioned and examined in detail.  You can't even really leave your house because you get hounded for autographs and pictures everywhere you go.  Can't just go out to the bar, can't just go out for a movie, can't just go out to get groceries without fans who recognize you. 

anyways...money aint everything.  I must say I don't envy phil or dion.  I don't envy kadri and how his dirty laundry got aired out a little bit at the end of the season last year.  I don't want journalists calling my mother to get the latest on my injury or my wife getting skewered on twitter for no good reason.

Media can be an issue but fans can be way worse.  And then they say Oh you need to take whatever ridiculous sleazebag thing I might do to you because I am paying your salary and you make stupid amounts of money.

ok...end of rant...please continue with your days!
What about police and firemen who put their lives on the line every day?  Or soldiers?  What about construction workers who take a way bigger toll on their bodies plus they risk death every day on the job.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to build any sympathy with me for players who are paid millions of dollars to play a game.

If I got paid $8 million/year I would talk to all of the reporters in the city every day if they wanted to talk to me, and really I wouldn't care or worry about what they wrote about me.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on June 04, 2015, 09:47:07 PM
What about police and firemen who put their lives on the line every day?  Or soldiers?  What about construction workers who take a way bigger toll on their bodies plus they risk death every day on the job.

Or the children. Why won't someone think of the children?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on June 04, 2015, 09:50:36 PM
What about police and firemen who put their lives on the line every day?  Or soldiers?  What about construction workers who take a way bigger toll on their bodies plus they risk death every day on the job.

Or the children. Why won't someone think of the children?

This made me laugh heartily.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on June 04, 2015, 09:52:33 PM
Seriously though Stamkos is good...the leafs should get that guy.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on September 09, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
As much as I'd love for Stamkos to be a Leaf, I know it's not going to happen. I really hope he signs an extension with the Bolts this summer so we don't have to deal with a year full of absurd rumours and speculation about how he's sure to sign with the Leafs, only to see him re-sign with Tampa.

I had to do it (my apologies).   :D

Yzerman's top priority was to get Stamkos signed to an extension this summer. He didn't. Instead, Steven took batting practice with the Blue Jays.

Timing aside, perhaps sickbeast was on to something!

Please take this with a grain of salt, I heard this from my father...

He was saying that the Leafs may be about to sign Steve Stamkos.

I assume he heard this somewhere in the media.

Anyhow I just thought I would throw that one out there.  Enjoy. :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: pnjunction on September 09, 2015, 12:21:03 PM
I'm not sure how Stamkos even fits with the long term outlook of the team.  I don't see how we contend inside 5 years and after that he will be 30, starting to decline and sucking up big cap space that we might need for younger players entering their prime at that time.  I mean it was obvious that we missed the boat on Kessel and he is only 2 years older.

I look at a guy like Lecavalier that I would have loved to see the Leafs get when he was 25 and was putting up over a point per game, but after 30 his production fell off a cliff.  Stamkos might not fall off the same but just an example of what we might be getting into.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on September 09, 2015, 12:37:08 PM
I'm not sure how Stamkos even fits with the long term outlook of the team.  I don't see how we contend inside 5 years and after that he will be 30, starting to decline and sucking up big cap space that we might need for younger players entering their prime at that time.  I mean it was obvious that we missed the boat on Kessel and he is only 2 years older.

I look at a guy like Lecavalier that I would have loved to see the Leafs get when he was 25 and was putting up over a point per game, but after 30 his production fell off a cliff.  Stamkos might not fall off the same but just an example of what we might be getting into.

Assuming the unlikely, he would be 26 when he signs with the Leafs. Max contract for a UFA would be 7 years, putting him at 32 in his last year. That's a gamble I would be willing to take in getting one of the best centers in the game, entering his prime.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on September 09, 2015, 01:14:07 PM
Signing Stamkos for 7 years at league-leading money is a no brainer. He'll still be productive at age 32. Most upper echelon players are still productive at that age. It would actually be a good age to get out of that type of contract.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: pnjunction on September 09, 2015, 01:55:50 PM
If the team were going to be any good in the next 3-4 years I would agree, what I question is what the team would accomplish during the contract and what the cap limitations would be ie. who might have to go due to cap limits while he was here.   

I suppose he could always be moved if it's clear we are going to miss his window in the last few years.  The nightmare scenario would be that he declines to unmoveable status (ie Phaneuf if he doesn't turn it around, Lecavalier, many others) and then we're handcuffed with big cap. Tampa got a (cap-)free buyout on Lecavalier a luxury that won't be available in the future.

Still if he's willing to sign here you almost have to do it because of how hard it is to land that kind of talent outside the draft without giving up assets...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
Signing Stamkos for 7 years at league-leading money is a no brainer. He'll still be productive at age 32. Most upper echelon players are still productive at that age. It would actually be a good age to get out of that type of contract.

It's a no brainer for a team in position to take advantage of more than the last couple seasons of that contract. It's not much use to a team that's going to waste the most productive years of it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on September 09, 2015, 02:42:35 PM
It's a no brainer for a team in position to take advantage of more than the last couple seasons of that contract. It's not much use to a team that's going to waste the most productive years of it.

Not that I'm saying that this should be pursued, but with all the talk of culture change and bringing in discipline and all that stuff, Stamkos would be a guy that sort of personifies that work-ethic message.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on September 09, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
If the team were going to be any good in the next 3-4 years I would agree, what I question is what the team would accomplish during the contract and what the cap limitations would be ie. who might have to go due to cap limits while he was here.   

I suppose he could always be moved if it's clear we are going to miss his window in the last few years.  The nightmare scenario would be that he declines to unmoveable status (ie Phaneuf if he doesn't turn it around, Lecavalier, many others) and then we're handcuffed with big cap. Tampa got a (cap-)free buyout on Lecavalier a luxury that won't be available in the future.

Still if he's willing to sign here you almost have to do it because of how hard it is to land that kind of talent outside the draft without giving up assets...

Lecavalier put up 54 points in 65 games as a 30/31-year-old (25 goals), and 49 points in 64 games as a 31/32-year-old (22 goals). Not bad production, and given that this would be the end-point of Stamkos' contract, and taking into account that Stamkos is a better player, I would still sign Stamkos without hesitation.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on September 09, 2015, 02:51:02 PM
Signing Stamkos for 7 years at league-leading money is a no brainer. He'll still be productive at age 32. Most upper echelon players are still productive at that age. It would actually be a good age to get out of that type of contract.

It's a no brainer for a team in position to take advantage of more than the last couple seasons of that contract. It's not much use to a team that's going to waste the most productive years of it.

So, if you're GM next year and Stamkos is available for nothing but $$, do you sign him? I realize the timing may not be the best, but do you pass up that opportunity because it doesn't make sense in the short term? I'm not being argumentative, just curious.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2015, 03:14:18 PM
Not that I'm saying that this should be pursued, but with all the talk of culture change and bringing in discipline and all that stuff, Stamkos would be a guy that sort of personifies that work-ethic message.

That's true, but you don't need a Stamkos to bring about that kind of culture change and enforce that message. I also don't really think one guy can accomplish that any way. That sort of message starts at the top, and the Leafs have gone a long way to getting that going. I'm not sure Stamkos - or any individual player - would help much outside of being the poster boy for the media to point to. You need a group of guys to do that, and you can probably bring in that group cheaper, on shorter contracts and that better serve the current, short-term goals of the organization.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on September 09, 2015, 03:30:23 PM
Not that I'm saying that this should be pursued, but with all the talk of culture change and bringing in discipline and all that stuff, Stamkos would be a guy that sort of personifies that work-ethic message.

That's true, but you don't need a Stamkos to bring about that kind of culture change and enforce that message. I also don't really think one guy can accomplish that any way. That sort of message starts at the top, and the Leafs have gone a long way to getting that going. I'm not sure Stamkos - or any individual player - would help much outside of being the poster boy for the media to point to. You need a group of guys to do that, and you can probably bring in that group cheaper, on shorter contracts and that better serve the current, short-term goals of the organization.

Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2015, 03:45:57 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on September 09, 2015, 04:02:28 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

Seriously. 6 years since retirement and he's still clearly eating right, and working out hard.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on September 09, 2015, 04:28:57 PM
If the team were going to be any good in the next 3-4 years I would agree, what I question is what the team would accomplish during the contract and what the cap limitations would be ie. who might have to go due to cap limits while he was here.   

If this team isn't better in 2 seasons, then something has gone wrong. We're not trying to replicate the Oilers here.

2 more losing seasons will give the Leafs 4 losing seasons with top draft picks. Better start turning the corner in season 3.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on September 09, 2015, 04:38:26 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

More TMLFans.ca should help.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2015, 04:40:52 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

More TMLFans.ca should help.

I guess you'd know a little about that. :P
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on September 09, 2015, 05:14:14 PM
Signing Stamkos for 7 years at league-leading money is a no brainer. He'll still be productive at age 32. Most upper echelon players are still productive at that age. It would actually be a good age to get out of that type of contract.

It's a no brainer for a team in position to take advantage of more than the last couple seasons of that contract. It's not much use to a team that's going to waste the most productive years of it.

So, if you're GM next year and Stamkos is available for nothing but $$, do you sign him? I realize the timing may not be the best, but do you pass up that opportunity because it doesn't make sense in the short term? I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

That's a real good question. I think it would be pretty damn tempting to any gm to sign that player but I think it would be a toughie to work with the Leafs plan overall. Still, I'd like to be a fly on the wall if Shanahan said no.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on September 09, 2015, 07:22:21 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

More TMLFans.ca should help.

I guess you'd know a little about that. :P

You're lucky I can still barely reach my keyboard.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on September 09, 2015, 07:39:25 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

More TMLFans.ca should help.

I guess you'd know a little about that. :P

You're lucky I can still barely reach my keyboard.

#TRexProblems
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on September 09, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Work ethic from the top? Are you talking about this guy?

Man, I hope I'm in that good shape when I'm 46. Heck, I'm nowhere close to being in that shape now!

More TMLFans.ca should help.

I guess you'd know a little about that. :P

You're lucky I can still barely reach my keyboard.

(http://www.diseaseproof.com/uploads/image/1008_chunky_stan.jpg)

Look at what you've become!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: azzurri63 on December 06, 2015, 04:21:39 PM
Stamkos unhappy? Cooper resigning? Moved to wing? Looks better for him signing here. Love to see it happen.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Mr. Leaf on December 06, 2015, 04:31:32 PM
Stamkos unhappy? Cooper resigning? Moved to wing? Looks better for him signing here. Love to see it happen.
I should know better than to get my hopes up about things like this, but damnit, they're up a little now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 06, 2015, 08:26:16 PM

Stamkos unhappy? Cooper resigning? Moved to wing? Looks better for him signing here. Love to see it happen.
I should know better than to get my hopes up about things like this, but damnit, they're up a little now.

What the hell, why not?  It's part of being a fan.

And truth be told there's more fire here than in the usual smoky UFA fantasizing. There seems to be some real friction down there.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 06, 2015, 08:53:00 PM

Obviously Stamkos is a great player and getting him would be pretty exciting but I can't help but feel that at least part of what's driving the fact that he hasn't signed an extension is that he's looking to get paid based on the numbers he was putting up a couple years ago and that he hasn't been able to since.

Someone who's watching the Lightning more than I am might have a better handle on this and maybe his points/60 show it's just an ice time thing but if he's looking for a deal that makes him the highest paid player in the league in terms of AAV...are we 100% that's a good investment?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: wnc096 on December 07, 2015, 01:26:45 AM
Stamkos unhappy? Cooper resigning? Moved to wing? Looks better for him signing here. Love to see it happen.

Simmons: "Steven Stamkos still hasn’t signed in Tampa Bay, but the fact his parents have moved to the area has left a lot of people believing he will re-sign with the Lightning "
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 07, 2015, 08:08:08 AM
Obviously Stamkos is a great player and getting him would be pretty exciting but I can't help but feel that at least part of what's driving the fact that he hasn't signed an extension is that he's looking to get paid based on the numbers he was putting up a couple years ago and that he hasn't been able to since.

He also wants to get paid based on the Toews/Kane contracts, which IIRC were signed during a time when everybody figured that the salary cap would be exploding upward, especially with the news Rogers deal. Mirtle wrote that he could see a $80mil cap as early as the 16/17 season, and even possibly a $100mil cap 5-6 years after that. All that talk though has been thrown out the window, or at least put on hold. So Chicago kind of jumped the gun with those deals, but it's still set the trend going forward for teams looking to re-sign their elite talent.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 07, 2015, 08:19:21 AM
Someone who's watching the Lightning more than I am might have a better handle on this and maybe his points/60 show it's just an ice time thing but if he's looking for a deal that makes him the highest paid player in the league in terms of AAV...are we 100% that's a good investment?

I don't know if it's the greatest excuse or not, but it's definitely not a coincidence that his point totals dropped right when Callahan replaced St. Louis on his right side.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 07, 2015, 11:09:00 AM
Obviously Stamkos is a great player and getting him would be pretty exciting but I can't help but feel that at least part of what's driving the fact that he hasn't signed an extension is that he's looking to get paid based on the numbers he was putting up a couple years ago and that he hasn't been able to since.

He also wants to get paid based on the Toews/Kane contracts, which IIRC were signed during a time when everybody figured that the salary cap would be exploding upward, especially with the news Rogers deal. Mirtle wrote that he could see a $80mil cap as early as the 16/17 season, and even possibly a $100mil cap 5-6 years after that. All that talk though has been thrown out the window, or at least put on hold. So Chicago kind of jumped the gun with those deals, but it's still set the trend going forward for teams looking to re-sign their elite talent.

That's part of it but AAV's were always going to shoot up coming out of the lockout because of the changes to backdiving and limits on term. The only reason stars were happy with AAV's of 8 or 9 million was if they were actually making 10 or 12.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 07, 2015, 11:38:26 AM
Obviously Stamkos is a great player and getting him would be pretty exciting but I can't help but feel that at least part of what's driving the fact that he hasn't signed an extension is that he's looking to get paid based on the numbers he was putting up a couple years ago and that he hasn't been able to since.

He also wants to get paid based on the Toews/Kane contracts, which IIRC were signed during a time when everybody figured that the salary cap would be exploding upward, especially with the news Rogers deal. Mirtle wrote that he could see a $80mil cap as early as the 16/17 season, and even possibly a $100mil cap 5-6 years after that. All that talk though has been thrown out the window, or at least put on hold. So Chicago kind of jumped the gun with those deals, but it's still set the trend going forward for teams looking to re-sign their elite talent.

That's part of it but AAV's were always going to shoot up coming out of the lockout because of the changes to backdiving and limits on term. The only reason stars were happy with AAV's of 8 or 9 million was if they were actually making 10 or 12.

But getting back to Nik's question: has he peaked?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 07, 2015, 11:47:56 AM
That's part of it but AAV's were always going to shoot up coming out of the lockout because of the changes to backdiving and limits on term. The only reason stars were happy with AAV's of 8 or 9 million was if they were actually making 10 or 12.

For sure, but before the Toews/Kane deals Perry, Getzlaf, Giroux, Subban, and Kessel all signed 8-year CBA-legal deals with AAV's of 8 or 9 million. I'd give Stamkos the edge on those forwards (although Giroux is close and he signed for $8.275mil at roughly the same age), but Subban is probably as close to a Stamkos equivalent as a defenceman can be.

So I think that he probably would have been looking at $9-10mil prior to those Kane/Toews deals changing everything. Now it's probably $11-12mil. And I think you're right in wondering if he's worth that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 07, 2015, 11:51:38 AM
Would you do 10 for 8? :o
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 07, 2015, 12:01:44 PM
Would you do 10 for 8? :o

He's still an elite goalscorer, really only 2nd to Ovechkin in terms of the best in the league right now. But, yeah, that's a lot of money, for a long time.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 07, 2015, 12:07:45 PM
That's part of it but AAV's were always going to shoot up coming out of the lockout because of the changes to backdiving and limits on term. The only reason stars were happy with AAV's of 8 or 9 million was if they were actually making 10 or 12.

For sure, but before the Toews/Kane deals Perry, Getzlaf, Giroux, Subban, and Kessel all signed 8-year CBA-legal deals with AAV's of 8 or 9 million. I'd give Stamkos the edge on those forwards (although Giroux is close and he signed for $8.275mil at roughly the same age), but Subban is probably as close to a Stamkos equivalent as a defenceman can be.

So I think that he probably would have been looking at $9-10mil prior to those Kane/Toews deals changing everything. Now it's probably $11-12mil. And I think you're right in wondering if he's worth that.

Subban was also a RFA though and he's the only one of those guys who signed his deal even a year after the CBA was signed when everyone had a better grasp of its ins and outs.

Understand, I don't disagree that the Kane/Toews' contracts changed things, I just think the impoetus for them is slightly different than you do. I think players looked at the Giroux/Getzlaf/Perry deals and thought that those agents didn't do very well.

Jakub Voracek, for instance, is a very good player but he's not going to be making anyone's short list for best player in the league. Those are the guys signing for 8+ these days.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 07, 2015, 01:22:46 PM
Would you do 10 for 8? :o

It's a cop-out but I really don't think there's an easy answer to that question. He scored 42 goals last season playing with Ryan Callahan and Alex Killorn. If we were signing him I think the expectation would still be he'd be consistently netting 40+ goals and 85+ points or so.  At least for the next 5 or so years (even though Nonis took heat for his comment, I really don't think teams actually worry that much about years 7 and 8). Actually since you said 8 I'd want to clarify that I would actually be opposed to trading for him, unless it's a no-brainer.

I think that he's worth $10mil, the question just becomes how does that effect the teams salary structure. That's where I really can't do anything but shrug. If the team has a long-term plan in that regard and feels it can fit him in with Marner/Nylander/Rielly long-term then I'd have a hard time saying no to him. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that signing him is detrimental to the rebuild in any way though.

My other thought would be that it would sort of depend on what happens with the lottery. If for instance we get Matthews I'd probably be pretty comfortable with our group going forward.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 08, 2015, 11:48:54 AM
If everybody in the league was suddenly a UFA today, which are the top 5 players you'd target for a 10/8 deal?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on December 08, 2015, 11:59:31 AM
Crosby
Toews
Karlsson
Weber
Price
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 08, 2015, 12:10:53 PM
Karlsson
Methot
Ryan
Hoffman
Turris
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 08, 2015, 12:25:35 PM

McDavid
Tavares
Doughty
Ekblad
Seguin
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 08, 2015, 01:18:47 PM
Nobody has said Patrick Kane...that's interesting.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on December 08, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
Only two people have answered with serious answers.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 08, 2015, 01:28:30 PM
Rielly
Nylander
Marner
Leafs 2016 1st round pick
Leafs 2017 1st round pick
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 08, 2015, 01:36:56 PM

McDavid
Tavares
Doughty
Ekblad
Seguin

Pretty much this would be my list.  Could probably go back and forth on a few more names (maybe someone like Tarasenko, Crosby, Klingberg) but I don't think you could go wrong with this group either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 08, 2015, 01:46:20 PM
I'd have a hard time justifying an 8 year deal for a player drafted before 2008, hence no Kane, Toews, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin on my list. Scorers tend to drop off pretty sharply in production north of 30, right? 10M means this is a franchise cornerstone, so I favoured centremen and defensemen who offered more than just scoring, rather than wingers and goaltenders.

McDavid (might be premature, but he's really different from the rest)
Doughty
Subban
Ekblad
Taveres

Stamkos just missed my top five because he's already starting to tail off (injury? deployment?). He's more of a triggerman to me, than someone who generates for himself and others. I would've made an exception to my self-imposed age-limit rule for Toews because he brings pretty much everything to the table and could still be moderately effective at 35, but decided against it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on December 08, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
ah, i didn't realize what 10/8 meant. I've got some older guys on the list that I wouldn't pick in that context, particularly Weber.

Crosby? I'm pretty sure I'd pay him $10M for the next 8 years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on December 08, 2015, 01:54:42 PM
I'd have a hard time justifying an 8 year deal for a player drafted before 2008, hence no Kane, Toews, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin on my list. Scorers tend to drop off pretty sharply in production north of 30, right? 10M means this is a franchise cornerstone, so I favoured centremen and defensemen who offered more than just scoring, rather than wingers and goaltenders.

McDavid (might be premature, but he's really different from the rest)
Doughty
Subban
Ekblad
Taveres

Stamkos just missed my top five because he's already starting to tail off (injury? deployment?). He's more of a triggerman to me, than someone who generates for himself and others. I would've made an exception to my self-imposed age-limit rule for Toews because he brings pretty much everything to the table and could still be moderately effective at 35, but decided against it.

Aren't UFA deals 7 max, assuming that player is from outside your organization? If so, does that change your stance on Toews?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on December 08, 2015, 01:54:53 PM
I'd have a hard time justifying an 8 year deal for a player drafted before 2008, hence no Kane, Toews, Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin on my list. Scorers tend to drop off pretty sharply in production north of 30, right? 10M means this is a franchise cornerstone, so I favoured centremen and defensemen who offered more than just scoring, rather than wingers and goaltenders.

McDavid (might be premature, but he's really different from the rest)
Doughty
Subban
Ekblad
Taveres

Stamkos just missed my top five because he's already starting to tail off (injury? deployment?). He's more of a triggerman to me, than someone who generates for himself and others. I would've made an exception to my self-imposed age-limit rule for Toews because he brings pretty much everything to the table and could still be moderately effective at 35, but decided against it.

That's a tight list, Seguin is pretty interchangeable there too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 08, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Maybe it's just because I don't really see any defenceman in this league hitting the $10mil mark any time soon, but I have a hard time including Ekblad on these lists. Especially after just 1.5 seasons. I understand how good he is, and I guess if push came to shove and I'd probably do it, I just think it wouldn't come to that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on December 08, 2015, 02:05:52 PM
Maybe it's just because I don't really see any defenceman in this league hitting the $10mil mark any time soon, but I have a hard time including Ekblad on these lists. Especially after just 1.5 seasons. I understand how good he is, and I guess if push came to shove and I'd probably do it, I just think it wouldn't come to that.

Maybe, you'd probably have Sequin over him there but he's a pretty seriously good defenceman, especially for his age, you'd be betting on how much better he could be with experience ( plus those sweet prime years ).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 08, 2015, 02:07:05 PM
Aren't UFA deals 7 max, assuming that player is from outside your organization? If so, does that change your stance on Toews?

Yeah, they are. But I was playing off Patrick's initial question and just went with it.

It doesn't really change my stance on Toews. 34/5 is pretty much the same for most people, in my mind.

That's a tight list, Seguin is pretty interchangeable there too.

It's pretty much Nik's list. I tried to find alternatives, but there really aren't many in this age range to anoint as franchise players @ $10M. I might slot Eichel in over Taveres, but I really don't know enough about him.

Basically I went with Centers who could do everything (including score), and very mobile defensemen with hockey smarts. Skills and talents with some longevity to them that aren't solely dependent on the physical side of the game.

Either way, I wouldn't trade for Stamkos at this point, nor would I sign a 10M+ contract for him unless it was 5 years or less.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 08, 2015, 02:11:56 PM
Maybe it's just because I don't really see any defenceman in this league hitting the $10mil mark any time soon, but I have a hard time including Ekblad on these lists. Especially after just 1.5 seasons. I understand how good he is, and I guess if push came to shove and I'd probably do it, I just think it wouldn't come to that.

Market money seems to follow goal scorers primarily, so I do agree with the premise of this.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 08, 2015, 02:27:02 PM
Only two people have answered with serious answers.

That's not my fault.  I stand by my sample size.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 08, 2015, 02:33:59 PM
Nobody has said Patrick Kane...that's interesting.

Is it? He's 27 and has one season in his career of 70+ games and scoring better than a PPG.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 08, 2015, 02:48:19 PM
Nobody has said Patrick Kane...that's interesting.

Is it? He's 27 and has one season in his career of 70+ games and scoring better than a PPG.

Sorry, instead of "That's interesting", I should have said "I find that interesting", and I find that interesting, because I would have thought that more people would have been enticed with his current scoring heroics and playoff pedigree.  When someone poses a question like Patrick posed, I find the lists very interchangeable based on the limited number of parameters provided.

If every player is a UFA, and I am going in to team building mode, then would my goal not be to win the cup within the next year or two?  Or is my goal simply the best contract value per player that I am about to sign?  If it's the first instance, would it not be prudent to weight cup experience as a commodity?  And if so would that place a higher premium on guys like Kopitar or Seabrook or Keith?  Their numbers and ages aren't as good as the others, but they have been there more then say a player like Tarasenko.  If it's the second instance, then yes I can see why you want the best dollar value for the contract.

I suppose the first situation only really exists if you believe that cup winning experience has a positive influence on a teams chances of winning the cup. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 08, 2015, 02:57:29 PM
Sorry, instead of "That's interesting", I should have said "I find that interesting", and I find that interesting, because I would have thought that more people would have been enticed with his current scoring heroics and playoff pedigree.  When someone poses a question like Patrick posed, I find the lists very interchangeable based on the limited number of parameters provided.

If every player is a UFA, and I am going in to team building mode, then would my goal not be to win the cup within the next year or two?  Or is my goal simply the best contract value per player that I am about to sign?  If it's the first instance, would it not be prudent to weight cup experience as a commodity?  And if so would that place a higher premium on guys like Kopitar or Seabrook or Keith?  Their numbers and ages aren't as good as the others, but they have been there more then say a player like Tarasenko.  If it's the second instance, then yes I can see why you want the best dollar value for the contract.

I suppose the first situation only really exists if you believe that cup winning experience has a positive influence on a teams chances of winning the cup.

Well, I think the goal of any player you'd sign in this scenario would be one who you think would give your team the best chance of winning the cup in every year of the eight year term. I don't know why you'd think that years one and two were more important than years 5 or 6.

I guess it just strikes me as a little strange that you'd think people would lean heavily on the first 27 games of this season and less on the cumulative numbers we have of these players careers.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 08, 2015, 03:00:38 PM

And as for the cup experience question, isn't Patrick Kane himself the perfect example of how it doesn't matter much? He won the Conn Smythe in only the second year he made the playoffs.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 08, 2015, 06:08:45 PM
Well, I think the goal of any player you'd sign in this scenario would be one who you think would give your team the best chance of winning the cup in every year of the eight year term. I don't know why you'd think that years one and two were more important than years 5 or 6.

But if that was the case, wouldn't that rule out players like McDavid and Ekblad?  If you are going to treat all years equally, wouldn't the sweet spot be someone like Tavares, Hedman or Seguin?  It's very rare that rookie phenoms like McDavid come in and win a cup.  Most of that can probably be attributed to the team they are playing for, but it may be hard for an 18 year old, even one as supremely talented as McDavid, to be a primary focal point on a cup winning team.  If you were to sign McDavid, wouldn't it be for what he could do long term over the course of his career, and not necessarily in that first or second year?

I guess it just strikes me as a little strange that you'd think people would lean heavily on the first 27 games of this season and less on the cumulative numbers we have of these players careers.

People do strange things.  I wondered why someone didn't pick Kane, which is strange.  People may have picked Kane based on his first 27 games which also would have been strange.

Personally though, I think Patrick Kane is a little more than these first 27 games.  He has won a Conn Smythe, as you point out, and he is a fairly prominent member of a core that has won 3 cups in 6 years.  He does have the character issues, which is a minus.  Seguin may also have character  issues, although nothing has surfaced since he has been in Dallas.   

I understand the reasoning, after you really think about, why you wouldn't offer a player after the age of 25 a 10/8 deal.  I guess I just thought through the initial process, someone would have put him down.  Much like someone put down Crosby but then recanted.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 08, 2015, 06:46:30 PM
But if that was the case, wouldn't that rule out players like McDavid and Ekblad?  If you are going to treat all years equally, wouldn't the sweet spot be someone like Tavares, Hedman or Seguin?  It's very rare that rookie phenoms like McDavid come in and win a cup.  Most of that can probably be attributed to the team they are playing for, but it may be hard for an 18 year old, even one as supremely talented as McDavid, to be a primary focal point on a cup winning team.  If you were to sign McDavid, wouldn't it be for what he could do long term over the course of his career, and not necessarily in that first or second year?

Well, maybe I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was that I think the player you want to sign is the guy that gives you the best cumulative chance  of winning a Stanley Cup(or Cups) over the life of the deal. So even going with your premise that a young player like that might not have the immediate impact of someone like Tavares or Hedman I think the reason they'd be there is that they're such singular talents with such high ceilings that the likelihood that McDavid is the best player in the league through a good part of his deal would trump that.

As to your premise though, I'm not sure I see it. I have no doubt that it would be difficult for a young player to play a huge role on a cup winner but it's also incredibly difficult for a young player to score 80 points in their first season. So I don't know that I'd try to make a sort of blanket statement about "rookies" apply to players who have already established themselves as exceptional even among talented NHL rookies.

Personally though, I think Patrick Kane is a little more than these first 27 games.  He has won a Conn Smythe, as you point out, and he is a fairly prominent member of a core that has won 3 cups in 6 years.  He does have the character issues, which is a minus.  Seguin may also have character  issues, although nothing has surfaced since he has been in Dallas. 

You're right, Kane is more than these 27 games but, again, most of that career tells us a story that's pretty detailed and leans away from him being really among the elites of the elites. Just eyeballing it it looks like his best finish points wise is 5th in the league(in the shortened season, 9th over a full season). His career high in goals is 30.

Are both of those excellent numbers? Sure. But I think you'd agree they're a half-step down from that real top tier. And that's being done, mind you, surrounded by a pretty exceptional cast. His career playoff ppg is good, sure, but it's not exceptional. As a point of reference Claude Giroux, who nobody mentioned, has a higher PPG in the playoffs, single season point total, is a a better two-way player, has missed less time due to injury etc, etc.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 08, 2015, 07:20:05 PM
You're right, Kane is more than these 27 games but, again, most of that career tells us a story that's pretty detailed and leans away from him being really among the elites of the elites. Just eyeballing it it looks like his best finish points wise is 5th in the league(in the shortened season, 9th over a full season). His career high in goals is 30.

Are both of those excellent numbers? Sure. But I think you'd agree they're a half-step down from that real top tier. And that's being done, mind you, surrounded by a pretty exceptional cast. His career playoff ppg is good, sure, but it's not exceptional. As a point of reference Claude Giroux, who nobody mentioned, has a higher PPG in the playoffs, single season point total, is a a better two-way player, has missed less time due to injury etc, etc.

True.  I  guess I was swayed by the point streak.  Seeing his picture up there with the likes of Gretzky,  Lemieux, and Sundin elevated my opinion of where he fits in with today's players.  A hot streak is a hot streak.  Nobody cares about John Druce anymore.

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 09, 2015, 11:52:12 AM
Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

I agree. What constitutes a correct deal is open to debate; it'll be another David Price situation if he hits free agency.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on December 09, 2015, 01:17:29 PM
Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

No need to waste assets trying to acquire Stamkos.  But I for one really hope the Leafs go all out for Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 09, 2015, 01:31:26 PM
Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

Sort of. I'm lukewarm on adding Stamkos either way but it raises an interesting question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Stamkos is certainly open to the idea of being a Maple Leaf(and signing a fair value extension) but that he's just as open to the idea of joining other teams.

Let's also say that Tampa, knowing that they can't re-sign him(or don't want to), is looking to make a trade similar to the one that the Thrashers, in a similar situation, made for Ilya Kovalchuk. Certainly not a situation where they tried to get fair value but more like a situation where they wanted to at least get something in return for a departing superstar.

So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on December 09, 2015, 01:55:58 PM
Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

Sort of. I'm lukewarm on adding Stamkos either way but it raises an interesting question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Stamkos is certainly open to the idea of being a Maple Leaf(and signing a fair value extension) but that he's just as open to the idea of joining other teams.

Let's also say that Tampa, knowing that they can't re-sign him(or don't want to), is looking to make a trade similar to the one that the Thrashers, in a similar situation, made for Ilya Kovalchuk. Certainly not a situation where they tried to get fair value but more like a situation where they wanted to at least get something in return for a departing superstar.

So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?

It's an interesting question.  If you had an idea that he wanted to sign with your team then the extended negotiating time would be valuable.  At that point it would depend on what you had to give up.

I'm also lukewarm to adding Stamkos.  I am not so sure he is the player he used to be.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 09, 2015, 02:02:35 PM
He's since deleted it but everyone...it's happening: http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png (http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on December 09, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
He's since deleted it but everyone...it's happening: http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png (http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png)

More negotiations through the media. Now, we just have to figure out which team he's negotiating with.  :-*
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 02:06:44 PM
So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?

I suppose that depends on who the prospects TBay would be asking for would be. If, say, they were willing to make the deal with Gauthier and Leipsic (or similar calibre prospects that would be roughly equivalent to Bergfors and Cormier) as the main prospects, and Pitts' 1st round pick? Yeah, probably.

That being said, I'm pretty on the fence when it comes to adding Stamkos. He's still one of the best pure goal scorers in the league, and it would be interesting to see what a he could do playing with someone like Marner or Nylander, but, I'm very leery of the kind of contract he'll be looking for in terms of where the Leafs are in the process and the other holes they still need to fill.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 02:33:47 PM
F it.  I'm in.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 09, 2015, 02:40:52 PM
Stamkos is the biggest temptation for Shanahan and Co. to diverge from the rebuild plan.

I think we'll still be struggling for the next year or two after this season, so the benefit for Stamkos on the ice is not going to be immediate.

The benefit for the up and coming stars (Nylander, Marner, 2016guy) being shepherded and shielded by a local boy, 1st overall pick, and Stanley Cup finalist would be tremendous, but I'd prefer to pick one or two more times in the top 5/10, rather than 10-15 range thanks to Stamkos.

Unless he is okay with a 3 year deal without an NMC/NTC, I'd say no thank you.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on December 09, 2015, 02:41:17 PM
F it.  I'm in.
F-ing eh.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/stamkos-likes-tweet-about-him-possibly-coming-to-toronto~766457 (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/stamkos-likes-tweet-about-him-possibly-coming-to-toronto~766457)

Only in Toronto.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 09, 2015, 02:42:02 PM
25-year-old Star for only cap space as a UFA?

Sign-me-up!

No to a trade unless it's laughably inexpensive though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on December 09, 2015, 02:43:08 PM
F it.  I'm in.

I don't particularly want to go another 8 years without a true 1C, so I'm in too.

Sportsnet needs to write a story about Stamkos taking a home-town discount, just to see if he favorites it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on December 09, 2015, 02:54:01 PM
25-year-old Star for only cap space as a UFA?

Sign-me-up!

No to a trade unless it's laughably inexpensive though.
7 years of insane cap hit... during a time they don't need to be cap cautious. It's all good. Who know what the cap will be in 4-5 years when it matters to Toronto.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 09, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
25-year-old Star for only cap space as a UFA?

Sign-me-up!

No to a trade unless it's laughably inexpensive though.
7 years of insane cap hit... in time they don't need it. It's all good.

You're insane, he's a league Star, if you can get one of those for no asset cost at 25 years old you do it and don't even think about it.

Also, in 4 or 5 years he's only going to be pushing 30, he can still be elite at that age.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 09, 2015, 03:02:06 PM
Also, in 4 or 5 years he's only going to be pushing 30, he can still be elite at that age.

Stamkos is also the poster-boy of the Gary Roberts training regime. The aging process effects everyone different but I'd be pretty comfortable betting on him long-term.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 09, 2015, 03:09:18 PM
Grabner, Winnik, Matthias, Spaling, and Polak have a combined cap hit of $12.5mil this season.

Replace those guys with Marlies who are making $1mil each, there's $7.5mil in cap space.

Trade Bozak (hey other teams, he's actually have a pretty good season!), there's $11.7mil in cap space for Stamkos. Bingo-bango.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 09, 2015, 03:10:47 PM
Also, pretty much all the recent Cup winners have significant portions of their caps dedicated to a few elite players.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on December 09, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
25-year-old Star for only cap space as a UFA?

Sign-me-up!

No to a trade unless it's laughably inexpensive though.
7 years of insane cap hit... in time they don't need it. It's all good.

You're insane, he's a league Star, if you can get one of those for no asset cost at 25 years old you do it and don't even think about it.

Also, in 4 or 5 years he's only going to be pushing 30, he can still be elite at that age.
I agree... at a time they don't need be cap cautious.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on December 09, 2015, 03:14:53 PM
Grabner, Winnik, Matthias, Spaling, and Polak have a combined cap hit of $12.5mil this season.

Replace those guys with Marlies who are making $1mil each, there's $7.5mil in cap space.

Trade Bozak (hey other teams, he's actually have a pretty good season!), there's $11.7mil in cap space for Stamkos. Bingo-bango.
I would take a short bench if that's what it would take.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: pnjunction on December 09, 2015, 03:22:31 PM
I could agree that throwing a ton of money at a star at 26 might be a good bet if you can land him but this is what what makes me nervous about Stamkos in particular:

Pre-injury: 0.57 g/g 1.04 p/g, 0.63/1.15 if you don't count rookie season
Post post: 0.49 g/g, 0.84 p/g
2015-2016 so far: 0.39 g/g, 0.71 ppg

He's still a 40-goal scorer as of last season (although he's only on pace for 32 this year) but the decline is enough to make me nervous about putting $10+M of cap hit in for long term.  So hard to say whether you'd be getting a 40+ goal 80+ point guy who's worth the big money, or someone who's decline into relative mediocrity has started early due to a freak injury.

Lecavalier, one of the the poster boys for irreversible decline on a huge contract, started to drop off hard after he dipped under a point per game at the tender age of 28...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 03:23:40 PM
Stamkos is the biggest temptation for Shanahan and Co. to diverge from the rebuild plan.

I think we'll still be struggling for the next year or two after this season, so the benefit for Stamkos on the ice is not going to be immediate.

The benefit for the up and coming stars (Nylander, Marner, 2016guy) being shepherded and shielded by a local boy, 1st overall pick, and Stanley Cup finalist would be tremendous, but I'd prefer to pick one or two more times in the top 5/10, rather than 10-15 range thanks to Stamkos.

Unless he is okay with a 3 year deal without an NMC/NTC, I'd say no thank you.

He's 25.  Not 31.

What the hell do you want the guy for 3 years for?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 09, 2015, 03:30:29 PM
I would take a short bench if that's what it would take.

It wouldn't even be a short bench. Some of the replacements (Harrington for Polak, Panik for Grabner) could probably be improvements.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on December 09, 2015, 03:36:03 PM
The opportunity to sign a 26-year old elite player like Stamkos may never come up again.  In my mind, the Leafs would be absolute fools to not go all in in trying to sign him. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 09, 2015, 03:42:38 PM
I suppose that depends on who the prospects TBay would be asking for would be. If, say, they were willing to make the deal with Gauthier and Leipsic (or similar calibre prospects that would be roughly equivalent to Bergfors and Cormier) as the main prospects, and Pitts' 1st round pick? Yeah, probably.

I agree with this entirely(those are even the two prospects that came to mind) and, like you, I'm undecided on the overall question.

I just don't really get the "I really want Stamkos but I'd be unwilling to trade anything for him" opinion.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 03:48:14 PM
I just don't really get the "I really want Stamkos but I'd be unwilling to trade anything for him" opinion.

Well, I think the expectation is that TBay would ask for at least one of Rielly/Nylander/Marner/this year's 1st, and, in that case, I wouldn't make a trade either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 09, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
The opportunity to sign a 26-year old elite player like Stamkos may never come up again.  In my mind, the Leafs would be absolute fools to not go all in in trying to sign him. 

I've been trying to look at how it'd effect the cap situation for the next few years. Again, that's been my only worry regarding the whole thing. I played around a bit with hockeyscap.com's Armchair GM function, this is what I got:

JVR-Stamkos-Nylander
Komarov-Kadri-Lupul
Winnik-Bozak-UFA
Panik-Holland-Marner
UFA-Froese

Gardiner-Phaneuf
Hunwick-Rielly
Harrington-Corrado
Marincin

Bernier
Sparks

Give Stamkos $11mil, Kadri $5.5mil, Rielly $6mil. Give the other RFAs whatever small raise they need. Sign a couple of bargain UFAs for $3mil combined. Horton and Robidas go on LTIR. That roster would leave you about $3mil in cap space. Could use that $3mil to upgrade the defence. Bozak will also likely be a lot more appealing this summer as opposed to last with the season he's having. You've also still got plenty of cheap options on the Marlies ready to be used.

That salary structure would basically stay in place for about 3 years until Nylander and Marner's ELC run out. That's when things get tricky but not impossible to keep together. Lupul's contract would be up, Bozak's too if he's not traded. Maybe you move Kadri's $5.5mil then.

But yeah, I've talked myself into being a lot more comfortable offering him a deal.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 03:50:59 PM
I just don't really get the "I really want Stamkos but I'd be unwilling to trade anything for him" opinion.

Well, I think the expectation is that TBay would ask for at least one of Rielly/Nylander/Marner/this year's 1st, and, in that case, I wouldn't make a trade either.

Does he have an NMC right now?

EDIT:  ya he does...so I'm not sure t-bay has a bunch of options at that point, if indeed he's intent on becoming a Leaf.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on December 09, 2015, 03:53:03 PM
I just don't really get the "I really want Stamkos but I'd be unwilling to trade anything for him" opinion.

My thinking is, and it may just be wishful, is that if Stamkos indeed opts to become a free agent, the Leafs will be at or near the top of his list of teams to sign with.  And with that being the case, why would the Leafs burn up any assets when he is going to make zero difference this year and can be had with a simple blank cheque a few months later.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 09, 2015, 03:53:45 PM
Well, I think the expectation is that TBay would ask for at least one of Rielly/Nylander/Marner/this year's 1st, and, in that case, I wouldn't make a trade either.

Even if it's the deadline and either they've decided to move on/Stamkos has told them he's leaving? You think they're still playing hardball and willing to let him walk for nothing?

Anyways, maybe I should rephrase it. I suppose what I should say is that I can't see any scenario in which the team really wants Stamkos, is willing to make him the centrepiece of their team with a huge free agent deal...but holds the line at trading a Gauthier, Leipsic and a 1st package(or something similar) at the deadline.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on December 09, 2015, 04:00:36 PM
I've been trying to look at how it'd effect the cap situation for the next few years. Again, that's been my only worry regarding the whole thing. I played around a bit with hockeyscap.com's Armchair GM function, this is what I got:

JVR-Stamkos-Nylander
Komarov-Kadri-Lupul
Winnik-Bozak-UFA
Panik-Holland-Marner
UFA-Froese

Gardiner-Phaneuf
Hunwick-Rielly
Harrington-Corrado
Marincin

Bernier
Sparks

Give Stamkos $11mil, Kadri $5.5mil, Rielly $6mil. Give the other RFAs whatever small raise they need. Sign a couple of bargain UFAs for $3mil combined. Horton and Robidas go on LTIR. That roster would leave you about $3mil in cap space. Could use that $3mil to upgrade the defence. Bozak will also likely be a lot more appealing this summer as opposed to last with the season he's having. You've also still got plenty of cheap options on the Marlies ready to be used.

That salary structure would basically stay in place for about 3 years until Nylander and Marner's ELC run out. That's when things get tricky but not impossible to keep together. Lupul's contract would be up, Bozak's too if he's not traded. Maybe you move Kadri's $5.5mil then.

But yeah, I've talked myself into being a lot more comfortable offering him a deal.

I'm not overly worried on the effect Stamkos has on the cap.  Because he's the guy I'm building my team around.  Set that pillar in place and build the rest around him.  If it means moving one of or a combination of Lupul, Bozak or even Phaneuf and filling them with cheaper players through free agency, trade or promotions from the Marlies, so be it. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 09, 2015, 04:00:52 PM
My thinking is, and it may just be wishful, is that if Stamkos indeed opts to become a free agent, the Leafs will be at or near the top of his list of teams to sign with.  And with that being the case, why would the Leafs burn up any assets when he is going to make zero difference this year and can be had with a simple blank cheque a few months later.

I think sometimes we present the way free agents make decisions as entirely too simple a dichotomy. We either say "Well, Player A wants to be a Duck or Blue and that's that" or we say "He'll just go to whoever offers him more money" with very little in-between.

I think there's far more of a grey area. I think a lot of guys get convinced to go somewhere or they have a preference of where to go but it's not their only issue.

So Stamkos might very well favour the Leafs but that doesn't mean that he'd definitely sign with them or wouldn't be swayed by a significantly higher offer(unless you'd be willing to give Stamkos whatever he wanted).

So the reason you'd spend those assets is because it lets you negotiate against yourself and only yourself. If that means you don't get drawn into a bidding war then the thinking is that the players you're trading might very well be worth the 2 million or so you might save in cap space.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 09, 2015, 04:08:18 PM
All this Stamkos talk reminds me of this other thing he has in common with LeBron: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVJr-Vbq6y8[/youtube]
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 04:16:48 PM
Even if it's the deadline and either they've decided to move on/Stamkos has told them he's leaving? You think they're still playing hardball and willing to let him walk for nothing?

Yeah, because I think there are teams out there who would be willing to offer up some significant pieces to add Stamkos in the hopes of being able to lock him up long-term.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 04:21:54 PM
Even if it's the deadline and either they've decided to move on/Stamkos has told them he's leaving? You think they're still playing hardball and willing to let him walk for nothing?

Yeah, because I think there are teams out there who would be willing to offer up some significant pieces to add Stamkos in the hopes of being able to lock him up long-term.

Yeah, but NMC though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 04:34:11 PM
Yeah, but NMC though.

Sure, but if he's set on not returning to TBay, that's not really an issue. He'll waive to go to a number of places. Whether he'll sign there or not is up in the air, but teams make that kind of gamble all the time. I also don't buy for a second that he's set on signing in Toronto and only Toronto. It may be a preference, but Stamkos isn't stupid. He's not going to artificially limit his market to one team. He's going to look to maximize his contract as well.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 04:38:38 PM
Yeah, but NMC though.

Sure, but if he's set on not returning to TBay, that's not really an issue. He'll waive to go to a number of places. Whether he'll sign there or not is up in the air, but teams make that kind of gamble all the time. I also don't buy for a second that he's set on signing in Toronto and only Toronto. It may be a preference, but Stamkos isn't stupid. He's not going to artificially limit his market to one team. He's going to look to maximize his contract as well.

I'm not saying he's stupid.  I'm really not. 

But didn't he like another tweet like that one this past year?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 04:40:15 PM
I'm not saying he's stupid.  I'm really not. 

But didn't he like another tweet like that one this past year?

Even if he did, he could just tweet any article about himself, or he could be messing/joking around with his friends, or any of a number other possible explanations. It's really an entirely meaningless gesture.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 09, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
I also don't buy for a second that he's set on signing in Toronto and only Toronto. It may be a preference, but Stamkos isn't stupid. He's not going to artificially limit his market to one team. He's going to look to maximize his contract as well.

I generally agree with this but I don't know that it's quite that black and white. I believe, say, that if Toronto(or whoever) is his first choice his position might be something where he has a number/term in mind(say, 10/8 or whatever) and he'd be willing to sign that but he might also say that if he does make it to free agency then he'll start listening to higher offers and that 10/8 might not be there.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 04:51:30 PM
I'm not saying he's stupid.  I'm really not. 

But didn't he like another tweet like that one this past year?

Even if he did, he could just tweet any article about himself, or he could be messing/joking around with his friends, or any of a number other possible explanations. It's really an entirely meaningless gesture.

Tampa Bay Lightning forward Steven Stamkos has been very judicious with what he favorites (or now as it's called, likes) on Twitter. That's probably because one of the few times he favorited any tweet, it was a link to a story in The Hockey News about him becoming Toronto's LeBron and returning to his native city to join the Maple Leafs.

That was two years ago. Since then, Stamkos hasn't pressed the little heart button very much. In fact, he only has one like on his Twitter account as of right now. And would you look at that? It's another link to a video about the possibility of him joining the Toronto Maple Leafs. In fact, it even asks the question of if Toronto should pursue him (H/T to Andrew Berkshire for the heads up).


http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25407400/steven-stamkos-liked-another-tweet-about-him-and-the-maple-leafs




 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 09, 2015, 04:54:20 PM
Tampa Bay Lightning forward Steven Stamkos has been very judicious with what he favorites (or now as it's called, likes) on Twitter. That's probably because one of the few times he favorited any tweet, it was a link to a story in The Hockey News about him becoming Toronto's LeBron and returning to his native city to join the Maple Leafs.

That was two years ago. Since then, Stamkos hasn't pressed the little heart button very much. In fact, he only has one like on his Twitter account as of right now. And would you look at that? It's another link to a video about the possibility of him joining the Toronto Maple Leafs. In fact, it even asks the question of if Toronto should pursue him (H/T to Andrew Berkshire for the heads up).


http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25407400/steven-stamkos-liked-another-tweet-about-him-and-the-maple-leafs

Honestly, I still think this is more likely to be part of some running joke he has with his friends than anything else. It's more likely "hey, look how badly people want me to be a Leaf, hahaha" than anything else.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 09, 2015, 04:55:48 PM
How convenient  :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 09, 2015, 04:58:19 PM
Slipperiest twitter finger in the west.

He's probably trolling everyone.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 09, 2015, 05:06:36 PM
Whatever, really.

I think this is probably pissing off Yzerman though.

For all I know, he's just trying to push Yzerman for a better offer.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 09, 2015, 05:14:35 PM
Slipperiest twitter finger in the west.

He's probably trolling everyone.

That's definitely what he's doing. And man it's working.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on December 09, 2015, 05:16:54 PM
Slipperiest twitter finger in the west.

He's probably trolling everyone.

Interestingly, his slips seem to be related solely to Leafs/Stamkos inuendo.

And speaking of friends, apparently Stamkos spends a lot of his summer in Toronto with his friends. Assuming you were in his close circle, do you think you would have any power at all to sway his decision (other than begging, which is likely what I'd resort to)?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 09, 2015, 05:32:10 PM
Whatever, really.

I think this is probably pissing off Yzerman though.

For all I know, he's just trying to push Yzerman for a better offer.

If I was a betting man and I had to choose, this is the way I'd be leaning.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on December 09, 2015, 07:04:23 PM
I've been saying for a long while that SS may be a Leaf and without repayment in terms of talent. Whether they want to open the bank that much is another question.  And if you have Nylander and Kadri (whom I want to keep) vying for the first line role where does SS fit in.  Looks like we can have pretty good cheap goaltending after next year with Optimus and Sparky.  And perhaps we move out Bozak, Lupul and maybe Phaneuf (although he seems to have a big fan in Babs), and the increase in cap space then we could afford a 12 million man. Stamkos, Nylander and Kadri up the Centre, sounds kind of good if they all role as quick as Babs likes to change da lines.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on December 09, 2015, 11:47:37 PM
I,m a little iffy in getting SS to the Leafs,especially for big bucks.They are not ready to contend seriously for a few years.The defence isn't near established,the forwards are still in the AHL.I don't want a repeat that Burke made in getting Kessel,and a bunch of 3rd liners around him.
I would rather take the slower approach and build a core as is happening now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 08:43:41 AM
I,m a little iffy in getting SS to the Leafs,especially for big bucks.They are not ready to contend seriously for a few years.The defence isn't near established,the forwards are still in the AHL.I don't want a repeat that Burke made in getting Kessel,and a bunch of 3rd liners around him.
I would rather take the slower approach and build a core as is happening now.

It's not the Kessel approach.

Would you have been ok with having Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton?

That's essentially how the Stamkos thing plays out if he is signed as UFA.

As for not being ready to contend, so what if it takes another three years?

Stamkos would only be 28.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 10, 2015, 08:55:21 AM
That's essentially how the Stamkos thing plays out if he is signed as UFA.

As for not being ready to contend, so what if it takes another three years?

Stamkos would only be 28.

I was also iffy at first, what with our recent team history, and other highly touted players from Tampa Bay moving on and floundering, but I see that is an emotional response to generally unrelated things.

It's a crazy opportunity to get a superstar from 26 to 33.

I can see us moving some above-average spare parts (they still like Panik, right?) and picks prior to the Draft to get dibs on signing him (freeing up some contract slots).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 08:59:01 AM
It's not the Kessel approach.

Would you have been ok with having Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton?

You're right that adding Stamkos wouldn't be like the Kessel situation in terms of risk or asset cost but I don't think that was really the point. I think the way it's like the Kessel situation is that they'd be attempting to jump-start what should be a long process and, in doing so, they're making it less likely that the Leafs will be able to add some of the players they'll need to.

The Leafs aren't one or two pieces away right now. They're multiple pieces even if every high profile young talent in the organization develops as we'd like them to.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on December 10, 2015, 09:02:05 AM
Tampa Bay Lightning forward Steven Stamkos has been very judicious with what he favorites (or now as it's called, likes) on Twitter. That's probably because one of the few times he favorited any tweet, it was a link to a story in The Hockey News about him becoming Toronto's LeBron and returning to his native city to join the Maple Leafs.

That was two years ago. Since then, Stamkos hasn't pressed the little heart button very much. In fact, he only has one like on his Twitter account as of right now. And would you look at that? It's another link to a video about the possibility of him joining the Toronto Maple Leafs. In fact, it even asks the question of if Toronto should pursue him (H/T to Andrew Berkshire for the heads up).


http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25407400/steven-stamkos-liked-another-tweet-about-him-and-the-maple-leafs

Honestly, I still think this is more likely to be part of some running joke he has with his friends than anything else. It's more likely "hey, look how badly people want me to be a Leaf, hahaha" than anything else.

That would imply that the guy is pretty immature and cares little about the hopes of Leaf fans, to screw around like that. Stamkos strikes me as a guy with a pretty good head on his shoulders. I'm going with the old 'Where there's smoke, there's fire' line on this one.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 09:18:13 AM

Or it could just mean that in this era of athletes on social media, you'll occasionally have someone forget they're a celebrity and that their every action will be consumed and analyzed by a scoop-hungry media/fanbase and simply react to things the way a person would.

Or, you know, Stamkos to Toronto e5.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 09:36:29 AM
That would imply that the guy is pretty immature and cares little about the hopes of Leaf fans, to screw around like that. Stamkos strikes me as a guy with a pretty good head on his shoulders. I'm going with the old 'Where there's smoke, there's fire' line on this one.

I'm going to go more with "He's a human being who didn't consider the impact it would have on Leaf fans because they're not really a part of his life" because, well, in that fraction of a second, why would he? Even with a good head on his shoulders, he's not always going to think of how this impacts anyone beyond the people that are actually part of his life. You're trying to attribute a level of awareness to him that is a much higher standard than he reasonably should be held to. He's human, and he's still basically a kid. Most of the time, he's not going to consider the really big picture.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on December 10, 2015, 09:38:06 AM
I,m a little iffy in getting SS to the Leafs,especially for big bucks.They are not ready to contend seriously for a few years.The defence isn't near established,the forwards are still in the AHL.I don't want a repeat that Burke made in getting Kessel,and a bunch of 3rd liners around him.
I would rather take the slower approach and build a core as is happening now.

It's not the Kessel approach.

Would you have been ok with having Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton?

That's essentially how the Stamkos thing plays out if he is signed as UFA.

As for not being ready to contend, so what if it takes another three years?

Stamkos would only be 28.
You are assuming Stamkos will be great at 28,which you may be right.How well is Kessel doing at 28? And do we know for sure the team will be a cup contender in three years?

I,ve seen this before,Stamkos today,Kessel yesterday,Sundin and everybody else before that,Gilmour and the boys,Sittler and Salming prior to that.

We need drafting and patience and when the team is ready for a star to get us a cup,then we go for a SS type.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 10, 2015, 09:44:47 AM
We need drafting and patience and when the team is ready for a star to get us a cup,then we go for a SS type.

You're acting like a Steven Stamkos type comes along every year. He doesn't. Certainly not as a UFA. I get that the "rebuild" only technically started this summer, but the team is very likely about to make their third top-5 draft selection in five years, and their 8th overall pick in one of those years is arguably a top-5 prospect in the entire league right now. Rielly, Marner, Nylander, and whoever we pick this June is a pretty solid base to build around. I would argue that all they need now is a Steven Stamkos type after that.

And it's not like the team would throw drafting and patience right out the window when they sign Stamkos. They key to a great team is drafting well even when you're not picking top-5/top-10/top-15.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on December 10, 2015, 09:50:13 AM
I,m a little iffy in getting SS to the Leafs,especially for big bucks.They are not ready to contend seriously for a few years.The defence isn't near established,the forwards are still in the AHL.I don't want a repeat that Burke made in getting Kessel,and a bunch of 3rd liners around him.
I would rather take the slower approach and build a core as is happening now.

It's not the Kessel approach.

Would you have been ok with having Kessel, Seguin and Hamilton?

That's essentially how the Stamkos thing plays out if he is signed as UFA.

As for not being ready to contend, so what if it takes another three years?

Stamkos would only be 28.
You are assuming Stamkos will be great at 28,which you may be right.How well is Kessel doing at 28? And do we know for sure the team will be a cup contender in three years?

I,ve seen this before,Stamkos today,Kessel yesterday,Sundin and everybody else before that,Gilmour and the boys,Sittler and Salming prior to that.

We need drafting and patience and when the team is ready for a star to get us a cup,then we go for a SS type.
Maybe with Stamkos we become a perennial 9th place team never finishing low enough to draft high end players and not good enough to win... but then again a SS does not come available very often for just $.

Due to the history of the Leafs never rebuilding through the draft I would not be disappointed if they stay the course, bottom right out and draft high. Chicago did it, and it looks like EDM is about to takeoff as well. I would not be disappointed either way.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 10, 2015, 09:55:35 AM
We need drafting and patience and when the team is ready for a star to get us a cup,then we go for a SS type.

You're acting like a Steven Stamkos type comes along every year. He doesn't. Certainly not as a UFA. I get that the "rebuild" only technically started this summer, but the team is very likely about to make their third top-5 draft selection in five years, and their 8th overall pick in one of those years is arguably a top-5 prospect in the entire league right now. Rielly, Marner, Nylander, and whoever we pick this June is a pretty solid base to build around. I would argue that all they need now is a Steven Stamkos type after that.

And it's not like the team would throw drafting and patience right out the window when they sign Stamkos. They key to a great team is drafting well even when you're not picking top-5/top-10/top-15.

Yeah, weren't Tampa bad for a number of years still with Stamkos and then got good?  I don't see why his presence would prevent the Leafs from rebuilding the rest of the team.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 09:56:47 AM
And it's not like the team would throw drafting and patience right out the window when they sign Stamkos. They key to a great team is drafting well even when you're not picking top-5/top-10/top-15.

I sure hope not, and I honestly believe the current management group is smart enough not to veer far off course should Stamkos fall in their laps, but, I totally understand why people are gun shy, as we've been burned before. The key is definitely to maximize value from picks outside the 1st round, and outside the top 5. You need to be able to find top 6 forwards and top 4 defencemen in the middle of the draft - and, ideally, find a 1st line/top pairing type there, like so many championship calibre teams have. The next two drafts (as well as this past draft) are going to be extremely important for the Leafs going forward.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 10, 2015, 10:06:27 AM
Yeah, weren't Tampa bad for a number of years still with Stamkos and then got good?  I don't see why his presence would prevent the Leafs from rebuilding the rest of the team.

Maybe, although don't get me wrong, I think replacing Nick Spaling with Steven Stamkos next season gets this team into the playoffs. I just don't really feel like that would squash the rebuild exactly. We wouldn't start immediately trading all our picks and prospects for veterans.

The only thing that changes is our draft position. And I'm fine with going from drafting say 10th overall next season (I'm on record as saying we won't be bottom-5 in 16/17) to 20th overall if it meant we were able to lock up Steven Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 10:11:02 AM
Yeah, weren't Tampa bad for a number of years still with Stamkos and then got good?  I don't see why his presence would prevent the Leafs from rebuilding the rest of the team.

Maybe, although don't get me wrong, I think replacing Nick Spaling with Steven Stamkos next season gets this team into the playoffs. I just don't really feel like that would squash the rebuild exactly. We wouldn't start immediately trading all our picks and prospects for veterans.

The only thing that changes is our draft position. And I'm fine with going from drafting say 10th overall next season (I'm on record as saying we won't be bottom-5 in 16/17) to 20th overall if it meant we were able to lock up Steven Stamkos.

Very well put Carlton, I agree completely.

People not wanting to pick up a 25-year-old star for no asset cost, in the hope that we can be bad and maybe get a star via the draft is absolutely puzzling, even when you consider the "gunshy due to the past" stuff.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 10, 2015, 10:14:12 AM
We need drafting and patience and when the team is ready for a star to get us a cup,then we go for a SS type.

You're acting like a Steven Stamkos type comes along every year. He doesn't. Certainly not as a UFA. I get that the "rebuild" only technically started this summer, but the team is very likely about to make their third top-5 draft selection in five years, and their 8th overall pick in one of those years is arguably a top-5 prospect in the entire league right now. Rielly, Marner, Nylander, and whoever we pick this June is a pretty solid base to build around. I would argue that all they need now is a Steven Stamkos type after that.

And it's not like the team would throw drafting and patience right out the window when they sign Stamkos. They key to a great team is drafting well even when you're not picking top-5/top-10/top-15.

I don't think this team will be a playoff team next year even with Steven Stamkos...I think they're still a bottom 5 team, especially since they could still turn JVR and/or Kadri into some picks.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 10:19:03 AM
People not wanting to pick up a 25-year-old star for no asset cost, in the hope that we can be bad and maybe get a star via the draft is absolutely puzzling, even when you consider the "gunshy due to the past" stuff.

Well, it's not truly 100% no asset cost, as cap space is an asset. Contract value is definitely something that has to be considered. Cap space is not necessarily an issue short-term, but it could in a few years, when guys like Rielly, Nylander and Marner are looking for new deals. I think that's a concern for a lot of people, as well. Smart management can help mitigate that to an extent, but there are factors outside of their hands. If Stamkos is looking for a contract that will come with a cap hit of ~$10M per, then that's something you probably do without too much thought, but if he's looking for something closer to $14M (near the max - which another team might very well be willing to do), I'm not sure you do.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 10:21:45 AM
I don't think this team will be a playoff team next year even with Steven Stamkos...I think they're still a bottom 5 team, especially since they could still turn JVR and/or Kadri into some picks.

Agreed. If they move out a few more significant pieces between now and next season, they're not going to be a playoff team. There's no way Kessel is the only significant piece moved out. It's really hard to judge what next year's team will be like until we see more of the big picture revealed.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 10:28:44 AM
Rielly, Marner, Nylander, and whoever we pick this June is a pretty solid base to build around.

Except they're not really. I get the idea that 4 high level prospects is "a good base to build around" but the reality is that the likelihood is that one of those guys won't turn out to be what we want them to be. We're not talking about four #1 or #2 picks here. We're talking about 4 guys picked #8, #5, #4 and wherever. As optimistic as I am about these guys individually, there's not a surefire top of the league guy among them(and the guy we know the most about, Rielly, is showing us mixed things about his ability to ever get there.)

So basically by building around the core you're suggesting you're either wagering heavily on at least one of the guys in the system to be an elite, top of the league sort of player, which the odds aren't good on, or you're expecting Stamkos to be that for the length of the deal which is also a mixed bag considering where he is right now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 10, 2015, 10:31:39 AM
I don't think this team will be a playoff team next year even with Steven Stamkos...I think they're still a bottom 5 team, especially since they could still turn JVR and/or Kadri into some picks.

Agreed. If they move out a few more significant pieces between now and next season, they're not going to be a playoff team. There's no way Kessel is the only significant piece moved out. It's really hard to judge what next year's team will be like until we see more of the big picture revealed.

They didn't trade Kessel just for the sake of trading their best player and bottoming out. They traded him because they didn't feel like he fit in the teams vision going forward. Whether that was because of his playing style, personality, or a combination of both and other factors, it doesn't really matter. But something was wrong with that relationship.

I think if they felt the same about Kadri and JVR they'd have been gone already. At worst, they weren't completely sure. But I think that their play this season has given the management a pretty good idea that they fit and are here to stay for awhile. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 10:34:45 AM
People not wanting to pick up a 25-year-old star for no asset cost, in the hope that we can be bad and maybe get a star via the draft is absolutely puzzling, even when you consider the "gunshy due to the past" stuff.

That's only if you assume that there's a strict(and short) timetable   where the Leafs have to be competitive in a year or two. Because if the actual plan is to rebuild properly it's not "be bad and maybe get a star in the draft" it's "be bad until you get a star in the draft". 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 10, 2015, 10:41:35 AM
The way scouting has been the last 10-15 years I'm far more confident in higher picks panning out.  Seems like it's to the point where high picks being "busts" is more of an exception to the rule.  Obviously the expectations will change depending on the draft year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 10:50:09 AM
They didn't trade Kessel just for the sake of trading their best player and bottoming out. They traded him because they didn't feel like he fit in the teams vision going forward. Whether that was because of his playing style, personality, or a combination of both and other factors, it doesn't really matter. But something was wrong with that relationship.

I think if they felt the same about Kadri and JVR they'd have been gone already. At worst, they weren't completely sure. But I think that their play this season has given the management a pretty good idea that they fit and are here to stay for awhile.

I'm not sure I buy that. I agree that, for a variety of reasons, there was more of a rush to move Kessel out, but I don't buy for a second that he's the only one who'll be moved. I don't think the pressure was there on JvR, and I don't think the value was there for Kadri. They weren't going to make moves for the sake of making moves or to just dump contracts. They're still going to try to maximize value for these guys. Just because they seem like a fit now, doesn't mean they'll be a fit in a year or two, and the management team is smart enough to recognize that.

But, even if Kadri and JvR aren't moved, there's still Bozak, Lupul, Phaneuf, Gardiner and Komarov who could all be traded, and the rest of the team are basically pending UFAs.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
The way scouting has been the last 10-15 years I'm far more confident in higher picks panning out.  Seems like it's to the point where high picks being "busts" is more of an exception to the rule.  Obviously the expectations will change depending on the draft year.

There's a difference, though, between players being "busts" and them not turning out quite the way you want.

For instance, here are the #5 picks in the 10 years before Morgan Rielly

Ryan Whitney, Thomas Vanek, Blake Wheeler, Carey Price, Phil Kessel, Karl Alzner, Luke Schenn, Brayden Schenn, Nino Neiderreiter, Ryan Strome

And here are the #4 picks in the ten years before Marner:

Sam Bennett, Seth Jones, Griffin Reinhart, Adam Larsson, Ryan Johanssen, Evander Kane, Alex Pietrangelo, Thomas Hickey, Nicklas Backstrom, Benoit Pouliot

So you're right. There's not much in the way of real Patrik Stefan-esque busts there. I guess you could say that four of those twenty could sort of fairly be called busts(Whitney, Luke Schenn, Hickey, Pouliot) with about the same amount of no doubt elite talents(Price, Pietrangelo, Backstrom, Kessel) and then a bunch of guys who range from good to very good to too soon to tell.

So it seems to me that what I said sort of holds up. The odds are pretty strong that at least one of the guys is going to be a good NHL player but not someone who's the cornerstone type of franchise talent. Like, if Morgan Rielly becomes as good as, say, Brent Seabrook he's not a bust by any definition but in that situation the team is almost certainly still looking around for a #1 defenseman.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 10, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
Except they're not really. I get the idea that 4 high level prospects is "a good base to build around" but the reality is that the likelihood is that one of those guys won't turn out to be what we want them to be. We're not talking about four #1 or #2 picks here. We're talking about 4 guys picked #8, #5, #4 and wherever. As optimistic as I am about these guys individually, there's not a surefire top of the league guy among them(and the guy we know the most about, Rielly, is showing us mixed things about his ability to ever get there.)

I mean, I think I'm with you here for the most part. As much as I like Rielly/Marner/Nylander, none of them are that franchise-type player that every team needs. And unless we win the lottery the 2016 draft pick won't have that attribute either. So maybe I shouldn't have said that they're a good base to build around, but that them, plus Stamkos, would be a good base to build around. And that of course leads into your next point...

So basically by building around the core you're suggesting you're either wagering heavily on at least one of the guys in the system to be an elite, top of the league sort of player, which the odds aren't good on, or you're expecting Stamkos to be that for the length of the deal which is also a mixed bag considering where he is right now.

Obviously, I've picked option number 2 here. Although I'm definitely not closing the door on one of those prospects (either Marner or Nylander) getting pretty close to joining Stamkos in that category down the line. I guess I understand the reservations about Stamkos being an elite talent, I just don't share them. I think his "struggles" (and remember, he scored 43 goals last season) are more tied to his surroundings than his talent. So yes, I'm comfortable in Stamkos being that elite/franchise player for this group for at least a good portion of his deal. I only go that far because nobody can say what a player or a team or even the league will look like 6-7 years from now. But I'd still be comfortable enough to take the Stamkos-plunge.

I suppose my biggest issue is that I don't really see how the alternative is that much better. Say we don't sign Stamkos and we have 2 more years of high-draft picks to select from. Well now we've got 6 high level prospects, decent chance that neither of the extra 2 will be franchise type players because even if we continue to be a bottom-3/5 team, which will start getting more difficult, the new lottery rules change everything. And then we would need to consider that 2 of them might not pan out how we'd like them to. I don't hate that alternative, I don't think signing Stamkos is the ONLY way for this team to contend, I'm just not convinced it's a better way.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on December 10, 2015, 11:05:18 AM
What we have to remember is that every pick by Hunter will be touched with pixie dust and all be budding superstars. ;)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
People not wanting to pick up a 25-year-old star for no asset cost, in the hope that we can be bad and maybe get a star via the draft is absolutely puzzling, even when you consider the "gunshy due to the past" stuff.

That's only if you assume that there's a strict(and short) timetable   where the Leafs have to be competitive in a year or two. Because if the actual plan is to rebuild properly it's not "be bad and maybe get a star in the draft" it's "be bad until you get a star in the draft".

Well, it's not a case of making assumptions, have you heard absolutely anything from the coach or management that make you think they would be fine "being bad" for the next, say five years?

Everything I've heard them say and everything those in the media with sources have indicated, seems to point to them expecting to be a relatively good team in short order(17-18), while still maintaining a smart draft and development strategy.

I don't think the plan was ever to nosedive ala the Oilers till you "get a star".
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 10, 2015, 11:21:45 AM
But, even if Kadri and JvR aren't moved, there's still Bozak, Lupul, Phaneuf, Gardiner and Komarov who could all be traded, and the rest of the team are basically pending UFAs.

Pending a Stamkos signing, Bozak's role as 2C would be replaced by Kadri anyway, so I don't think trading Bozak would really hurt the teams playoff chances. Lupul would be easy enough to replace, especially when you factor in a replacement could probably play a whole season. Losing Phaneuf would hurt short-term, definitely. Although it would help alleviate some of the long-term salary cap concerns I have. But even with his improved play I don't see a team biting on him so he's staying put anyway. I'd add Gardiner into the same group as Kadri and JVR. And while Komarov is an appealing trade option I think he's playing his way into being an organizational favourite that they'll likely want to hang on to as well long-term.

I do get what you're saying and where you're coming from. If the teams plans include trading most or all of Kadri, JVR, Gardiner, and Komarov for futures, that would change how I feel about Stamkos. I just don't think that's in the teams plans.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 11:23:31 AM
I mean, I think I'm with you here for the most part. As much as I like Rielly/Marner/Nylander, none of them are that franchise-type player that every team needs. And unless we win the lottery the 2016 draft pick won't have that attribute either. So maybe I shouldn't have said that they're a good base to build around, but that them, plus Stamkos, would be a good base to build around. And that of course leads into your next point...

Well, maybe to reel it in a little because like I said I am pretty optimistic about these young guys and I certainly don't want to rule out their being great either I think it's maybe fairer to say that we don't know what Rielly/Nylander/Marner/2016 guy are and I think when you're talking about guys you build around you really need to either be talking about guys you're sure about or McDavid type prospects.

Or let me use a different hypothetical. Let's say Nylander and Marner are everything we want them to be. Heck, let's say we also add Matthew Tkachuk and he's a superstar. Then you add Stamkos and he's everything he was of a few years ago and...well, you've got four superstar forwards. If Rielly ends up being more of a #2 type where do you go. Yes, you can draft elite defensemen outside of the top 5 but the odds there are you're talking 5 or 6 years before they reach that level. Trade? I'm guessing Florida would turn down any offer for Ekblad.

Right? We talk about the key to Chicago's success being their ability to draft well outside of the top five but a lot of that had to do with when they drafted well outside of the top five. They were hitting bullseyes four and five years before Toews and Kane.

If they'd drafted Duncan Keith in the second round of the 2007 draft or Corey Crawford in 2008...how many cups do they win? Those guys took the better part of a decade to become the players that Chicago ultimately needed.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 11:33:08 AM
Well, it's not a case of making assumptions, have you heard absolutely anything from the coach or management that make you think they would be fine "being bad" for the next, say five years?

Everything I've heard them say and everything those in the media with sources have indicated, seems to point to them expecting to be a relatively good team in short order(17-18), while still maintaining a smart draft and development strategy.

I don't think the plan was ever to nosedive ala the Oilers till you "get a star".

Well, two things. One, you're right, I haven't heard anyone say "The plan is to be terrible until we have the right pieces in place". What I might say in response to that is there are two other sports franchises I didn't hear that from that I think are relevant. One is the Philadelphia 76ers. They said a lot of the same stuff Babcock did about there being a "short process" and "short-term pain" and then they went out and tanked so egregiously that it looks like the NBA eventually stepped in to put a stop to it. So even if it's true, it's not something you announce.

The other team who didn't say their plan was to suck like the Oilers until they got McDavid? The Oilers. As the late, great Mike Tyson once said, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face.

The second thing, and this is a shorter point, is that I didn't say I was speaking for the team's stated goals. I'm just saying that the counterpoint to the Stamkos argument has to do with an alternate plan, not necessarily fitting into the existing plan. If, as you say, Shanahan's plan is to give it a couple of tough years and then, if the right pieces still aren't in place, he damns the torpedoes and goes full speed ahead anyway I can't really answer for that but what I think is the right course of action isn't dictated by it either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 10, 2015, 12:27:03 PM
So my plan is to tank the hell out of this year, win the lottery, draft Matthews, and sign Stamkos.

Now, for the defense....
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on December 10, 2015, 01:11:06 PM
As the late, great Mike Tyson once said, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face.

This is one of the best quotes I've ever heard.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 10, 2015, 01:36:27 PM
As the late, great Mike Tyson once said, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face.

This is one of the best quotes I've ever heard.

Mike Tyson is dead?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on December 10, 2015, 01:38:28 PM
As the late, great Mike Tyson once said, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face.

This is one of the best quotes I've ever heard.

Mike Tyson is dead?

Well just Mike Tyson the rapist not you know the self effacing Mike Tyson that shows up in movies and cartoons he's alive and well.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 01:42:15 PM
Mike Tyson is dead?

No. He's not particularly great either. I was being ironical.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 10, 2015, 01:46:39 PM
Mike Tyson is dead?

No. He's not particularly great either. I was being ironical.

OK.  The quote IS great, though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Jolly good show chaps on December 10, 2015, 02:26:59 PM
Stamkos signs a 4 year deal with the Leafs, claims it's a dream to wear the blue and white.

Stamkos then requests a trade to help the Leafs stockpile more picks and young talent, with the personal objective of coming back four years later when the prospect pool has matured into bona fide NHLers/stars.

Can't/won't happen but would be nice!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 03:08:02 PM
Mike Tyson is dead?

No. He's not particularly great either. I was being ironical.

From 85 to 89 he absolutely was great, probably the greatest..
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 03:13:34 PM
From 85 to 89 he absolutely was great, probably the greatest..

I think he sort of made his bones demolishing what was a pretty thin heavyweight division. Who was the best fighter he ever beat? A past his prime Larry Holmes? Michael Spinks?

That's really neither here nor there, I suppose I meant that he is not someone I would describe as a great figure or person even if he was a champion boxer.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
From 85 to 89 he absolutely was great, probably the greatest..

I think he sort of made his bones demolishing what was a pretty thin heavyweight division. Who was the best fighter he ever beat? A past his prime Larry Holmes? Michael Spinks?

That's really neither here nor there, I suppose I meant that he is not someone I would describe as a great figure or person even if he was a champion boxer.

I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 03:29:35 PM
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on December 10, 2015, 03:37:13 PM
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic

I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 10, 2015, 03:45:55 PM

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic

Not at all.  Rumor has it that Leafs have been thinking about signing Tyson to replace Clune.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 10, 2015, 03:52:54 PM
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic

I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.

I don't think I'd argue with any of this. That was more were I was going with my from 85-89 comment.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 10, 2015, 03:56:57 PM
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic

Has Tyson been totally accidentally liking Leafy tweets lately too?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 03:59:21 PM
I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.

I'm a little confused by your second sentence. Are you saying that most elite boxers could have beaten Ali or that most elite boxers think Tyson could have beaten Alu?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 04:05:29 PM
I'm not a boxing fan or anything, so I can't speak for the technical side of things, but from a pure power perspective, Tyson is generally cited as the hardest punching boxer in the history of the sport.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 10, 2015, 04:07:56 PM
Stamkos is coming to Toronto!



For the game next Tuesday.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 10, 2015, 04:17:51 PM
Leafs Lunch: Stamkos or Nugent-Hopkins?
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-s-better-for-the-leafs-stamkos-or-rnh~767240

Siegel would take RNH (22 yr old) @ $6M until 2020-21 in a trade over UFA Stamkos (25 yr old) as the expected 10.5-11ishM for 7 years because of the rebuild timeline of the Leafs and cap considerations with Nylander, Marner, Rielly likely pulling in big money.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on December 10, 2015, 04:28:56 PM
I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.

I'm a little confused by your second sentence. Are you saying that most elite boxers could have beaten Ali or that most elite boxers think Tyson could have beaten Alu?

More along the lines that most elite boxers could get lucky and land that one punch that could knock Ali down...not that they would win a majority of fights.  I think just given Tyson's quickness and the force behind his punches that he would be more likely than most to knock Ali out if given the chance. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 10, 2015, 04:40:07 PM
Leafs Lunch: Stamkos or Nugent-Hopkins?
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-s-better-for-the-leafs-stamkos-or-rnh~767240

Siegel would take RNH (22 yr old) @ $6M until 2020-21 in a trade over UFA Stamkos (25 yr old) as the expected 10.5-11ishM for 7 years because of the rebuild timeline of the Leafs and cap considerations with Nylander, Marner, Rielly likely pulling in big money.

I'm a thousand percent more confident that one of the prospects already have will be able to roughly replicate what RNH can do than I am the same with Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 10, 2015, 04:43:07 PM
Leafs Lunch: Stamkos or Nugent-Hopkins?
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-s-better-for-the-leafs-stamkos-or-rnh~767240

Siegel would take RNH (22 yr old) @ $6M until 2020-21 in a trade over UFA Stamkos (25 yr old) as the expected 10.5-11ishM for 7 years because of the rebuild timeline of the Leafs and cap considerations with Nylander, Marner, Rielly likely pulling in big money.

I'm a thousand percent more confident that one of the prospects already have will be able to roughly replicate what RNH can do than I am the same with Stamkos.

I agree with that.

Is Stamkos @ 29 worth 5M more than RNH @ 26?
Trading for RNH also frees up additional cap space if Gardiner or Phaneuf (pls pls pls) is sent over.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on December 10, 2015, 04:51:45 PM
Leafs Lunch: Stamkos or Nugent-Hopkins?
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/who-s-better-for-the-leafs-stamkos-or-rnh~767240

Siegel would take RNH (22 yr old) @ $6M until 2020-21 in a trade over UFA Stamkos (25 yr old) as the expected 10.5-11ishM for 7 years because of the rebuild timeline of the Leafs and cap considerations with Nylander, Marner, Rielly likely pulling in big money.

Given that Edmonton desperately needs defense,  wouldn't the starting point for RNH essentially be Rielly in any trade discussions?  Not sure that a free Stamkos is worth less than trading for an expensive RNH.

I'm a thousand percent more confident that one of the prospects already have will be able to roughly replicate what RNH can do than I am the same with Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 05:45:27 PM
Is Stamkos @ 29 worth 5M more than RNH @ 26?
Trading for RNH also frees up additional cap space if Gardiner or Phaneuf (pls pls pls) is sent over.

To answer your question, yes, almost certainly. Also, outside of the extremely remote chance that Edmonton would move RNH straight up for Phaneuf, any trade would have to include at least one piece that the Leafs value as being a significant part of the rebuild - which, to me, makes it a no brainer. Of the two options, signing Stamkos is the far superior one.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 10, 2015, 05:49:23 PM
I'm a thousand percent more confident that one of the prospects already have will be able to roughly replicate what RNH can do than I am the same with Stamkos.

I'm pretty confident in saying that if RNH, Nylander and Marner were part of the same draft class, RNH goes 3rd overall.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: azzurri63 on December 10, 2015, 07:28:08 PM
Here's my position on Stamkos or RNH. Personally I didn't like the Oilers taking Ryan first overall as I think they would have been better off taking a defensemen. Larsson hasn't lit the league on fire but he's solid and the Oilers were lacking any D. He also struck me as being fragile. If I had to trade for either then obviously it would depend on who the Leafs would have to give up. Reilly, Marner and Nylander are untouchables as far as I'm concerned. To me it makes more sense for the Leafs to let the season ride out and grab Stamkos for nothing but cash. If they can swindle a deal for RNH involving other Leafs than the 3 I mentioned I would do that to. Reason I disagree with Jonas is this. I have been impressed for the most part at how the Leafs have played this season. To be honest I think they could have a couple more wins if we didn't have trouble scoring at the beginning of the year to go along with poor net minding. I don't think the Leafs are 5 years away. With a signing like Stammer, a good trade or two and another solid pick this year think they could look good in 2-3 years. Look at how Babcock has them playing with a few holes and weaknesses. The guy can coach with a few more additions as in Nylander, Marner and a huge signing like Stamkos for nothing in return would go a long way to making us a very competitive team. That's how I look at it. So for me Stamkos is the way to go because he comes cheap other than salary.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 10, 2015, 09:30:29 PM
Mike Tyson is dead?


No, rather, it's Steven Stamkos who's dying to be a Leaf.  :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on December 11, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Wow, the hype machine on fire. What, we have like, 5 days to go? Easy....
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Arn on December 11, 2015, 08:50:12 AM
I would absolutely pick up Stamkos as a free agent if it were a possibility. I more than likely wouldn't trade for him unless it was a very lopsided trade in the Leafs favour.

For those talking about the risk of him not being as elite as he has perhaps shown in the past, or pushing us up the standings next year thus lowering the draft pick, surely there's as much risk that our draft picks this year and next year turn out to be useless anyway?

In all seriousness though, a core of Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Stamkos and this year's probably top 3 pick

With a next level of Gardiner, Komarov, JVR, Sparks, Brown, Kapanen etc

Added to the Babcock effect and Toronto becoming a potentially positive destination I think we're better placed than we maybe thought we were a year ago.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zee on December 11, 2015, 09:20:25 AM
I would absolutely pick up Stamkos as a free agent if it were a possibility. I more than likely wouldn't trade for him unless it was a very lopsided trade in the Leafs favour.


This.  The Leafs aren't in a position that adding a Stamkos makes them a contender.  If he's a UFA and they sign him I'm all good.  He's still only 26 next July, so not like he's over the hill by any stretch.  I wouldn't make a trade for him though, keep all the assets you have.  If there's an opportunity to add Stamkos for only money, go for it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 11, 2015, 09:27:34 AM
Just here to feed the hype: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/12/10/9886594/can-the-leafs-afford-steven-stamkos

After a great deal of speculation and theoretical GMing:
Quote
The Leafs probably have the available capacity to sign Stamkos to a huge contract but doing so is going to mean competing for the cup with a very young team as there won't be much available cap space for free agents.

If Nylander and Marner both earn big dollars in their first RFA period, there could be $25M committed to them plus Stamkos meaning depth players will need to be on entry level contracts or near league minimum (assuming some other prospects like Brown, Johnson, Bracco, Timashov turn into decent players). We'll be into Chicago Blackhawks territory cap-wise so hopefully three Stanley Cups come with it.

It will be tough to keep Kadri and Gardiner long term and moving Phaneuf could be the saving grace. It's also interesting though that the cap crunch probably won't come for several years down the road, giving the Leafs plenty of time to figure out how to navigate the waters.

If we move 2 of Kadri/Gardiner/JvR at this upcoming deadline, then Stamkos is even more of a no-brainer acquisition. I think JvR goes for sure, what with his NMC kicking in next year, and his peak years lining up against our rebuild years. I think Gardiner has the highest chance of staying as he plays a position we don't have much beyond Rielly and potentially Dermott. Kadri will have a crazy thread devoted to his contract conversation near the deadline and draft if he makes it that far.

Moving Bozak/Lupul/Phaneuf would be coups even with very modest returns coming back. We can eat shorter term higher cap hits this year easily.

I think Pridham can make it work. I don't think Stamkos will even be allowed to entertain a hometown discount possibility, as like David Price, the Players Association will be pressuring him to set the market.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 11, 2015, 12:30:55 PM
Just here to feed the hype: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/12/10/9886594/can-the-leafs-afford-steven-stamkos

After a great deal of speculation and theoretical GMing:
Quote
The Leafs probably have the available capacity to sign Stamkos to a huge contract but doing so is going to mean competing for the cup with a very young team as there won't be much available cap space for free agents.

If Nylander and Marner both earn big dollars in their first RFA period, there could be $25M committed to them plus Stamkos meaning depth players will need to be on entry level contracts or near league minimum (assuming some other prospects like Brown, Johnson, Bracco, Timashov turn into decent players). We'll be into Chicago Blackhawks territory cap-wise so hopefully three Stanley Cups come with it.

It will be tough to keep Kadri and Gardiner long term and moving Phaneuf could be the saving grace. It's also interesting though that the cap crunch probably won't come for several years down the road, giving the Leafs plenty of time to figure out how to navigate the waters.

If we move 2 of Kadri/Gardiner/JvR at this upcoming deadline, then Stamkos is even more of a no-brainer acquisition. I think JvR goes for sure, what with his NMC kicking in next year, and his peak years lining up against our rebuild years. I think Gardiner has the highest chance of staying as he plays a position we don't have much beyond Rielly and potentially Dermott. Kadri will have a crazy thread devoted to his contract conversation near the deadline and draft if he makes it that far.

Moving Bozak/Lupul/Phaneuf would be coups even with very modest returns coming back. We can eat shorter term higher cap hits this year easily.

I think Pridham can make it work. I don't think Stamkos will even be allowed to entertain a hometown discount possibility, as like David Price, the Players Association will be pressuring him to set the market.

I have a few issues with this article, not the least of which is the fact the he's saying that the Leafs will have Kadri at $6mil (!), Nylander at $7.5mil, and Marner playing his way to a $7.5mil contract...all in 2018.

Also, as far as the PA pressure, Crosby signs a $8.7m deal (forever, mind you), so I don't think they have anything to say to Stamkos signing for $9m X 7.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 11, 2015, 12:51:20 PM
Also, as far as the PA pressure, Crosby signs a $8.7m deal (forever, mind you), so I don't think they have anything to say to Stamkos signing for $9m X 7.

You can't just gloss over the difference between signing the 104 million dollar deal Crosby did and the 63 million dollar deal you'd be talking about. When there was unlimited term players seemed to generally be willing to sacrifice on AAV if it got them the upfront payments they wanted. Now that the only thing to be negotiated is AAV, the PA is going to look at contracts differently.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 11, 2015, 12:55:30 PM
The first 8 years of Sid's deal is for an average of $10.8mil.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 11, 2015, 01:20:05 PM
Also, as far as the PA pressure, Crosby signs a $8.7m deal (forever, mind you), so I don't think they have anything to say to Stamkos signing for $9m X 7.

You can't just gloss over the difference between signing the 104 million dollar deal Crosby did and the 63 million dollar deal you'd be talking about. When there was unlimited term players seemed to generally be willing to sacrifice on AAV if it got them the upfront payments they wanted. Now that the only thing to be negotiated is AAV, the PA is going to look at contracts differently.

The players get 50% of revenues, so really the PA shouldn't give a damn about how that's split up.

If Stamkos caliber players started setting term precedents of 3 or 4 years, then sure, I could see the PA wanting them to go for more term.  The PA is probably a lot more focused on these 1 yr. deals for established NHLers that seem to be becoming more common.   The amount of AAV that any of these guys get is irrelevant to the PA because the total amount remains fixed.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 11, 2015, 01:35:17 PM
The players get 50% of revenues, so really the PA shouldn't give a damn about how that's split up.

If Stamkos caliber players started setting term precedents of 3 or 4 years, then sure, I could see the PA wanting them to go for more term.  The PA is probably a lot more focused on these 1 yr. deals for established NHLers that seem to be becoming more common.   The amount of AAV that any of these guys get is irrelevant to the PA because the total amount remains fixed.

OK, but that's a separate issue. We could talk at length about whether or not the PA should be more interested in the guys who are going to be 20 year members as opposed to the AHL yo-yo guys or long-term PA strategies but that's not the same thing as saying that they won't care about AAV's because of how they compare to deals signed under the old CBA.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on December 13, 2015, 08:30:43 AM
This story is about to get cranked up to the max in the next few days with Stamkos and the Lightning coming to town. I wonder if he'll shed any light on what his actual plans are.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: KadriFan on December 13, 2015, 09:06:10 AM
Wouldn't sign him for long term if he wants a no trade clause.   Sick of those kind of deals.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on December 13, 2015, 10:24:15 AM

This story is about to get cranked up to the max in the next few days with Stamkos and the Lightning coming to town. I wonder if he'll shed any light on what his actual plans are.

I think it's very safe to say that the answer there is No.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 13, 2015, 11:01:52 AM

This story is about to get cranked up to the max in the next few days with Stamkos and the Lightning coming to town. I wonder if he'll shed any light on what his actual plans are.

I think it's very safe to say that the answer there is No.

After the game:

"Alright thanks guys, I'll see ya'll in July! I mean, uh, forget I said that!"
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bates on December 13, 2015, 01:02:06 PM
As a big fan of BS please let this happen. 

This story is about to get cranked up to the max in the next few days with Stamkos and the Lightning coming to town. I wonder if he'll shed any light on what his actual plans are.

I think it's very safe to say that the answer there is No.

After the game:

"Alright thanks guys, I'll see ya'll in July! I mean, uh, forget I said that!"
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 13, 2015, 01:56:27 PM
Wouldn't sign him for long term if he wants a no trade clause.   Sick of those kind of deals.

Of all the reasons not to sign Stamkos, a no trade/no movement clause isn't even on the list.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 13, 2015, 02:00:46 PM

Yeah, it's fair enough to not like NTC/NMC's but if you're going to rule out signing any contracts with them you're not only ruling yourself out of signing any major free agents you're going to put a serious roadblock up in your efforts to retain your own as well.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on December 13, 2015, 03:20:08 PM
Another embarrassing computer leak from Stamkos:
(http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx210/ldnknights/Stamkos%20Internet%20History.png)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 13, 2015, 09:33:07 PM
So James Mirtle kinda dropped a bomb in his article on Stamkos today:

Quote from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/why-steven-stamkos-will-likely-bolt-from-the-tampa-bay-lightning/article27741879/
At best, Stamkos simply disagrees with Lightning head coach Jon Cooper about being played on the wing instead of centre, a controversial switch during last year’s playoffs that is being attempted again this season.

At worst? Stamkos and the coach have an active dislike for one another. In fact, some say they rarely talk to one another – and that that’s not a unique situation in Tampa.

...

It is widely believed that Yzerman already investigated trading Stamkos before the no-movement clause kicked in. Prior to the draft, the Lightning were in discussions with the Buffalo Sabres about a potential deal for the second-overall pick, which they eventually used to take Jack Eichel.

Depending on who you believe – and we’re dealing with a rumour mill gone absolutely wild right now – those discussions were either very preliminary or somewhat advanced.

Those who argue they were advanced say that it was Stamkos who nixed the deal, because one condition the Sabres put on the blockbuster trade was that they had to be able to sign him to an extension.

Stamkos for Eichel? That would have been huge (again, if the rumour is to be believed).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 13, 2015, 10:45:29 PM
Stamkos for Eichel? That would have been huge (again, if the rumour is to be believed).

I sort of think it's undeniable that Stamkos not being signed yet is a clear sign that, at the very least, something is up. A lot of people shrugged off the idea of Babcock leaving Detroit but if you're as sought after as Babcock was/Stamkos will be and the team with exclusive negotiating rights can't get anything done in months it's not because they haven't tried.

So either it's pretty fair to say that they're really far apart on money or Stamkos has more or less made up his mind to move on. Frankly, neither would surprise me.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 13, 2015, 11:24:29 PM
I sort of think it's undeniable that Stamkos not being signed yet is a clear sign that, at the very least, something is up. A lot of people shrugged off the idea of Babcock leaving Detroit but if you're as sought after as Babcock was/Stamkos will be and the team with exclusive negotiating rights can't get anything done in months it's not because they haven't tried.

So either it's pretty fair to say that they're really far apart on money or Stamkos has more or less made up his mind to move on. Frankly, neither would surprise me.

I'm not sure if he's signing with Toronto, but I'm definitely starting to think that Stamkos won't be playing in Tampa Bay next season. That's basically how I felt about Babcock's situation this time last year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 14, 2015, 09:16:46 AM
With the season they're having, I imagine the Lightning would happily choose to move on from Cooper if it meant retaining Stamkos. If they miss the playoffs, they might just lean towards letting him go any way - especially if they feel the major drop-off in performance is related to conflicts between the coach and his best player(s).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 14, 2015, 09:24:29 AM
With the season they're having, I imagine the Lightning would happily choose to move on from Cooper if it meant retaining Stamkos. If they miss the playoffs, they might just lean towards letting him go any way - especially if they feel the major drop-off in performance is related to conflicts between the coach and his best player(s).

Maybe the extension was to try to force the 2 to get along, and eating that is cheaper than losing Stamkos?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 14, 2015, 09:36:33 AM
Maybe the extension was to try to force the 2 to get along, and eating that is cheaper than losing Stamkos?

As far as I'm concerned, eating woudl definitely be better for the team than losing Stamkos. I also feel like the article implied that Stamkos isn't the only player on the team that has a poor relationship with Cooper (or, at least, that communication between Cooper and his players leaves something to be desired). As a GM, that, combined with how many players are having poor seasons, would raise some significant red flags about going forward with Cooper as my head coach.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 14, 2015, 09:38:05 AM
Does anyone have a read on Tampa's situation?

I'm seeing injuries to key players being the primary cause.
Is deployment an issue outside of Stamkos' purported surliness about winging it?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 14, 2015, 11:25:02 AM
With the season they're having, I imagine the Lightning would happily choose to move on from Cooper if it meant retaining Stamkos. If they miss the playoffs, they might just lean towards letting him go any way - especially if they feel the major drop-off in performance is related to conflicts between the coach and his best player(s).

I really doubt that if they felt that way they'd have extended him a few weeks ago. You can say what you want about eating the cost but there are just the optics of what that says to Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 14, 2015, 11:33:42 AM
I really doubt that if they felt that way they'd have extended him a few weeks ago. You can say what you want about eating the cost but there are just the optics of what that says to Stamkos.

Maybe, but, things can change quickly in the sports world. If the team doesn't right itself, that extension won't be worth anything. I get that the optics aren't great for Stamkos, but, at the same time, I'm sure he's seen enough of what happens to coaches to understand that it doesn't mean all that much in the big picture.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 14, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Maybe, but, things can change quickly in the sports world. If the team doesn't right itself, that extension won't be worth anything. I get that the optics aren't great for Stamkos, but, at the same time, I'm sure he's seen enough of what happens to coaches to understand that it doesn't mean all that much in the big picture.

Except I'm looking at it more from Tampa's perspective. You know you're in a difficult negotiation with Stamkos, you know (apparently) that Stamkos doesn't like Cooper and you're not overly thrilled with the results the team's gotten...why extend him? Even if you're ultimately prepared to eat it, it strikes me as drilling holes in the boat because, heck, you've got life rafts.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 14, 2015, 11:49:59 AM
Except I'm looking at it more from Tampa's perspective. You know you're in a difficult negotiation with Stamkos, you know (apparently) that Stamkos doesn't like Cooper and you're not overly thrilled with the results the team's gotten...why extend him? Even if you're ultimately prepared to eat it, it strikes me as drilling holes in the boat because, heck, you've got life rafts.

It is, admittedly, curious, but there also does seem to be a trend that has seen teams try to get away from the whole "lame duck" situation with their coaches, regardless of their intentions with them going forward. Though, the fact that it was a multi-year extension throws a bit of a wrench into that - though, the Leafs did the same with Carlyle, with the whole hockey world knowing that he was unlikely to last through the final season of his existing deal.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 14, 2015, 11:54:33 AM
It is, admittedly, curious, but there also does seem to be a trend that has seen teams try to get away from the whole "lame duck" situation with their coaches, regardless of their intentions with them going forward. Though, the fact that it was a multi-year extension throws a bit of a wrench into that - though, the Leafs did the same with Carlyle, with the whole hockey world knowing that he was unlikely to last through the final season of his existing deal.

The trend you're talking about makes a fair bit of sense though in just about every situation but this one.

Anyways, the Cooper extension is just one piece of this. I just think that if Stamkos coming back was likely he'd have signed by now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on December 14, 2015, 12:03:39 PM
When Babs refers to SS as Stammer I think you see the affection for him
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 14, 2015, 12:04:26 PM
Anyways, the Cooper extension is just one piece of this. I just think that if Stamkos coming back was likely he'd have signed by now.

There's some truth there. I get the impression Stamkos is unsure about whether or not he wants to remain in TBay. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on December 14, 2015, 12:22:39 PM
I have attended a lot of Loaf games in the Bay same as with the Yotes in AZ and it must be hard to play for the teams when the majority of fans in the stadium are from the comptitors home town.  A lot more Leaf jerseys than TB shirts.  Same as when the Leafs play at Glendale.
I think SS is ready to step into the real spotlight and play at home.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on December 15, 2015, 06:09:04 AM
I have attended a lot of Loaf games in the Bay same as with the Yotes in AZ and it must be hard to play for the teams when the majority of fans in the stadium are from the comptitors home town.  A lot more Leaf jerseys than TB shirts.  Same as when the Leafs play at Glendale.
I think SS is ready to step into the real spotlight and play at home.


Everytime  the Leafs have played in South Florida, it might as well be a 'home'  game for them.  Stamkos certainly has taken note of this over time.  It hasn't escaped him.  Merely adds to his contemplation.

Would be nice to have him in a Leafs uni.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 15, 2015, 10:06:15 AM
Steven StamkosGPGAPtsCoachWLOT
2008-0979232346Melrose/Tocchet244018
2009-1082514495Tocchet343612
2010-1182454691Tocchet/Boucher462511
2011-1282603797Boucher38368
2012-1348292857Boucher/Cooper18264
2013-1437251540Cooper46279
2014-1582432972Cooper50248

Was there an ulterior motive to our pursuit of Guy Boucher prior to the signing of Mike Babcock?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on December 15, 2015, 04:23:17 PM
[youtube]kfXJqBKhAzI[/youtube]
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 16, 2015, 02:27:23 PM


Quote
Bob McKenzie: All signs point to Stamkos leaving

If there is one take-away for me from a week or so of Stammerama in the self-proclaimed Centre of the Hockey Universe, it is as follows:

Steven Stamkos won't be playing for the Tampa Bay Lightning next season.

I can't say that ‎unequivocally, with 100 per cent, dead-set certainty, because, you know, never say never, there's always a chance, blah blah blah...

But c'mon, if Stamkos and the Bolts were going to live happily ever after they'd be at least a little cozied up by now, sort of like where it currently stands with Anze Kopitar and the Los Angeles Kings.

Stamkos and the Lightning aren't even holding hands.  ‎Absent a lightning bolt out of the blue, they're not going to either.

http://www.tsn.ca/all-signs-point-to-stamkos-leaving-tampa-1.410192

EDIT: Good point by CtB, I've added the author's name.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 16, 2015, 02:32:48 PM
Quote
If there is one take-away for me from a week or so of Stammerama in the self-proclaimed Centre of the Hockey Universe, it is as follows:

Steven Stamkos won't be playing for the Tampa Bay Lightning next season.

For the just-read-the-quote-don't-click-the-headline crowd, that's Bob McKenzie saying that.

Interesting that he brings up Detroit as a possible landing-spot, I could actually see a fit there if they can clear up some cap space.

You know, assuming the Leafs win the lottery and aren't interested.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 16, 2015, 02:38:54 PM
Stamkos looked so uninterested out there last night.

This is only from limited viewing, but he does not appear to be the go-to-guy on his line anymore. Even on the PP, the triggerman is Kucherov.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 16, 2015, 02:42:10 PM
Even on the PP, the triggerman is Kucherov.

I actually noticed that too but forgot to bring it up. It was especially noticeable on the extended 5-on-3, I think they really only set him up for a single shot there. With that said, their powerplay also went 0-3 and didn't look very good. So they might want to re-think that strategy.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 16, 2015, 02:46:45 PM
Even on the PP, the triggerman is Kucherov.

I actually noticed that too but forgot to bring it up. It was especially noticeable on the extended 5-on-3, I think they really only set him up for a single shot there. With that said, their powerplay also went 0-3 and didn't look very good. So they might want to re-think that strategy.

I was a bit surprised by that during the game (not that Kucherov is a slouch). It could be that our PK was pretty dialed into obstructing Stamkos' shot and thus he resorted to being the playmaker, but Tampa opted for less movement and more quick releases once the puck got even close to Kucherov.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 16, 2015, 03:18:01 PM
What if Tampa is already moving on from Stamkos?   It looks like they're trying to develop a top line centre while Johnson is out, having someone else be the "go-to" on the PP, and basically inserting him wherever they have an opening in the top 6 while preparing for life without him.

That could be why Cooper and him aren't getting along, and why they're using him a little all over the place.  They don't really care to make him the focus of the offense, outside of trying to win hockey games, and are just treating him like a rental. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 16, 2015, 03:21:04 PM
What if Tampa is already moving on from Stamkos?   It looks like they're trying to develop a top line centre while Johnson is out, having someone else be the "go-to" on the PP, and basically inserting him wherever they have an opening in the top 6 while preparing for life without him.

That could be why Cooper and him aren't getting along, and why they're using him a little all over the place.  They don't really care to make him the focus of the offense, outside of trying to win hockey games, and are just treating him like a rental.

That's certainly possible. It does seem to be a weird thing to do with one of the game's best goal scorers while your team is having trouble scoring goals though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on December 16, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
If Stamkos does make it to free agency the furor around these parts are going to go to epic proportions. Bring it on I say.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Arn on December 17, 2015, 08:03:18 AM
This kind of reminds me of the will he won't be with Babcock last year. I was sceptical that would work out and therefore am going to be sceptical this will work out for the same reasons.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 20, 2015, 11:50:54 PM
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/lightning/stamkos-i-want-to-stay-with-lightning/2258457

Quote

There's a sense among some in the hockey world that Stamkos has already decided he's as good as gone.

"Absolutely not," Stamkos said. "Not even close. That's why people say, 'I've got a feeling. I think, speculate, there's so much information out there that's probably false. Like the ones about my parents moving to Tampa (which Stamkos said is not true). That just comes with the territory."

No one is surprised that Simmons is called out for yet another falsehood.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 21, 2015, 09:11:59 AM
Doesn't surprise me at all that Simmons is making stuff up, but, at the same time, until he puts pen to paper, the whole "I want to stay with Tampa" stuff from Stamkos is the same kind of meaningless platitude just about every player spouts when they're in the least year of their contract.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 21, 2015, 09:25:39 AM
Doesn't surprise me at all that Simmons is making stuff up, but, at the same time, until he puts pen to paper, the whole "I want to stay with Tampa" stuff from Stamkos is the same kind of meaningless platitude just about every player spouts when they're in the least year of their contract.

For sure. It sounds like everyone who has ever gone to UFA.

Stamkos heating back up:
Invalid Tweet ID
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on December 21, 2015, 02:16:19 PM
Doesn't surprise me at all that Simmons is making stuff up, but, at the same time, until he puts pen to paper, the whole "I want to stay with Tampa" stuff from Stamkos is the same kind of meaningless platitude just about every player spouts when they're in the least year of their contract.

Say what you want about Simmons but McKenzie doesn't seem to be the sort to just make stuff up.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on December 21, 2015, 02:20:13 PM
Say what you want about Simmons but McKenzie doesn't seem to be the sort to just make stuff up.

He's not, but, at the same time, I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time he got inaccurate information from a trusted source. It happens to the best.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on December 21, 2015, 02:32:58 PM
Say what you want about Simmons but McKenzie doesn't seem to be the sort to just make stuff up.

He's not, but, at the same time, I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time he got inaccurate information from a trusted source. It happens to the best.

What's this in reference to? 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on December 21, 2015, 02:36:31 PM
The thing that Simmons completely made up was his report that Stamkos' parents had moved to the Tampa Bay area. And that's what Stamkos refuted. Simmons was actually suggesting that that meant Stamkos was staying put.

Him telling the media that he wants to stay really doesn't change anything else that's been reported out there.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on December 21, 2015, 03:16:02 PM
I imagine Tampa releasing a video of Stamkos sitting in a chair with cue cards just off camera and a man holding a gun off to his side: "I want to stay in Tampa.  I love it here.  I love the fans.  Smile reassuringly..er.."
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on December 21, 2015, 03:17:56 PM
The thing that Simmons completely made up was his report that Stamkos' parents had moved to the Tampa Bay area. And that's what Stamkos refuted. Simmons was actually suggesting that that meant Stamkos was staying put.

Him telling the media that he wants to stay really doesn't change anything else that's been reported out there.

Rather than a correction, I fully expect a 'Stamkos' parents have moved back to Toronto' story from Simmons tomorrow.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on December 21, 2015, 03:21:34 PM
Say what you want about Simmons but McKenzie doesn't seem to be the sort to just make stuff up.

He's not, but, at the same time, I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time he got inaccurate information from a trusted source. It happens to the best.

Simmons claimed his hot dog story was a miscommunication. I get that it happens. And as a columnist, he probably doesn't need more than one 'source' to publish something.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on December 21, 2015, 08:27:31 PM


“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”  sounds about right


― Edgar Allan Poe
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 09, 2016, 02:27:10 PM
Little obvious guys...

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: caveman on February 09, 2016, 02:58:43 PM
did Stamkos " like " the Phaneuf trade ??   ::)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on February 10, 2016, 11:23:05 AM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 
If you have ever been to a game in T.B (which is very similar to AZ), you will notice more opposition sweaters in the rink than home fans. So the times I saw the Leafs there it was a sea of white and Blue.
What would you think if you were SS and had earned the right to "come home".
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 10, 2016, 11:27:39 AM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 

If he's making $10M per for the Leafs, why would he bother living in Markham? He won't moving back in with his parents! He'll be living in the city, like everyone else who grew up in the suburbs and can afford to live on their own!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: louisstamos on February 10, 2016, 11:32:52 AM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 

If he's making $10M per for the Leafs, why would he bother living in Markham? He won't moving back in with his parents! He'll be living in the city, like everyone else who grew up in the suburbs and can afford to live on their own!

Maybe he wants to live really close to Tom's Burgers.


(...does Tom's Burgers still exist in Markham?  Highway 7, across from the Bowling Alley?)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 10, 2016, 11:39:57 AM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 

If he's making $10M per for the Leafs, why would he bother living in Markham? He won't moving back in with his parents! He'll be living in the city, like everyone else who grew up in the suburbs and can afford to live on their own!

Pardon me sir, but is that a shot at us suburbanites?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 10, 2016, 11:46:02 AM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 

If he's making $10M per for the Leafs, why would he bother living in Markham? He won't moving back in with his parents! He'll be living in the city, like everyone else who grew up in the suburbs and can afford to live on their own!

Pardon me sir, but is that a shot at us suburbanites?

As a recovering suburbanite, I believe I have the right to take such shots.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on February 10, 2016, 11:49:52 AM
Hell he can live on Toronto island or Mississauga for all I care.  He is probably ready to get some family started so may choose Markam for sentimental reasons.  Come home Steve :'(
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 10, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
He will be making 10 million a year playing for his childhood favourite, living out his young dream, Captain of the Buds, and resting his head in Markham most nights. 

If he's making $10M per for the Leafs, why would he bother living in Markham? He won't moving back in with his parents! He'll be living in the city, like everyone else who grew up in the suburbs and can afford to live on their own!

Listen, the guy doesn't want to sit in traffic when he drives home to cut his mom's lawn on the weekend.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 10, 2016, 02:12:10 PM
Listen, the guy doesn't want to sit in traffic when he drives home to cut his mom's lawn on the weekend.

Traffic? If I was making $10mil I'd be commuting via helicopter every day.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 10, 2016, 02:38:05 PM
Listen, the guy doesn't want to sit in traffic when he drives home to cut his mom's lawn on the weekend.

With the kind of money he'll be making, he could pay to have the entire street's lawns mowed without even feeling it!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on February 10, 2016, 03:25:32 PM
Maybe he wants to live really close to Tom's Burgers.

(...does Tom's Burgers still exist in Markham?  Highway 7, across from the Bowling Alley?)

It does.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on February 10, 2016, 08:37:26 PM
The only problem is 10 million is only 6 mill in Canada. That is not enough to clean Kevin O'Learys car.
Or Shark Tank!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 10, 2016, 09:21:10 PM
The only problem is 10 million is only 6 mill in Canada. That is not enough to clean Kevin O'Learys car.
Or Shark Tank!

He gets paid in US dollars, so it'd actually be more in CAD.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on February 11, 2016, 10:25:13 AM
I see :o
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 12, 2016, 09:18:55 PM
Well, the one reason the Leafs might arguably consider trading for Stamkos' rights would be that, in that position, they could offer Stamkos an 8-year deal prior to July 1, and the most he could get from other teams is 7 years.  Them having his rights prior to July 1 is a negotiating advantage with him as well as an advantage for him if he wants to come here anyway and/or wants an 8-year deal.

I believe that the new CBA closed that option and if Stamkos (or any pending UFA) isn't traded by the TDL or March 1st then 7 years is the max.

I am not sure the details and if I have any of that correct.  I just remember hearing something along those lines. Someone else here might be able to verify or refute it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 12, 2016, 09:35:13 PM
Well, the one reason the Leafs might arguably consider trading for Stamkos' rights would be that, in that position, they could offer Stamkos an 8-year deal prior to July 1, and the most he could get from other teams is 7 years.  Them having his rights prior to July 1 is a negotiating advantage with him as well as an advantage for him if he wants to come here anyway and/or wants an 8-year deal.

I believe that the new CBA closed that option and if Stamkos (or any pending UFA) isn't traded by the TDL or March 1st then 7 years is the max.

I am not sure the details and if I have any of that correct.  I just remember hearing something along those lines. Someone else here might be able to verify or refute it.

The new CBA didn't close that option, it introduced it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2016, 01:49:34 AM
Does anyone think that perhaps going after Stamkos isn't a good idea? He might be in his 30s by the time we even start competing.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: AvroArrow on February 13, 2016, 06:16:47 AM
Does anyone think that perhaps going after Stamkos isn't a good idea? He might be in his 30s by the time we even start competing.

I think it depends on how long they think they need to be bad.  If they expect to be bad for another 3-5 years, Stamkos makes much less sense as we'll eat up his prime years.  If they expect to be bad for only another year, then Stamkos helps them turn around faster.

My suspicion is the latter.  There's rumours of pressure from execs to turn around faster.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 13, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
Well, the one reason the Leafs might arguably consider trading for Stamkos' rights would be that, in that position, they could offer Stamkos an 8-year deal prior to July 1, and the most he could get from other teams is 7 years.  Them having his rights prior to July 1 is a negotiating advantage with him as well as an advantage for him if he wants to come here anyway and/or wants an 8-year deal.

I believe that the new CBA closed that option and if Stamkos (or any pending UFA) isn't traded by the TDL or March 1st then 7 years is the max.

I am not sure the details and if I have any of that correct.  I just remember hearing something along those lines. Someone else here might be able to verify or refute it.

The new CBA didn't close that option, it introduced it.

This is what I was thinking of:

Contract Term
Maximum contract length of seven (7) years subject to Club’s ability to re-sign its own Player for a term of up to eight ( 8 ) years (provided the Player was on the Club’s Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline). With respect to potential Unrestricted Free Agents only, the option to resign a Player for an 8-year term expires with the opening of Free Agency on July 1
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 13, 2016, 07:59:59 AM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane. Whether he chooses to sign here or not that's a different story.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on February 13, 2016, 08:02:12 AM
If the Leafs are still bad when Stamkos turns 30 it means Shanahan has been a colossal failure, not that signing Stamkos would be a mistake.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 13, 2016, 08:25:49 AM
Exactly.

In any case,  I'm of the opinion that you bring Stamkos in and you immediately shave a year off the rebuild.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 09:00:02 AM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

Sure. Just like 21 year old 36 goal scorers aren't available too often. Where the team is talent wise kind of matters.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 13, 2016, 10:25:56 AM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

Sure. Just like 21 year old 36 goal scorers aren't available too often. Where the team is talent wise kind of matters.

I don't agree for 2 reasons.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 13, 2016, 10:37:31 AM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane. Whether he chooses to sign here or not that's a different story.

In the past I would be more concerned the Leafs management would over value Stamkos and misjudge players ability to be the core.  With the present management's actions displaying they assess players and contracts arguably with a little more accuracy I don't have the same apprehension of contracts being handed out.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on February 13, 2016, 10:47:48 AM
I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane.

I clearly need some more perspective on this. Isn't it a concern to anyone that his play on the ice over the last few seasons doesn't look anything like a franchise/$10M+ player?

You look at players like Ovechkin/Tavares/Benn etc etc - and look at how they can dominate a game - Stamkos hasn't had that ability in what seems like an awful long time.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 11:02:41 AM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

Sure. Just like 21 year old 36 goal scorers aren't available too often. Where the team is talent wise kind of matters.

You're giving up draft picks and prospects on the Kessel side though.  Stamkos would just be money, but big cap dollars nonetheless.

I think that McGarnagle raises a legit question though...Is Stamkos worth over the $8.5m that Tampa offered?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 13, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
I don't see the issue.  These great players (even Stamkos) played multiple seasons on poor teams before the rest of the team got better.  Don't see how it would really be much different here.  Don't think signing a UFA is comparable to the Kessel situation.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 13, 2016, 11:54:18 AM
I don't see the issue.  1)These great players (even Stamkos) played multiple seasons on poor teams before the rest of the team got better.  Don't see how it would really be much different here. 

2)Don't think signing a UFA is comparable to the Kessel situation.

Those are the 2 reasons.  I am just to busy to get into a 5 page debate.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on February 13, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

I think that McGarnagle raises a legit question though...Is Stamkos worth over the $8.5m that Tampa offered?

I agree.  That is the problem that Pittsburgh had with 2 superstars and 15 forwards who had a cap hit of $1.4 MIL or less.  Ouch!

http://stats.nhlnumbers.com/teams/PIT?year=2011

Joe S., that is why I would debate signing Stamkos at any cost even if it didn't cost any assets.  With Stamkos at his age the Leafs wouldn't get any ELC or bridge contract savings.  A player of his caliber (ie:McDavid, Matthews) probably wouldn't have a Kadri type $2.9 MIL bridge deal anyway though so...

I am guessing the Leafs will only have around $10 MIL available next summer.  I am going to 'CapFriendly' it to check.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 13, 2016, 12:38:04 PM
Put aside where the leafs are going to be talent wise. When has a 25 year old elite centre ever been available as a Ufa? And debating whether it's worth it or not to sign him?

Sure. Just like 21 year old 36 goal scorers aren't available too often. Where the team is talent wise kind of matters.

Are you referring to Kessel? How is a trade and a Ufa comparable?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on February 13, 2016, 12:48:39 PM

I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane.

I clearly need some more perspective on this. Isn't it a concern to anyone that his play on the ice over the last few seasons doesn't look anything like a franchise/$10M+ player?

You look at players like Ovechkin/Tavares/Benn etc etc - and look at how they can dominate a game - Stamkos hasn't had that ability in what seems like an awful long time.

I readily admit I haven't followed him super closely but yes, I think this could be a concern.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 13, 2016, 01:28:51 PM
I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane.

I clearly need some more perspective on this. Isn't it a concern to anyone that his play on the ice over the last few seasons doesn't look anything like a franchise/$10M+ player?

You look at players like Ovechkin/Tavares/Benn etc etc - and look at how they can dominate a game - Stamkos hasn't had that ability in what seems like an awful long time.

Weren't people questioning whether Ovechkin was still at the highest level for a couple seasons there too?  I think it's very unlikely he's not one of the best players in the league going forward.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 01:29:52 PM
I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane.

I clearly need some more perspective on this. Isn't it a concern to anyone that his play on the ice over the last few seasons doesn't look anything like a franchise/$10M+ player?

You look at players like Ovechkin/Tavares/Benn etc etc - and look at how they can dominate a game - Stamkos hasn't had that ability in what seems like an awful long time.

Weren't people questioning whether Ovechkin was still at the highest level for a couple seasons there too?  I think it's very unlikely he's not one of the best players in the league going forward.

#TeamStamkos
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
I would figure, as has been mentioned, that Stamkos would prefer an 8 year deal vs. a 7 year deal.

So if Tampa wants to keep him for this playoff run, they'll likely market his rights at the end of the season.  This is assuming of course that Tampa can't sign him and he wants to explore the market.

Those rights become pretty damn valuable to the Stamkos suitors.  Is there much of a precedent for determining a value of what that would cost the Leafs in June? 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: nutman on February 13, 2016, 03:11:57 PM
As someone who has been following the farm system very close, (due to the suck the Buds are right now) I think anyone who thinks we are years off of being a  good team had better rethink themselves.
We have stocked up our system so well that we will have players coming the next two seasons faster than we can dump the ones we have here now.

I think we will see even as early as next season, a team that will be much better then we could even dream of. I will say that two seasons from now the Leafs will be well on there way up the latter.
 As for Stamkos, I would sign him, as long as we don't spend anything for him, it would go a long ways to have him playing on a top line with JVR and ? to take any pressure off the incoming stars over the next two years.

 I think this team is on a faster track then most think.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 13, 2016, 03:45:08 PM
I don't care what state the team is in,  if you don't go for Stamkos then you're insane.

I clearly need some more perspective on this. Isn't it a concern to anyone that his play on the ice over the last few seasons doesn't look anything like a franchise/$10M+ player?

You look at players like Ovechkin/Tavares/Benn etc etc - and look at how they can dominate a game - Stamkos hasn't had that ability in what seems like an awful long time.

Weren't people questioning whether Ovechkin was still at the highest level for a couple seasons there too?  I think it's very unlikely he's not one of the best players in the league going forward.

I wrote this same post earlier and somehow deleted it. Ovechkin took all sorts of crap from the media a couple of seasons ago. He's a coach killer, it's no contest now between him and Crosby, he's a quitter, Washington can't win with him. Now the same guys are fawning over him, and going on about how he may be the greatest player ever. You could start to hear the same narrative with Crosby this season, up until recently.

Personally, I would love to see what sort of player Stamkos is under Babcock. I'm guessing he would be pretty good.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on February 13, 2016, 04:23:17 PM
Well, I hope you guys are right, and he signs, and we have something to really look forward to watching in the short term.

But based on my eyeballs having watched a lot of Lightning games over the last couple seasons, I don't think this is the "max term, max cap, +NTC" no-brainer some are making it out to be. I see him as a PP specialist, and not particularly dominant at 5-5.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 06:25:57 PM
Are you referring to Kessel? How is a trade and a Ufa comparable?

Because what made the Kessel trade a bad one isn't that Kessel wasn't a good player, it's where the rest of the team was talent wise.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2016, 06:30:55 PM
Are you referring to Kessel? How is a trade and a Ufa comparable?

Because what made the Kessel trade a bad one isn't that Kessel wasn't a good player, it's where the rest of the team was talent wise.
Exactly what my original post meant! Thanks!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 13, 2016, 06:32:32 PM
Are you referring to Kessel? How is a trade and a Ufa comparable?

Because what made the Kessel trade a bad one isn't that Kessel wasn't a good player, it's where the rest of the team was talent wise.
Exactly what my original post meant! Thanks!

It's also pretty easy to see though that the team is in a much different position than they were when the Kessel trade happened though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 06:45:09 PM
It's also pretty easy to see though that the team is in a much different position than they were when the Kessel trade happened though.

Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 06:51:58 PM
It's also pretty easy to see though that the team is in a much different position than they were when the Kessel trade happened though.

Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.

What did Burke and Nonis do that showed impatience?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2016, 06:55:17 PM
It's also pretty easy to see though that the team is in a much different position than they were when the Kessel trade happened though.

Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.
I agree with this! I mean their base isn't that good. They have a lot of work to do and who's to say Stamkos doesn't move us into a place of mediocrity. I don't care getting into the second round, which I think will happen.

How about this: Can someone give a five year projection on if we signed Stamkos?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 13, 2016, 06:55:33 PM
Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.

I'll admit in a perfect world Stamkos would have been a UFA in 2017 (or at worse 2018) instead, but he isn't. So that goes back to Joe's point, if the team feels like they need a Stamkos-player soon then you need to take advantage of this opportunity because his caliber of player becoming a UFA happens once every 10 years probably.

And the problem with Burke wasn't just the Kessel trade, it was what his plan for the team was after that. As long as the Stamkos signing doesn't derail Shanny's long-term plan then it won't do the team harm.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 06:57:33 PM
What did Burke and Nonis do that showed impatience?

You mean aside from making "not rebuilding" part of the mission statement? Well, there's the Kessel trade, the Phaneuf trade, the Komisarek and Beauchemin signings...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 13, 2016, 06:57:58 PM
Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.

Yeah. That's kind of what I'm on the fence on Stamkos (though, I don't think he'll sign here any way). On one hand, how often do you get the opportunity to add a Stamkos level player as a free agent? On the other hand, the Leafs are still missing a number of essential pieces, and they still need another couple seasons near the bottom of the league, collecting picks and prospects to fill the gaps or provide assets to trade to fill them without emptying out the cupboard.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2016, 07:00:54 PM
It's also pretty easy to see though that the team is in a much different position than they were when the Kessel trade happened though.

Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.

What did Burke and Nonis do that showed impatience?
Sarcasm?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on February 13, 2016, 07:02:16 PM
Not really. They have a better prospect base now than they did then but at both times they were in need of patience with a rebuild that very well might take three or four years. Going out and signing top tier free agents isn't usually synonymous with being patient with a rebuild even if you can sell him on not caring about being on a good team for multiple years.

Yeah. That's kind of what I'm on the fence on Stamkos (though, I don't think he'll sign here any way). On one hand, how often do you get the opportunity to add a Stamkos level player as a free agent? On the other hand, the Leafs are still missing a number of essential pieces, and they still need another couple seasons near the bottom of the league, collecting picks and prospects to fill the gaps or provide assets to trade to fill them without emptying out the cupboard.
This. A hundred times this.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 13, 2016, 07:06:35 PM
Yeah. That's kind of what I'm on the fence on Stamkos (though, I don't think he'll sign here any way). On one hand, how often do you get the opportunity to add a Stamkos level player as a free agent? On the other hand, the Leafs are still missing a number of essential pieces, and they still need another couple seasons near the bottom of the league, collecting picks and prospects to fill the gaps or provide assets to trade to fill them without emptying out the cupboard.

I think, at worst, without Stamkos we have 1 more season of bottom-5 hockey in us. I don't personally believe that, but it's definitely possible yeah. So you touch on the question yourself but the big one is do you go forward with a bottom-5 pick in 2017 (which isn't exactly looking to be an amazing draft at this point if that means anything) without a Steven Stamkos for another 6 seasons or a 1st round draft pick somewhere in the mid-to-late teens probably with a Steven Stamkos for another 6 seasons?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 07:08:26 PM
I'll admit in a perfect world Stamkos would have been a UFA in 2017 (or at worse 2018) instead, but he isn't. So that goes back to Joe's point, if the team feels like they need a Stamkos-player soon then you need to take advantage of this opportunity because his caliber of player becoming a UFA happens once every 10 years probably.

Well, ok, but I think that's part of my point. If this team feels they "need" anything "soon" then it's a pretty solid indication of some level of impatience with what should be a long process.

And, look, we've disagreed on how far away they are before but just for a second let's say that they sign Stamkos. Do you know for certain how he'd react if, after two bad years, Alex Pietrangelo is all of a sudden available for Rielly and a first and the team passes? Or if they don't wade into the free agent market in an attempt to get better quicker? What happens to the plan if they stumble a bit with the rebuild and all of a sudden they have an impatient, unhappy Stamkos making 12 million a year?

I'm not all the way pro or anti signing Stamkos but I don't think not signing him, or just not trying to, is inexplicable.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 07:16:41 PM
What did Burke and Nonis do that showed impatience?

You mean aside from making "not rebuilding" part of the mission statement? Well, there's the Kessel trade, the Phaneuf trade, the Komisarek and Beauchemin signings...

Well, again, we're not talking about a trade of futures for presents, and Phaneuf didn't cost any building blocks. 

And Beau turned into Gardiner, which I think is now a positive.

I would suggest that one thing Burke and Nonis never did properly was acquire a number one centreman with the elite talent of a Stamkos. 

Kessel trade + terrible drafting+ not adding elite centre = Burke's failures.

I wouldn't characterize the Leafs adding an elite 25 year old via free agency as anything akin to Burkes failures.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 07:20:17 PM
Well, again, we're not talking about a trade of futures for presents, and Phaneuf didn't cost any building blocks. 

I'm not going to go deep into the Phaneuf trade again but the Leafs could have traded all four of the guys they traded for Phaneuf for picks at that deadline. Realistically trading for Phaneuf cost the team at least a first round pick, multiple seconds and some lower round picks in an effort to get better fast which is essentially the definition of impatience.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 13, 2016, 07:32:43 PM
Well, ok, but I think that's part of my point. If this team feels they "need" anything "soon" then it's a pretty solid indication of some level of impatience with what should be a long process.

The use of the word "soon" might not have been the best to use. But like I said if Stamkos is a player the team would pursue in the summer of 2018 for instance, then they can't just let him walk in 2016. That's all if the team feels like Stamkos an elite, franchise type player.

And, look, we've disagreed on how far away they are before but just for a second let's say that they sign Stamkos. Do you know for certain how he'd react if, after two bad years, Alex Pietrangelo is all of a sudden available for Rielly and a first and the team passes? Or if they don't wade into the free agent market in an attempt to get better quicker? What happens to the plan if they stumble a bit with the rebuild and all of a sudden they have an impatient, unhappy Stamkos making 12 million a year?

I'm not all the way pro or anti signing Stamkos but I don't think not signing him, or just not trying to, is inexplicable.

Just to throw this out there, but $12mil wouldn't be a number I would be very comfortable at. I'm starting to lean toward him capping out at $10.5mil. But we'll see how that goes.

Like you said, we could probably go back and forth forever about where we feel the team will be in 2 years. And we could deal in hypotheticals forever too. What if our core prospects/young players work out like we suspect but we're still missing that one franchise player? I look at a team like Florida and see all that young talent but I feel like they're really missing that one player if they want to become a legitimate Stanley Cup threat. And they're in a tough position because their young players are now good enough to keep them out of the basement so acquiring that one player might be basically impossible. I can see the Leafs in a pretty similar situation without Stamkos.

I will say too that if the Leafs win the lottery and get Matthews my thoughts on Stamkos would almost certainly change.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 13, 2016, 07:37:27 PM
I think, at worst, without Stamkos we have 1 more season of bottom-5 hockey in us. I don't personally believe that, but it's definitely possible yeah. So you touch on the question yourself but the big one is do you go forward with a bottom-5 pick in 2017 (which isn't exactly looking to be an amazing draft at this point if that means anything) without a Steven Stamkos for another 6 seasons or a 1st round draft pick somewhere in the mid-to-late teens probably with a Steven Stamkos for another 6 seasons?

I think they have at least a couple more seasons of being a bottom 10 team. Maybe only one more in the bottom 5, but I'd say at least 2 before they're in playoff contention. How many of the prospects not named Marner and Nylander actually turn into NHL players? There are a lot of players to like in the system now, but most of them won't become NHLers of note - that's just how things have always worked out in this league - and others are still 2 or 3 years away. That means there's still a couple seasons with filler NHL vets on the roster. And, do the Leafs find a goalie in that time? I sure hope so, but, if they don't, that adds time to the rebuild process.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 07:48:56 PM
I look at a team like Florida and see all that young talent but I feel like they're really missing that one player if they want to become a legitimate Stanley Cup threat. And they're in a tough position because their young players are now good enough to keep them out of the basement so acquiring that one player might be basically impossible. I can see the Leafs in a pretty similar situation without Stamkos.

Well, two things re: Florida

1. I wouldn't rule out Barkov becoming just that sort of player. He's pretty freaking good already and only 20.

2. Doesn't that again sort of play into what I'm saying? Florida has tried to jumpstart the process with adding pieces like Jagr and Luongo. I'm saying don't do that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 13, 2016, 07:53:31 PM
I look at a team like Florida and see all that young talent but I feel like they're really missing that one player if they want to become a legitimate Stanley Cup threat. And they're in a tough position because their young players are now good enough to keep them out of the basement so acquiring that one player might be basically impossible. I can see the Leafs in a pretty similar situation without Stamkos.

Well, two things re: Florida

1. I wouldn't rule out Barkov becoming just that sort of player. He's pretty freaking good already and only 20.

2. Doesn't that again sort of play into what I'm saying? Florida has tried to jumpstart the process with adding pieces like Jagr and Luongo. I'm saying don't do that.

What are these pieces that you suggest that the Leafs not add to their team?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 13, 2016, 08:10:33 PM
Well, two things re: Florida

1. I wouldn't rule out Barkov becoming just that sort of player. He's pretty freaking good already and only 20.

2. Doesn't that again sort of play into what I'm saying? Florida has tried to jumpstart the process with adding pieces like Jagr and Luongo. I'm saying don't do that.

I think that Barkov has that as his high-end potential for sure, he's a stud. But I also wouldn't exactly rule it out for Nylander or Marner, none of them are sure-things to hit that high-end potential. Barkov's NHL experience makes him a little closer though.

That's a good point regarding Luongo actually. You could make a number of comparisons between Florida getting him and the Leafs getting Stamkos. I guess I'd say that Stamkos being 8 years younger than Lu was at the time of the trade would change things.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 13, 2016, 08:28:39 PM
That's a good point regarding Luongo actually. You could make a number of comparisons between Florida getting him and the Leafs getting Stamkos. I guess I'd say that Stamkos being 8 years younger than Lu was at the time of the trade would change things.

I'm not saying adding them is the same thing, just the principle of making moves to take you out of the basement before you're sure you got what you want out of the high end of the draft.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zee on February 13, 2016, 10:23:05 PM
I hope Kyper is right and the Habs tie themselves to a long term, high priced Stamkos contact. I don't think they have the supporting cast for him and certainly doesn't put them over the top by any means. So it'll be great hearing them complain when he's 30 and not producing like he he used to but tying up 11-12 million on their cap.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on February 13, 2016, 11:11:45 PM
The question is, is he a top 5 player in the league?  Because he expects to get paid like one, and will. If for whatever reason you really don't think he's quite that good -- or if you think he won't be able to adjust his game to account for the almost inevitable decline in his skills over 7 or 8 years, like a Jagr has -- then you think real real hard about giving him the best part of a hundred mil.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 13, 2016, 11:51:50 PM
I think, at this point, I'd rather the Leafs have 11 mil in cap flex than Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 14, 2016, 12:05:20 AM
It's probably naive of me to see it this way, but after seeing Shanahan and the Leafs pulling off the varying degrees of the unlikely to the impossible in trading Clarkson, signing Babcock, getting Lamoriello and trading Phaneuf, I can't help but feel that if the Leafs actually want Stamkos, one way or another they'll get him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 14, 2016, 01:27:35 AM
It's probably naive of me to see it this way, but after seeing Shanahan and the Leafs pulling off the varying degrees of the unlikely to the impossible in trading Clarkson, signing Babcock, getting Lamoriello and trading Phaneuf, I can't help but feel that if the Leafs actually want Stamkos, one way or another they'll get him.

I'm with you. I will never again underestimate the power of a Shanahan sales pitch after what he's pulled off. If the Leafs want Stamkos, and assuming he goes to UFA, I think the management group will paint a pretty compelling picture of what the Leafs intend to do. Based on recent experience, I'm also fairly comfortable with the Leafs ability to move a tired contract. So when the time comes to move on from Stamkos, it will probably get done.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 14, 2016, 02:25:40 AM
It's probably naive of me to see it this way, but after seeing Shanahan and the Leafs pulling off the varying degrees of the unlikely to the impossible in trading Clarkson, signing Babcock, getting Lamoriello and trading Phaneuf, I can't help but feel that if the Leafs actually want Stamkos, one way or another they'll get him.

I'm with you. I will never again underestimate the power of a Shanahan sales pitch after what he's pulled off. If the Leafs want Stamkos, and assuming he goes to UFA, I think the management group will paint a pretty compelling picture of what the Leafs intend to do. Based on recent experience, I'm also fairly comfortable with the Leafs ability to move a tired contract. So when the time comes to move on from Stamkos, it will probably get done.


If Shanahan says so, it will be so.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 14, 2016, 09:14:16 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zee on February 14, 2016, 09:19:10 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

That's my thinking as well.  Stamkos hasn't looked like the same dominant player he was before that leg injury and I'm not sure it would be great to tie to him for 7 years.  I think he'll be a top player from age 26-29, but then could drop off quickly.  If he becomes just a 20-30 goal guy at that point and you're paying his upwards of 11-12 million a year, it'll be another Kessel situation.  Do we really expect the Leafs to be a solid playoff team in the next 3 seasons?  If not, what's the point of having Stamkos on the team?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 14, 2016, 09:27:45 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Isn't that always the goal of any team though?

Personally, I think they will get Stamkos. As explained above, if it doesn't work out, they have shown they can move out bad contracts, and unless you believe Stamkos game will completely unravel over the span of his contract , moving him shouldn't be nearly as difficult as Clarkson or Phaneuf.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 14, 2016, 09:46:39 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Isn't that always the goal of any team though?

Personally, I think they will get Stamkos. As explained above, if it doesn't work out, they have shown they can move out bad contracts, and unless you believe Stamkos game will completely unravel over the span of his contract , moving him shouldn't be nearly as difficult as Clarkson or Phaneuf.

It's not Stamkos's individual performance that's the problem though.  It isn't what Stamkos does or doesn't do.  It's his impact on the team and where they finish in the standings.  The Leafs could find themselves in St. Louis Blues territory, where they are good enough to make the playoffs each year, but they aren't good enough to actually compete for the cup.  It's sort of a no win situation.  If he's great, then he puts them in to a spot where they can't compete for a cup but he earns his salary.  If he's bad, the Leafs have the chance to get the talent they need, but they have this boat anchor of a contract attached to Stamkos.   

As it stands now, I worry that if the Leafs don't get he first overall pick in this years draft or the next, that they still hit that point because players such as Marner and Nylander may be good enough to put them in to the Blues category but not good enough to eventually get them over the hump.  Stamkos just accelerates that problem in my mind.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on February 14, 2016, 09:59:04 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Isn't that always the goal of any team though?

Personally, I think they will get Stamkos. As explained above, if it doesn't work out, they have shown they can move out bad contracts, and unless you believe Stamkos game will completely unravel over the span of his contract , moving him shouldn't be nearly as difficult as Clarkson or Phaneuf.

It's not Stamkos's individual performance that's the problem though.  It isn't what Stamkos does or doesn't do.  It's his impact on the team and where they finish in the standings.  The Leafs could find themselves in St. Louis Blues territory, where they are good enough to make the playoffs each year, but they aren't good enough to actually compete for the cup.  It's sort of a no win situation.  If he's great, then he puts them in to a spot where they can't compete for a cup but he earns his salary.  If he's bad, the Leafs have the chance to get the talent they need, but they have this boat anchor of a contract attached to Stamkos.   

As it stands now, I worry that if the Leafs don't get he first overall pick in this years draft or the next, that they still hit that point because players such as Marner and Nylander may be good enough to put them in to the Blues category but not good enough to eventually get them over the hump.  Stamkos just accelerates that problem in my mind.

I wouldn't put much stock in getting the first overall pick. A team that finishes dead last five years in a row gets one first overall pick, if the odds play out exactly as they've been set up.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2016, 11:49:16 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Or you can do both at no asset cost.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 14, 2016, 11:52:53 AM
Lupul - Stamkos - Komarov
Michalek - Bozak - Nylander
Leivo - Holland - Brown
Leipsic - Winnik - Greening

Reilly - Hunwick
Gardiner - _______
Corrado - Marincin

Bernier/Bibeau

2017 tank intact.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 14, 2016, 11:54:41 AM
Lupul - Stamkos - Komarov
Michalek - Bozak - Nylander
Leivo - Holland - Brown
Leipsic - Winnik - Greening

Reilly - Hunwick
Gardiner - _______
Corrado - Marincin

Bernier/Bibeau

2017 tank intact.

There's no way Marner isn't with the team next year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 14, 2016, 11:59:45 AM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Or you can do both at no asset cost.

Unless the Leafs try and trade for his rights.  In which case there may be some cost.  Adding Stamkos and Matthews would then require the Leafs to find an elite d-man and an elite goalie in fairly short order.     
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2016, 12:01:28 PM
With the team the way it is, shouldn't the goal be to get a Stamkos type player in the draft, and let them grow with the core of the team?

Or you can do both at no asset cost.

Unless the Leafs try and trade for his rights.  In which case there may be some cost.  Adding Stamkos and Matthews would then require the Leafs to find an elite d-man and an elite goalie in fairly short order.   

I think trading for his rights is silly. If he's available as a UFA take a shot, otherwise, I'm not interested.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on February 14, 2016, 12:05:45 PM
Cap space is a significant asset cost, no? Particularly one close to if not max, for max term?

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to sign $12M worth of help once we can see what the team is lacking upon maturity of our prospects?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2016, 01:08:17 PM
If the blackhawks can afford 2 players over 10 mil, why can't the leafs afford 1?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 14, 2016, 01:09:21 PM
Cap space is a significant asset cost, no? Particularly one close to if not max, for max term?

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to sign $12M worth of help once we can see what the team is lacking upon maturity of our prospects?

I dont know if it would be better, but you could hope to add some quality players via free agency in 2 or 3 years, but it's doubtful you'd find anything elite like Stamkos.

The main reason teams are building through the draft now is because  players like Steve Stamkos never make it to free agency. 

Timing isn't perfect, as has been mentioned, but you're crazy to pass on a 25 year old elite player if he only costs you money. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 14, 2016, 02:10:29 PM
Lupul - Stamkos - Komarov
Michalek - Bozak - Nylander
Leivo - Holland - Brown
Leipsic - Winnik - Greening

Reilly - Hunwick
Gardiner - _______
Corrado - Marincin

Bernier/Bibeau

2017 tank intact.

Kadri and JVR traded?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 14, 2016, 02:13:08 PM
Lupul - Stamkos - Komarov
Michalek - Bozak - Nylander
Leivo - Holland - Brown
Leipsic - Winnik - Greening

Reilly - Hunwick
Gardiner - _______
Corrado - Marincin

Bernier/Bibeau

2017 tank intact.

There's no way Marner isn't with the team next year.

Do you think he'll play centre or on the wing?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on February 14, 2016, 02:24:33 PM
Lupul - Stamkos - Komarov
Michalek - Bozak - Nylander
Leivo - Holland - Brown
Leipsic - Winnik - Greening

Reilly - Hunwick
Gardiner - _______
Corrado - Marincin

Bernier/Bibeau

2017 tank intact.

There's no way Marner isn't with the team next year.

Do you think he'll play centre or on the wing?

Most likely on the wing.  I think he can play center in the NHL but to start I think the responsibility might be too much.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on February 14, 2016, 02:25:59 PM
If the blackhawks can afford 2 players over 10 mil, why can't the leafs afford 1?

I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 14, 2016, 02:56:25 PM
I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.

Not to mention Rielly won't be cheap for long, and this year's 1st round pick could also become a $10M player - especially if it's Matthews.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 14, 2016, 02:59:49 PM
Most likely on the wing.  I think he can play center in the NHL but to start I think the responsibility might be too much.

If the Leafs get Matthews, he probably stays on the wing, too. They're not going to run him or Nylander as their 3rd line centre going forward, Nylander's closer to being ready to play C at the NHL level.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 14, 2016, 03:16:26 PM
If the blackhawks can afford 2 players over 10 mil, why can't the leafs afford 1?

I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.

that's some Oilers logic right there...

I kid I kid... but still, no one knows this for sure.. I mean Yanic Perreault tore it up in every level below the NHL, so did Kadri... and I'm sure there are countless  others... We know they'll be good, but we don't know if they'll be elite.

And don't get me wrong, I'm really, really, really hoping they are.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 14, 2016, 03:19:22 PM
I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.

Not to mention Rielly won't be cheap for long, and this year's 1st round pick could also become a $10M player - especially if it's Matthews.

Geez, God forbid the Leafs have too many outstanding players... ;)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 14, 2016, 04:45:06 PM
I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.

Not to mention Rielly won't be cheap for long, and this year's 1st round pick could also become a $10M player - especially if it's Matthews.

Just so I have you guys straight here, you're saying don't sign an elite talent because Nylander and Marner might hopefully be players capable of similar performance to Stamkos,and if the Leafs win the lottery, Matthews might hopefully be an elite player, and then what would we do?

I don't know, trade one for a defenseman?  Geez guys...

I get that it's a long shot to sign him, and that it's a lot of money, but don't be gun shy here.  You get the chance to sign a 25 year old elite talent for nothing but money, you do it.

Imagine the riots on Yonge after Stamkos says Toronto never made him an offer?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Rob on February 14, 2016, 05:03:34 PM
I think the thought process might be that Marner/Nylander hopefully fall into that category too.

Not to mention Rielly won't be cheap for long, and this year's 1st round pick could also become a $10M player - especially if it's Matthews.

Just so I have you guys straight here, you're saying don't sign an elite talent because Nylander and Marner might hopefully be players capable of similar performance to Stamkos,and if the Leafs win the lottery, Matthews might hopefully be an elite player, and then what would we do?

I don't know, trade one for a defenseman?  Geez guys...

I get that it's a long shot to sign him, and that it's a lot of money, but don't be gun shy here.  You get the chance to sign a 25 year old elite talent for nothing but money, you do it.

Imagine the riots on Yonge after Stamkos says Toronto never made him an offer?

He is no longer 25, he's 26 now as of a few days ago.  By this time next year he'll be 27, on a Leafs time that will be terrible again.

The NHL is increasingly becoming a young man's game.  At 27 Stamkos will have peaked, and many in here are suggesting he may have already peaked.

Now, that Tavares guy in 2018 could be interesting........

Every year the Cup gets handed out, I make a mental comparison of the key players on the Cup winning team to what the Leafs have on their roster.  It's a fun game to show just how far away the Leafs are, and what key positions need to be filled by elite players.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 14, 2016, 05:23:35 PM
He is no longer 25, he's 26 now as of a few days ago.  By this time next year he'll be 27, on a Leafs time that will be terrible again.

The NHL is increasingly becoming a young man's game.  At 27 Stamkos will have peaked, and many in here are suggesting he may have already peaked.

Now, that Tavares guy in 2018 could be interesting........

Every year the Cup gets handed out, I make a mental comparison of the key players on the Cup winning team to what the Leafs have on their roster.  It's a fun game to show just how far away the Leafs are, and what key positions need to be filled by elite players.

Stamkos won't automatically have peaked at 27.  Some studies have shown elite players peaking between 27-30 (they get better earlier, stay better longer, peak later).  In any event, elite players peak, or perform at a higher level, for longer than other players and decline slower.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 14, 2016, 06:59:42 PM
Also, if the Leafs are worrying about having too many players who want $10 million, there is a good chance they've won a Cup.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on February 14, 2016, 09:16:35 PM
If age is the issue, then as long as those who point to that admit JvR (older than Stamkos) and Kadri (same birth year and 6 months younger than Stamkos) have absolutely no place in the long-term plans of the team, I'll buy it.  Otherwise, I think it's a silly point of contention.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on February 14, 2016, 09:20:41 PM
that's some Oilers logic right there...

I kid I kid... but still, no one knows this for sure.. I mean Yanic Perreault tore it up in every level below the NHL, so did Kadri... and I'm sure there are countless  others... We know they'll be good, but we don't know if they'll be elite.

And don't get me wrong, I'm really, really, really hoping they are.

Actually, I don't think there is anything to kid about here.  That's a legitimate point.  Worry about that when the time comes.  It's ridiculous to pass over top talent, at the cost of no assets, on the basis you think two draft picks and one current player turn out to be a mirror image of the Blackhawks core.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 14, 2016, 09:37:47 PM
Cap space is a significant asset cost, no? Particularly one close to if not max, for max term?

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to sign $12M worth of help once we can see what the team is lacking upon maturity of our prospects?

I dont know if it would be better, but you could hope to add some quality players via free agency in 2 or 3 years, but it's doubtful you'd find anything elite like Stamkos.

The main reason teams are building through the draft now is because  players like Steve Stamkos never make it to free agency. 

Timing isn't perfect, as has been mentioned, but you're crazy to pass on a 25 year old elite player if he only costs you money.

I don't think the cap space is best looked at as potential for free agents down the road, more that the Leafs could do an awful lot with that space, taking bad salaries, acquiring picks and prospects, rolling the roster hard and sifting the gems that fall to the bottom. I'm torn because the thought of getting Stamkos is really appealing, but I have to go with my brain on this one, the Leafs aren't a Stamkos away from anything, by the time they are I think he's on his way to being a player past his prime on a big contract. ( Nazem and JVR aren't 10 million dollar players and may legitimately not figure into the Leafs long term plans ).

Sure, the Leafs can afford him, in fact with Horton on the books they can still wheel and deal some, but this isn't anything like Chicago's situation, the Leafs haven't paid the price at the bottom they need to in the way the Hawks did. In fact, the Leafs are even more hamstrung because they can't circumvent the cap like they did.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 14, 2016, 10:04:34 PM
Cap space is a significant asset cost, no? Particularly one close to if not max, for max term?

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to sign $12M worth of help once we can see what the team is lacking upon maturity of our prospects?

I dont know if it would be better, but you could hope to add some quality players via free agency in 2 or 3 years, but it's doubtful you'd find anything elite like Stamkos.

The main reason teams are building through the draft now is because  players like Steve Stamkos never make it to free agency. 

Timing isn't perfect, as has been mentioned, but you're crazy to pass on a 25 year old elite player if he only costs you money.

I don't think the cap space is best looked at as potential for free agents down the road, more that the Leafs could do an awful lot with that space, taking bad salaries, acquiring picks and prospects, rolling the roster hard and sifting the gems that fall to the bottom. I'm torn because the thought of getting Stamkos is really appealing, but I have to go with my brain on this one, the Leafs aren't a Stamkos away from anything, by the time they are I think he's on his way to being a player past his prime on a big contract. ( Nazem and JVR aren't 10 million dollar players and may legitimately not figure into the Leafs long term plans ).

Sure, the Leafs can afford him, in fact with Horton on the books they can still wheel and deal some, but this isn't anything like Chicago's situation, the Leafs haven't paid the price at the bottom they need to in the way the Hawks did. In fact, the Leafs are even more hamstrung because they can't circumvent the cap like they did.

Barkov is turning 21 years old and just signed an extension at $5.9 mil X 6 years...and some think Florida got a deal at that figure. He scored 35 points last year, his second in the league, and is pacing close to a point per game this season.  Those bridge contracts seem to be disappearing for elite talent guys. 

Even if the Leafs drafted Matthews this summer, if he knocked it out of the park Barkov style, he'd be $6 mil too in a few years. 

My point is that elite talent is going to get paid, and the Leafs need a bunch of elite talents to win Stanley Cups.  Signing a UFA Stamkos could provide some of that quota for 6 or 7 years, and just like drafting, it doesn't come at any asset cost other than the cap space to pay him.  Having said that, I do think that his contract AAV should be a discussion.

I think the conversation should be about whether or not you can see past the $8.5m that Tampa offered to something around $10m.  I'm not as keen on the signing if it's in the double digits.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 14, 2016, 10:28:23 PM
Cap space is a significant asset cost, no? Particularly one close to if not max, for max term?

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to sign $12M worth of help once we can see what the team is lacking upon maturity of our prospects?

I dont know if it would be better, but you could hope to add some quality players via free agency in 2 or 3 years, but it's doubtful you'd find anything elite like Stamkos.

The main reason teams are building through the draft now is because  players like Steve Stamkos never make it to free agency. 

Timing isn't perfect, as has been mentioned, but you're crazy to pass on a 25 year old elite player if he only costs you money.

I don't think the cap space is best looked at as potential for free agents down the road, more that the Leafs could do an awful lot with that space, taking bad salaries, acquiring picks and prospects, rolling the roster hard and sifting the gems that fall to the bottom. I'm torn because the thought of getting Stamkos is really appealing, but I have to go with my brain on this one, the Leafs aren't a Stamkos away from anything, by the time they are I think he's on his way to being a player past his prime on a big contract. ( Nazem and JVR aren't 10 million dollar players and may legitimately not figure into the Leafs long term plans ).

Sure, the Leafs can afford him, in fact with Horton on the books they can still wheel and deal some, but this isn't anything like Chicago's situation, the Leafs haven't paid the price at the bottom they need to in the way the Hawks did. In fact, the Leafs are even more hamstrung because they can't circumvent the cap like they did.

Barkov is turning 21 years old and just signed an extension at $5.9 mil X 6 years...and some think Florida got a deal at that figure. He scored 35 points last year, his second in the league, and is pacing close to a point per game this season.  Those bridge contracts seem to be disappearing for elite talent guys. 

Even if the Leafs drafted Matthews this summer, if he knocked it out of the park Barkov style, he'd be $6 mil too in a few years. 

My point is that elite talent is going to get paid, and the Leafs need a bunch of elite talents to win Stanley Cups.  Signing a UFA Stamkos could provide some of that quota for 6 or 7 years, and just like drafting, it doesn't come at any asset cost other than the cap space to pay him.  Having said that, I do think that his contract AAV should be a discussion.

I think the conversation should be about whether or not you can see past the $8.5m that Tampa offered to something around $10m.  I'm not as keen on the signing if it's in the double digits.

I get the appeal for no asset cost, believe me, it's what keeps pulling me back. Barkov being 5 years younger is a bit of deal too though, no? That fits, to me, with the reality that is the Leafs. They probably aren't going to be legitimate contenders before Stamkos is 31, maybe 32, even if they get Matthews, they don't have the framework to get there sooner, currently.

If the conversation is about getting Stamkos closer to 8.5, yeah that's more interesting for sure, I don't think it's in line with what he'll likely get though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 14, 2016, 10:49:25 PM
If age is the issue, then as long as those who point to that admit JvR (older than Stamkos) and Kadri (same birth year and 6 months younger than Stamkos) have absolutely no place in the long-term plans of the team, I'll buy it.  Otherwise, I think it's a silly point of contention.

I think the problem is looking at this from a "Is Stamkos going to be worth his contract" perspective.  That's not the issue.  It's that if you sign Stamkos, you are again trying to fast track the rebuild.  That doesn't work.  You need to make the correct decision based on the current phase that the team is in.  The team is currently in the "burn it to the ground phase".  You don't add older accomplished assets at that time.  You add picks and prospects and let them grow through the system together and you hopefully build a complete team that can compete for the cup.

It's funny, but for all this talk that you can't let Stamkos go because when will another player like him become available, there is this article on TSN:

http://www.tsn.ca/trade-talk-leafs-could-target-tavares-down-the-line-1.437971

And yes that article is wishful thinking because you don't know what is going to happen with Tavares in 2018.  Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 14, 2016, 11:56:23 PM
Just ask yourself if you'd rather be sitting on here 3-5 years from now wishing the Leafs had Stamkos, or lamenting the fact they signed him? Decide which one is worse, and you'll know what you want the Leafs to do.

Personally, I'd rather complain about him being here than wishing we had someone ripping clappers bar down from the top of the circle all day.

I don't think he would derail the rebuild. As someone said, we aren't a Stamkos away from anything. As long as they stick to the plan, adding a good established player at this point won't do much to change the team's fortunes....but it might down the road. I'd rather take that gamble.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: skrackle on February 15, 2016, 12:02:20 AM
If age is the issue, then as long as those who point to that admit JvR (older than Stamkos) and Kadri (same birth year and 6 months younger than Stamkos) have absolutely no place in the long-term plans of the team, I'll buy it.  Otherwise, I think it's a silly point of contention.

I think the problem is looking at this from a "Is Stamkos going to be worth his contract" perspective.  That's not the issue.  It's that if you sign Stamkos, you are again trying to fast track the rebuild.  That doesn't work.  You need to make the correct decision based on the current phase that the team is in.  The team is currently in the "burn it to the ground phase".  You don't add older accomplished assets at that time.  You add picks and prospects and let them grow through the system together and you hopefully build a complete team that can compete for the cup.

It's funny, but for all this talk that you can't let Stamkos go because when will another player like him become available, there is this article on TSN:

http://www.tsn.ca/trade-talk-leafs-could-target-tavares-down-the-line-1.437971

And yes that article is wishful thinking because you don't know what is going to happen with Tavares in 2018.  Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.

I've wavered on the Stamkos thing, but at this point, I agree with you. The timing is just wrong on acquiring an expensive UFA like Stamkos. And it's where the patience for a proper rebuild gets tested.

The Leafs are really bad, as in worst team in the league on any given night. They won't be a contender until, I'm going to guess, 5 years from now.

Stamkos is not currently a top 10 NHL scorer. His numbers seem to be declining at age 26. Is this really the guy that's going to be leading the Leafs as one of the top paid players in the league into his '30's?

If he's willing to sign an under-market contract for the sake of bringing the Leafs back to greatness, then sure. But, how likely is that?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 12:07:16 AM
Well, the interesting thing I think is that a lot of people have sort of dismissed the possibility that Stamkos would come to Toronto on the basis of the Leafs still being in the rebuild but when they talk about alternate choices like Detroit or NYR I think they don't ask the obvious question which is not why would Stamkos choose Detroit/NYR/Montreal over Toronto but why would he choose them over Tampa. If winning is the thing that's going to be first and foremost on his mind...Tampa probably has a better long term chance than any of them.

It does kind of remind me of the Babcock situation where we heard so much about how he'd never choose Toronto over Detroit because Detroit was familiar or never choose Toronto over Buffalo because Buffalo was further along in their rebuild...but in the end a lot of it just came down to money and term. I think the people thinking Stamkos will come at a team-friendly cap hit are kidding themselves a little bit but if the Leafs or whoever come in with the heaviest offer? I wouldn't rule anyone out.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 15, 2016, 12:35:06 AM
Stamkos is not currently a top 10 NHL scorer. His numbers seem to be declining at age 26. Is this really the guy that's going to be leading the Leafs as one of the top paid players in the league into his '30's?

He had the 2nd most goals in the league last season and was on the best goals per game pace the season before until his leg injury.

If that's what he's declining from, sign me up.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 15, 2016, 07:33:55 AM
Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.

Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: AvroArrow on February 15, 2016, 07:58:01 AM
Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

Just because he is available is not a reason to sign him.  There have been countless UFAs signed by the Leafs that have been absolute disasters, both in their play and in their contracts and it's pretty much a guarantee that Stamkos is getting a monster contract.

Again, I think the team needs to decide where they expect to be in the near future.  If they expect to be in the basement for another 3 years, then I think you don't sign him.  On the other hand, if they think they'll start an upswing as early as next year, then you do it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 08:28:26 AM

Kovalchuk is probably the closest comparison.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 15, 2016, 08:55:24 AM

Kovalchuk is probably the closest comparison.

And ended up staying with the devils with the most awesome contract of all time.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 15, 2016, 09:15:13 AM
I'm in the if a 25/6-year-old elite player becomes UFA you have to sign him camp.

I'd definitely not trade for him unless it's a nominal fee for his right prior to July 1st.

I think you give him the same type of pitch you gave Babcock, this team probably has another year or two of pain in them before they turn a corner in a fairly significant way.

I think if you're worried about his signing hurting your draft pick you can turn around and trade some guys like Kadri/JVR etc and that takes care of any concerns you have there and you also have whatever 1st's those guys net you that can compliment Stamkos even before he turns 30.

I think they're probably close to where the Lightning were a few years ago before they got the huge injection of talent from Syracuse and I'm comfortable building around Stamkos as one of the core pieces. They'll still have a lot of talent on entry level deals over the next three years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:34:40 AM

Kovalchuk is probably the closest comparison.

And ended up staying with the devils with the most awesome contract of all time.

Hey man, a 27 year old that good available as a UFA? You don't ask questions.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 15, 2016, 09:50:04 AM

Kovalchuk is probably the closest comparison.

And ended up staying with the devils with the most awesome contract of all time.

Hey man, a 27 year old that good available as a UFA? You don't ask questions.

I was just making fun of the Lou Lamoriello shenanigans 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 15, 2016, 09:51:46 AM
Just ask yourself if you'd rather be sitting on here 3-5 years from now wishing the Leafs had Stamkos, or lamenting the fact they signed him? Decide which one is worse, and you'll know what you want the Leafs to do.

Personally, I'd rather complain about him being here than wishing we had someone ripping clappers bar down from the top of the circle all day.

I don't think he would derail the rebuild. As someone said, we aren't a Stamkos away from anything. As long as they stick to the plan, adding a good established player at this point won't do much to change the team's fortunes....but it might down the road. I'd rather take that gamble.

Sort of the mindset management used when they brought in Babcock, isn't it?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:54:14 AM
I was just making fun of the Lou Lamoriello shenanigans

So was I.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 15, 2016, 10:35:56 AM
Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.

Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

How many have been drafted in the cap era?

Lets say the Leafs get the first overall pick, they trade out the likes of Bozak, Lupul and their forward lineup looks something like this:

JVR - Stamkos - Marner
Nylander - Matthews - Kapanen
Leipsic - Kadri - Brown
Winnick - Gauthier - Clune

Again, purely speculative, but that looks really awesome.  I won't deny that.  However, now lets look at the defence

Reilly - Gardiner
Marincin - Corrado
?? - Harrington

Not as good as the forward lines.  Quite a bit of a drop off there.

Now lets look at the goalies

Bernier/Reimer/Bibeau/Sparks/Some UFA

Again, nothing spectacular.  You've essentially created an Oilers situation where you have a top heavy team with little to no defence.  You don't have the d-man that can control the game such as a Keith or a Doughty.  It's worse than the Oilers situation though because I think that forward lineup is good enough to get you in the 12 to 14 range so you don't have the chance to draft that potential Ekblad or Hedman type of defenceman near the top of the draft.  I realize that Keith was a second round selection, but hoping that you strike it rich in the second round of the draft doesn't seem like the best possible course of action for building a cup contender.  This is why I would prefer the Leafs stay the course and build through the draft rather than signing Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 10:40:01 AM
Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

Just because he is available is not a reason to sign him.  There have been countless UFAs signed by the Leafs that have been absolute disasters, both in their play and in their contracts and it's pretty much a guarantee that Stamkos is getting a monster contract.

Again, I think the team needs to decide where they expect to be in the near future.  If they expect to be in the basement for another 3 years, then I think you don't sign him.  On the other hand, if they think they'll start an upswing as early as next year, then you do it.

If this team wants to compete for a Stanley Cup, then they're going to have to take some risks.

They'll be in the playoff mix in a couple of seasons, and they've already been ranked 4th and 6th in terms of nhl prospects quality rankings by HF and The Hockey Writers.  I think we're further into this rebuild than people think, but they won't be convinced until they've got that #1 centre.  Stamkos gives you that, and you trade away Kadri, Bozak, and JVR this summer for some high-end futures.  The Leafs trade Reimer, Parenteau, Matthias, Boyes, Polak, Spaling, and Grabner at the deadline.

Here's your post-trade-deadline roster:

JVR            Kadri   Komarov
Lupul           Bozak   Leivo
Winnik   Holland   Greening
Clune   Arcobello   Leipsic
Michalek   Morin   
      
Gardiner   Hunwick   
Rielly           Cowan   
Corrado   Marincin   
callup       

Belfour/Bibeau

I could see them taking back some heavy overpriced expiring contracts as part of some deadline stuff, just to send Leipsic and Leivo back for a nice little playoff run with the Marlies...but whatever, they'll still have enough bodies to get them through the rest of the tank 2016 post-deadline season.

Then:

Lupul     5.25   Stamkos   10   Komarov   2.95
Michalek   4   Holland   2   Marner   2.5
Leivo       0.895   Nylander   2.5   Brown   2.5
Leipsic   0.65   Winnik   2.25   Greening   2.65
Lindberg   0.7   Clune   0.6      
                 
Gardiner   4.05   Hunwick   1.2      
Rielly   5.25           Harrington   1.25      
Corrado   1   Marincin   1      
Loov   0.7            
               
Bernier   4.15            
Bibeau   0.65            

That's a 60ish million dollar cap if you include Kessel and Gleason (!).  They've got some flipable assets there for the deadline, and a ton of cap space.

This is obviously just for discussion, but with the proposed addition of Stamkos, and the deletion of Phaneuf and Reimer, the holes would really seem to be bigger on defense and goaltending.  I would think that that would be the focus of the return on the JVR, Kadri, Bozak, Reimer deals. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 15, 2016, 10:48:19 AM
Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.

Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

How many have been drafted in the cap era?

Lets say the Leafs get the first overall pick, they trade out the likes of Bozak, Lupul and their forward lineup looks something like this:

JVR - Stamkos - Marner
Nylander - Matthews - Kapanen
Leipsic - Kadri - Brown
Winnick - Gauthier - Clune

Again, purely speculative, but that looks really awesome.  I won't deny that.  However, now lets look at the defence

Reilly - Gardiner
Marincin - Corrado
?? - Harrington

Not as good as the forward lines.  Quite a bit of a drop off there.

Now lets look at the goalies

Bernier/Reimer/Bibeau/Sparks/Some UFA

Again, nothing spectacular.  You've essentially created an Oilers situation where you have a top heavy team with little to no defence.  You don't have the d-man that can control the game such as a Keith or a Doughty.  It's worse than the Oilers situation though because I think that forward lineup is good enough to get you in the 12 to 14 range so you don't have the chance to draft that potential Ekblad or Hedman type of defenceman near the top of the draft.  I realize that Keith was a second round selection, but hoping that you strike it rich in the second round of the draft doesn't seem like the best possible course of action for building a cup contender.  This is why I would prefer the Leafs stay the course and build through the draft rather than signing Stamkos.

At the same time, bottoming out is no longer as easy as it once was with the new lottery situation. Can you honestly imagine another two losing season after this one and the best the Leafs do is draft 4th overall?

I think they have faith in their scouting setup now, give Hunter picks and he'll get you NHL'ers, get him enough picks and he'll get you impact NHL'ers outside of the first two rounds.

I mean it's early yet, but I don't recall a group of drafted Leafs prospects that have as a whole had as excellent a post-draft year as the group Hunter selected have. I think the guy has an excellent eye

As long as they aren't trading away picks for veterans the way previous regimes have, I'm confident that Hunter will stock the cupboard quite nicely.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 15, 2016, 10:59:06 AM
Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

Just because he is available is not a reason to sign him.  There have been countless UFAs signed by the Leafs that have been absolute disasters, both in their play and in their contracts and it's pretty much a guarantee that Stamkos is getting a monster contract.

Again, I think the team needs to decide where they expect to be in the near future.  If they expect to be in the basement for another 3 years, then I think you don't sign him.  On the other hand, if they think they'll start an upswing as early as next year, then you do it.

If this team wants to compete for a Stanley Cup, then they're going to have to take some risks.

They'll be in the playoff mix in a couple of seasons, and they've already been ranked 4th and 6th in terms of nhl prospects quality rankings by HF and The Hockey Writers.  I think we're further into this rebuild than people think, but they won't be convinced until they've got that #1 centre.  Stamkos gives you that, and you trade away Kadri, Bozak, and JVR this summer for some high-end futures.  The Leafs trade Reimer, Parenteau, Matthias, Boyes, Polak, Spaling, and Grabner at the deadline.

Here's your post-trade-deadline roster:

JVR            Kadri   Komarov
Lupul           Bozak   Leivo
Winnik   Holland   Greening
Clune   Arcobello   Leipsic
Michalek   Morin   
      
Gardiner   Hunwick   
Rielly           Cowan   
Corrado   Marincin   
callup       

Belfour/Bibeau

I could see them taking back some heavy overpriced expiring contracts as part of some deadline stuff, just to send Leipsic and Leivo back for a nice little playoff run with the Marlies...but whatever, they'll still have enough bodies to get them through the rest of the tank 2016 post-deadline season.

Then:

Lupul     5.25   Stamkos   10   Komarov   2.95
Michalek   4   Holland   2   Marner   2.5
Leivo       0.895   Nylander   2.5   Brown   2.5
Leipsic   0.65   Winnik   2.25   Greening   2.65
Lindberg   0.7   Clune   0.6      
                 
Gardiner   4.05   Hunwick   1.2      
Rielly   5.25           Harrington   1.25      
Corrado   1   Marincin   1      
Loov   0.7            
               
Bernier   4.15            
Bibeau   0.65            

That's a 60ish million dollar cap if you include Kessel and Gleason (!).  They've got some flipable assets there for the deadline, and a ton of cap space.

This is obviously just for discussion, but with the proposed addition of Stamkos, and the deletion of Phaneuf and Reimer, the holes would really seem to be bigger on defense and goaltending.  I would think that that would be the focus of the return on the JVR, Kadri, Bozak, Reimer deals.

Your psychologist would like to have a word with you.  ;)

I initially thought the Leafs would trade Kadri, but now I'm starting to wonder. I don't think Nylander starts at center, so Kadri might be valuable to keep around. I've hear that Babcock is not a fan of Holland at center, so I could see Greening going bye bye and being replaced by Holland on the wing. Then Kadri to center on the second line. Perhaps Nylander on the wing to start as well?

Of course Kadri eats up some of that cap space, so once Nylander is ready to play center (assuming Stamkos) you trade Kadri. I wonder if he wouldn't be worth more in a trade anyway if he has a reasonable contract.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 11:16:31 AM

Your psychologist would like to have a word with you.  ;)


I always screw up goalies for some reason.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 15, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
Still signing Stamkos because "players like him are never available" seems like a hollow argument as well, because there is a possibility where one could be in the near future.  Making a decision that could quite possibly derail the rebuild because you don't know what will be available in 2018 seems short sighted.  I think you build your team with your high draft picks and then survey the landscape in 2018 and figure out what you need in order to continue progressing towards the ultimate goal of winning the cup.

Name me any player,  in the cap era,  of Stamkos' age and talent that has been a ufa.

How many have been drafted in the cap era?

Lets say the Leafs get the first overall pick, they trade out the likes of Bozak, Lupul and their forward lineup looks something like this:

JVR - Stamkos - Marner
Nylander - Matthews - Kapanen
Leipsic - Kadri - Brown
Winnick - Gauthier - Clune

Again, purely speculative, but that looks really awesome.  I won't deny that.  However, now lets look at the defence

Reilly - Gardiner
Marincin - Corrado
?? - Harrington

Not as good as the forward lines.  Quite a bit of a drop off there.

Now lets look at the goalies

Bernier/Reimer/Bibeau/Sparks/Some UFA

Again, nothing spectacular.  You've essentially created an Oilers situation where you have a top heavy team with little to no defence.  You don't have the d-man that can control the game such as a Keith or a Doughty.  It's worse than the Oilers situation though because I think that forward lineup is good enough to get you in the 12 to 14 range so you don't have the chance to draft that potential Ekblad or Hedman type of defenceman near the top of the draft.  I realize that Keith was a second round selection, but hoping that you strike it rich in the second round of the draft doesn't seem like the best possible course of action for building a cup contender.  This is why I would prefer the Leafs stay the course and build through the draft rather than signing Stamkos.

I don't think we'll ever have an 'Oilers situation' here. Just look at the game against them last week. The teams on the ice looked liked polar opposites. The Leafs had a structured team completely devoid of talent and the Oilers had a talented team devoid of any sort of structure. The Leafs held there own for most of that game. And the Oilers had Connor McDavid.

Looking at your defensive pairings, I'm pretty sure it would still include some veteran presence of some sort. I'm guessing Hunwick and Polak are around, and/or others are brought in to augment the 'D'.

Lets not forget, nobody ever said this 'rebuild' would be the scorched earth kind, without retaining or acquiring higher end veteran help if and when it becomes available. (Particularly if it comes at no cost but $) 

I think we have one of the smartest front offices in the league right now, and I'm stoked at the moves they've been able to pull off so far. I think its pretty safe to say, they are attempting something in Toronto a lot of people believed wouldn't fly or be green-lighted by ownership. So, if they don't completely bottom out enough for everyone's liking, I don't think its the end of the world.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 15, 2016, 11:27:24 AM

Your psychologist would like to have a word with you.  ;)


I always screw up goalies for some reason.

You shall hence forth be known as The Flyers.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 11:28:09 AM
I don't think we'll ever have an 'Oilers situation' here. Just look at the game against them last week. The teams on the ice looked liked polar opposites. The Leafs had a structured team completely devoid of talent and the Oilers had a talented team devoid of any sort of structure. The Leafs held there own for most of that game. And the Oilers had Connor McDavid.

And the Oilers won 5-2. Talent beats systems.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 15, 2016, 11:28:27 AM
You shall hence forth be known as The Flyers.

Whoa. Whoa. He only screwed up a name. No need to insult the dude like that!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 15, 2016, 11:33:55 AM
I don't think we'll ever have an 'Oilers situation' here. Just look at the game against them last week. The teams on the ice looked liked polar opposites. The Leafs had a structured team completely devoid of talent and the Oilers had a talented team devoid of any sort of structure. The Leafs held there own for most of that game. And the Oilers had Connor McDavid.

And the Oilers won 5-2. Talent beats systems.

Talented teams with structure often win Stanley cups.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 11:36:56 AM
Talented teams with structure often win Stanley cups.

And they find that talent at the top of the draft. The structure comes second. This "we don't need to bottom out" stuff is the exact same stuff we heard from Burke and it's the exact same stuff we heard from JFJ.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
And they find that talent at the top of the draft. The structure comes second. This "we don't need to bottom out" stuff is the exact same stuff we heard from Burke and it's the exact same stuff we heard from JFJ.

No ones saying that we don't need to bottom out, Burke/JFJ's philosophy was obviously terribly flawed. It's a minor point to you I suppose, but the question is "do we need to bottom-out anymore"?.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 15, 2016, 11:40:37 AM
Talented teams with structure often win Stanley cups.

And they find that talent at the top of the draft. The structure comes second. This "we don't need to bottom out" stuff is the exact same stuff we heard from Burke and it's the exact same stuff we heard from JFJ.

My point wasn't that I agreed with that theory or not. It was that whatever way this goes, and with what I've seen so far, I'm going to trust this administration until there's a reason not to.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 11:43:12 AM
No ones saying that we don't need to bottom out, Burke/JFJ's philosophy was obviously terribly flawed. It's a minor point to you I suppose, but the question is "do we need to bottom-out anymore"?.

You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 15, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
No ones saying that we don't need to bottom out, Burke/JFJ's philosophy was obviously terribly flawed. It's a minor point to you I suppose, but the question is "do we need to bottom-out anymore"?.

You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.

LOL.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 11:48:09 AM
You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.

Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

It's so Toronto that the league would institute these new rules right when the Leafs decided to try and take advantage of the system.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 11:54:09 AM
You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.

Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

It's so Toronto that the league would institute these new rules right when the Leafs decided to try and take advantage of the system.

I think what Nik is suggesting is that they need to bottom out so low so as to have the opportunity to draft a Steven Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on February 15, 2016, 11:56:13 AM
You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.

Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

It's so Toronto that the league would institute these new rules right when the Leafs decided to try and take advantage of the system.

This is what I'm afraid of. There is no guarantee you'll get a top pick, I mean Matthews or McDavid level pick, no matter how many years you finish dead last. Worse case is you suck for 5 years and you get 5 4th overall picks, or worse. But I'm hoping that some of the highest end guys start becoming available as UFAs earlier in their careers, which the UFA rules do drive towards. Sure Stamkos, who isn't even one yet, may be the only one we've seen so far, but if in 7 years we've seen, Stamkos, Tavares, and McDavid all hit the UFA market, then 1st overalls are no longer as important in the equation.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 12:05:56 PM
It should be noted too that the projected 1st overall pick in the 2017 draft, Nolan Patrick, isn't exactly being billed as an above-average 1st overall pick. And finishing last only gives you a 20% chance at him. If we were playing by the old rules, and/or there was an Eichel/Matthews type player in the draft, then I'd be much more inclined to try to bottom-out again.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 12:08:34 PM
Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

Yup. That's why teams like Pittsburgh or Chicago had 4 or even 5 seasons at the bottom until they found their guys. Other teams are lucky and only had to be around the bottom for a year or two. I've got my fingers crossed for Auston Matthews like everyone else.

But man, we haven't even had one season with a bottom three finish and already people are saying it's too many. The whole point of patience is that it's less fun than getting what you want right away.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on February 15, 2016, 12:17:58 PM
Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

Yup. That's why teams like Pittsburgh or Chicago had 4 or even 5 seasons at the bottom until they found their guys. Other teams are lucky and only had to be around the bottom for a year or two. I've got my fingers crossed for Auston Matthews like everyone else.

But man, we haven't even had one season with a bottom three finish and already people are saying it's too many. The whole point of patience is that it's less fun than getting what you want right away.

I suppose were going to find out soon if this management team is preaching the same patience you speak of or not. I think there is going to be a lot of fans that unfairly grill this front office if Shanny & company's definition of a rebuild isn't exactly like the one they have in their minds.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 15, 2016, 12:20:14 PM
You know me and my love of semantics, if you can bottom out some more, you're not at the bottom.

Alright, I see what you mean. It doesn't get talked about much but I do wonder how much the new lottery rules will effect teams plans going forward. You really can't count on getting the 1st or 2nd overall pick like you used to be able to. The Leafs could very well pour 2 seasons down the drain and not come out with the type of prospect that they thought they needed.

It's so Toronto that the league would institute these new rules right when the Leafs decided to try and take advantage of the system.

The odds are still in the favour of the teams that finish with poor records, so if your bad for long enough, then you should get that top pick at some point.  Again there are no guarantees, but you need if you go with a plan that has the highest chance of yielding the best results, then you should at some point yield the best results.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on February 15, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
It should be noted too that the projected 1st overall pick in the 2017 draft, Nolan Patrick, isn't exactly being billed as an above-average 1st overall pick. And finishing last only gives you a 20% chance at him. If we were playing by the old rules, and/or there was an Eichel/Matthews type player in the draft, then I'd be much more inclined to try to bottom-out again.

No there isn't as much hype around next years draft.  Usually we start to here rumblings about the next draft right around the world juniors.  It's been pretty quite so far.  That usually means that there isn't a clear cut #1, or that the #1 isn't as strong as a Matthews or a Tavares.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 12:28:25 PM
The odds are still in the favour of the teams that finish with poor records, so if your bad for long enough, then you should get that top pick at some point.  Again there are no guarantees, but you need if you go with a plan that has the highest chance of yielding the best results, then you should at some point yield the best results.

Exactly. And whenever someone says "But what if they're bad for X number of years and still don't pick the player we want" all I can weigh that against is my concern that if they don't do things with patience then in 4 or 5 years the Leafs are right back to where they are now.

I'm way more cautious about the latter than the former.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on February 15, 2016, 12:36:43 PM
The odds are still in the favour of the teams that finish with poor records, so if your bad for long enough, then you should get that top pick at some point.  Again there are no guarantees, but you need if you go with a plan that has the highest chance of yielding the best results, then you should at some point yield the best results.

Exactly. And whenever someone says "But what if they're bad for X number of years and still don't pick the player we want" all I can weigh that against is my concern that if they don't do things with patience then in 4 or 5 years the Leafs are right back to where they are now.

I'm way more cautious about the latter than the former.

If you mean a guy at McDavid's level by 'player we want' then hopefully there will be a UFA or trade available in 4-5 years. The worst case scenario is drafting 5 Marners over the next 5 years and then trading them all away for picks holding out hope for the next McDavid.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 12:40:00 PM
This is just an aside from the actual discussion, but as someone who has spouted a pretty strong pro-tank message the last few years I find it a little funny that I'm now anti-tank.

Anyway, I don't know how to explain that. I don't think I'm trying to rush the plan or throw patience out the window. I'm not saying we should be trading assets to make a playoff push. I just think that unless the team deliberately takes steps to ensure a weaker roster (like by trading JVR/Kadri/Gardiner or keeping Nylander/Marner/other young talent off the team again) it won't be a bottom-5 group. And I don't see the team taking those steps. But if we don't sign Stamkos and I'm wrong about my expectations for this team in 16/17, I'll certainly be back on the tank train.

I also have to say, I haven't exactly adjusted my expectations for next season yet after the Phaneuf trade. As bad of a contract he had, it does leave a pretty big hole in our blue line next season so things could be pretty bad there.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 15, 2016, 12:43:51 PM
The odds are still in the favour of the teams that finish with poor records, so if your bad for long enough, then you should get that top pick at some point.  Again there are no guarantees, but you need if you go with a plan that has the highest chance of yielding the best results, then you should at some point yield the best results.

Exactly. And whenever someone says "But what if they're bad for X number of years and still don't pick the player we want" all I can weigh that against is my concern that if they don't do things with patience then in 4 or 5 years the Leafs are right back to where they are now.

I'm way more cautious about the latter than the former.

I think the Leafs have been pretty good at showing patience to this point. And I think the fans can hang in there with them for quite a while. My concern is this: at the current time the Leafs are in a rebuild/tank/draft and develop stage. They lack any sort of talent and, even with good coaching, are going to hang at the bottom of the league. That's great! But what happens when some of the younger talent starts to filter in. That, combined with great coaching, may pull the Leafs out of the basement before they're ready, and before they have a chance to accumulate what they need in terms of high picks.

For me, this is the difference between choosing to be bad to draft and develop, and not being bad enough just based on an upgrade in talent, hindering the ability to grab a top pick. So, how many years in the basement is enough? And how many are reasonable given the players waiting in the wings?

I would be less concerned about the second scenario if the Leafs could land one of either Stamkos or Matthews this year or, maybe even a better option, Tavares in 2018. :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 15, 2016, 12:45:34 PM
I also have to say, I haven't exactly adjusted my expectations for next season yet after the Phaneuf trade. As bad of a contract he had, it does leave a pretty big hole in our blue line next season so things could be pretty bad there.

I mean we still need to see what they do to fill his and Polak's spot next season, but there seems to be an argument gaining ground that losing Dion might be addition by subtraction.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 12:51:32 PM
And I think the fans can hang in there with them for quite a while.

I've raised my doubts about this in previous posts so instead I'll just say that it's quite clear that "the fans" are not a monolithic group on this one. 

My concern is this: at the current time the Leafs are in a rebuild/tank/draft and develop stage. They lack any sort of talent and, even with good coaching, are going to hang at the bottom of the league. That's great! But what happens when some of the younger talent starts to filter in. That, combined with great coaching, may pull the Leafs out of the basement before they're ready, and before they have a chance to accumulate what they need in terms of high picks.

That doesn't concern me too much. I like many of the young players Toronto has but I'm pretty confident in saying that I don't think any of them will be that kind of difference maker right out of the box. So long as the Leafs limit the incoming talent to home grown, they probably have at least 3 or 4 years of being terrible.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 15, 2016, 12:52:59 PM
The odds are still in the favour of the teams that finish with poor records, so if your bad for long enough, then you should get that top pick at some point.  Again there are no guarantees, but you need if you go with a plan that has the highest chance of yielding the best results, then you should at some point yield the best results.

Exactly. And whenever someone says "But what if they're bad for X number of years and still don't pick the player we want" all I can weigh that against is my concern that if they don't do things with patience then in 4 or 5 years the Leafs are right back to where they are now.

I'm way more cautious about the latter than the former.

If they get Matthews and Stamkos this summer, what do you think their direction should be?

I'm not being facetious here, do you think they still need another year or maybe more or picking at the top of the draft or does that change things for you?

It also then begs the question, is there such a dramatic difference between Matthews+Stamkos and a guy like Laine+Stamkos?

EDIT: Just wanted to add to this that McKenzie recently talked about the fact that although all the scouts he talked to listed Matthews as the top prospect, a lot of them said that there was serious internal debate about Laine being as good or better than Matthews, that's why I ask the question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 01:01:55 PM
This is just an aside from the actual discussion, but as someone who has spouted a pretty strong pro-tank message the last few years I find it a little funny that I'm now anti-tank.

Anyway, I don't know how to explain that. I don't think I'm trying to rush the plan or throw patience out the window. I'm not saying we should be trading assets to make a playoff push. I just think that unless the team deliberately takes steps to ensure a weaker roster (like by trading JVR/Kadri/Gardiner or keeping Nylander/Marner/other young talent off the team again) it won't be a bottom-5 group. And I don't see the team taking those steps. But if we don't sign Stamkos and I'm wrong about my expectations for this team in 16/17, I'll certainly be back on the tank train.

I also have to say, I haven't exactly adjusted my expectations for next season yet after the Phaneuf trade. As bad of a contract he had, it does leave a pretty big hole in our blue line next season so things could be pretty bad there.

I would put myself in the camp that understands that the Leafs need to draft high-end talent.

I think they've done that the past 2 seasons, and will again this season.  I also think they'll do so in 2017.

I don't want them trading away draft picks or prospects for UFA's for a run at the playoffs either.

But...Stamkos isn't a trade acquisition, and is a real boon to the talent level of the team for the next 7 years.  He's one piece of the talent puzzle.  I've put together a roster that I think will still be a bottom 5 roster next season, even with Stamkos.  And in addition to whatever the Leafs have already, they'll also get whatever Kadri and all of the stuff that comes this way from the deadline deals.  And you're right, it's the defense that's going to be the kicker next season now that Phaneuf is gone.  Babcock will be forced to make the new kids responsible as hell with that proposed defense corps, and maybe that's a good thing as well. 

I see Stamkos as an upgrade on re-upping Kadri...you get Stamkos *plus* you get whatever Kadri nets you this summer. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 01:12:12 PM
http://www.tsn.ca/lightning-won-t-trade-stamkos-this-season-1.438299

That's no surprise.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on February 15, 2016, 01:46:16 PM
Good. And I hope he wins the cup in Tampa so he can move on with no regrets.

The downside is that's 2 cups for the freaking lightning.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 15, 2016, 02:06:13 PM
But man, we haven't even had one season with a bottom three finish and already people are saying it's too many. The whole point of patience is that it's less fun than getting what you want right away.

Not saying it's right, but in the preceding 5 full seasons they have finished 2nd last, 9th last, 5th last, 8th last, 4th last.

I don't know if there is a cut off, arbitrary or not, between 3rd last and 4th last that theoretically makes a season easier to handle, but it's not like it's been years of good finishes and this is the first season the fanbase has had to suffer through.

So I can understand if there are fans who feel that way.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 15, 2016, 02:16:40 PM
Not saying it's right, but in the preceding 5 full seasons they have finished 2nd last, 9th last, 5th last, 8th last, 4th last.

I don't know if there is a cut off, arbitrary or not, between 3rd last and 4th last that theoretically makes a season easier to handle, but it's not like it's been years of good finishes and this is the first season the fanbase has had to suffer through.

So I can understand if there are fans who feel that way.

If they had the prospects that came from all of those bottom 10 finishes, they'd likely be closer to the point where adding Stamkos wouldn't feel like an attempt to skip a step in the process. But, really, this is year one of the concerted effort to bottom out and rebuild. The past seasons of ineptitude where completed as attempts to rebuild on the fly and be competitive, and also included a poor draft philosophy. As a result, the Leafs didn't build the kind of prospect base they should have in that time.

I understand that some fans may be tired of losing, but not the idea that the team is at the point where they should be starting to turn things around.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 02:41:04 PM
I understand that some fans may be tired of losing, but not the idea that the team is at the point where they should be starting to turn things around.

These are two completely different things to me. I honestly haven't seen a single person here take the stance that the Leafs should improve because the fans are impatient and tired of seeing the team lose.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 15, 2016, 02:42:34 PM
Not saying it's right, but in the preceding 5 full seasons they have finished 2nd last, 9th last, 5th last, 8th last, 4th last.

I don't know if there is a cut off, arbitrary or not, between 3rd last and 4th last that theoretically makes a season easier to handle, but it's not like it's been years of good finishes and this is the first season the fanbase has had to suffer through.

So I can understand if there are fans who feel that way.

If they had the prospects that came from all of those bottom 10 finishes, they'd likely be closer to the point where adding Stamkos wouldn't feel like an attempt to skip a step in the process. But, really, this is year one of the concerted effort to bottom out and rebuild. The past seasons of ineptitude where completed as attempts to rebuild on the fly and be competitive, and also included a poor draft philosophy. As a result, the Leafs didn't build the kind of prospect base they should have in that time.

I understand that some fans may be tired of losing, but not the idea that the team is at the point where they should be starting to turn things around.

I was responding to the comment that it hasn't even been one year of bottom 3 finishes and fans are already getting antsy about it, but it hasn't been just one season.  Regardless of how the team was managed, that doesn't really change things for a fan getting tired of being at the bottom of the standings.  The end result is the same.

Again, I am fine with how things are going, but I can appreciate others who might not as this season doesn't exist independently of the others.  It's been a lot of low finishes lately.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 02:44:22 PM
I understand that some fans may be tired of losing, but not the idea that the team is at the point where they should be starting to turn things around.

These are two completely different things to me. I honestly haven't seen a single person here take the stance that the Leafs should improve because the fans are impatient and tired of seeing the team lose.

That's exactly right.  Adding Stamkos is part of a plan that will still require a lot of patience.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on February 15, 2016, 02:47:01 PM
I'm still very much on the fence in getting Stamkos,because of the fact that the core still may have to be drafted...I,m also wondering if he would want to come to a team not ready for prime time untill 4 or 5 years from now. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on February 15, 2016, 03:15:35 PM

Good. And I hope he wins the cup in Tampa so he can move on with no regrets.

The downside is that's 2 cups for the freaking lightning.

I was going to post the same thing. Doing so might make him ever so slightly more amenable to giving TO a discount.

I mean, Steven, you'll have a Cup and good terms with Yzerman et al. The only thing left is the very special immortality that would come with captaining your boyhood faves to a championship. Do that, and you become, essentially, God Himself.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 15, 2016, 03:28:11 PM
Sabres to pursue Stamkos?  May very well be...here's how:

TSN's Bob McKenzie said that the Buffalo Sabres should be at the top of his list of destinations for Stamkos to sign on July...

If Stamkos is not re-signed by the Lightning and he decides to test the free agent market, could general manager Tim Murray make a pitch for Stamkos to come to Western New York?

According to generalfanager.com, the Sabres currently have $29,764,212 of cap space, and are projected to have $9,121,291 of cap space by the end of the season. Compared to all 30 NHL teams, the Sabres would have the fourth most room in the salary cap.

After the Trade Deadline, the Sabres could shed some contracts like Jamie McGinn, Mike Weber, and possibly Chad Johnson.

On July 1, the Sabres could shed the contracts of David Legwand and Carlo Colaiacovo. There could also be the possibility of buying out the contract of Matt Moulson in June, but the Sabres would have a buyout cap hit of $2.196 million over the next three seasons, a $3.196 million cap hit in 2018-19, and then $916,666 from 2019 to 2023.

The Sabres will also have to re-sign some restricted free agents including Zemgus Girgensons, Rasmus Ristolainen, Johan Larsson, Marcus Foligno, and Jake McCabe.

If the Sabres buyout the remaining contract of Moulson, the Sabres could have $28,024,645 before re-signing any of their unrestricted free agents or restricted free agents. Plus, the salary cap could go up once again from $71.4 million this season, which would create more room for possible contracts.

The Leafs?
TSN's Darren Dreger thinks that Stamkos' chances of signing in Toronto are right now, "remote". He points out that while the Leafs did do a nice job getting Phaneuf off the books to create some room for a big contract, the situation that Toronto is currently in may deter Stamkos from signing with the Leafs.

Dreger points out that Stamkos wants to win right now, and he wants to win for many more years to come. Right now, while Toronto has Mike Babcock behind the bench, the roster is not exactly set up to win in the near future. The goaltending has many questions, Morgan Reilly could be the only defenseman that has a future with the team, and the best player Stamkos could play with up front may be Nazem Kadri.

Compare that situation to Buffalo's situation right now, the Sabres seem to have a good amount of depth in net, the Sabres have Rasmus Ristolainen on defense but have room to grow, and the Sabres offense is young but could be on the verge of being a powerhouse force in the near future?


http://www.wgr550.com/Stamkos-to-Buffalo-a-possibility-/22467297 (http://www.wgr550.com/Stamkos-to-Buffalo-a-possibility-/22467297)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on February 15, 2016, 03:42:03 PM
I'm still very much on the fence in getting Stamkos,because of the fact that the core still may have to be drafted...I,m also wondering if he would want to come to a team not ready for prime time untill 4 or 5 years from now.

He may not want to, if he does, hopefully it's because he's willing to play for a non-playoff team for a year or two and a non-contender for a year or two after that as well.

I would understand if he does not sign for those reasons.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 08:45:39 PM
If they get Matthews and Stamkos this summer, what do you think their direction should be?

I don't really know how to answer that because it seems to me like you decide on a direction before you pursue Stamkos, not after.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 08:50:29 PM
Not saying it's right, but in the preceding 5 full seasons they have finished 2nd last, 9th last, 5th last, 8th last, 4th last.

I don't know if there is a cut off, arbitrary or not, between 3rd last and 4th last that theoretically makes a season easier to handle, but it's not like it's been years of good finishes and this is the first season the fanbase has had to suffer through.

So I can understand if there are fans who feel that way.

I don't think it's arbitrary, I'm referring to the people who were all on board with the concept of a slow rebuild six months ago and, after four months of bad play, have given up on it.

I understand impatience as well. Like I said, getting what you want right away is a lot of fun. The problem is it's precisely why  the Leafs have had those finishes and built essentially nothing.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 08:51:34 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 08:55:43 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?

How does he not?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 08:56:37 PM
I don't think it's arbitrary, I'm referring to the people who were all on board with the concept of a slow rebuild six months ago and, after four months of bad play, have given up on it.

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I don't feel like this description fits anybody in this thread.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 08:56:54 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?

How does he not?

Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:07:04 PM
Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.

And you don't see how going from subtracting good players from a roster and adding nothing to adding good players and subtracting nothing represents a change in direction?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:17:55 PM
I don't think it's arbitrary, I'm referring to the people who were all on board with the concept of a slow rebuild six months ago and, after four months of bad play, have given up on it.

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I don't feel like this description fits anybody in this thread.

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with you about that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:19:22 PM
Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.

And you don't see how going from subtracting good players from a roster and adding nothing to adding good players and subtracting nothing represents a change in direction?

No, I don't. If I did, I'd question why I'd want Mitch Marner on the Leafs next year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 15, 2016, 09:21:10 PM
I don't think it's arbitrary, I'm referring to the people who were all on board with the concept of a slow rebuild six months ago and, after four months of bad play, have given up on it.

I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated, but I don't feel like this description fits anybody in this thread.

Oh, yeah, I don't agree with you about that.

Ok, then I'll say that nobody has said that they want to sign Stamkos because they're sick of the team losing and growing impatient with the rebuild. If you can look into my subconscious to determine that that's not true then points to you.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:21:57 PM
No, I don't. If I did, I'd question why I'd want Mitch Marner on the Leafs next year.

There's a better than fair shot that Mitch Marner isn't a very good NHL player next year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:22:48 PM
Ok, then I'll say that nobody has said that they want to sign Stamkos because they're sick of the team losing and growing impatient with the rebuild. If you can look into my subconscious to determine that that's not true then points to you.

I haven't brought up the question of whatever motives they, and I don't mean you, might have.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:23:02 PM
No, I don't. If I did, I'd question why I'd want Mitch Marner on the Leafs next year.

There's a better than fair shot that Mitch Marner isn't a very good NHL player next year.

But you don't know that. And what if they draft Matthews? And he's as good as McDavid or Eichel? What if Nylander comes up and he's good? Keep them off he team? Should we trade Rielly because he might be really good?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 09:24:41 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?

How does he not?

Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.

A lot of cap flex gone on one player taking 1/7 of the pie, that's nothing? To a rebuilding team like Toronto, it should be everything.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:27:16 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?

How does he not?

Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.

A lot of cap flex gone on one player taking 1/7 of the pie, that's nothing? To a rebuilding team like Toronto, it should be everything.

Well maybe the Leafs see it that way and they won't sign him? I'd be fine with that too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:28:29 PM
But you don't know that. And what if they draft Matthews? And he's as good as McDavid or Eichel? What if Nylander comes up and he's good? Keep them off he team? Should we trade Rielly because he might be really good?

The fact that you have to preface the first three questions you ask with "What if" should explain to you why they're different situations than adding someone we know is an elite NHL talent.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on February 15, 2016, 09:29:10 PM
No, I don't. If I did, I'd question why I'd want Mitch Marner on the Leafs next year.

There's a better than fair shot that Mitch Marner isn't a very good NHL player next year.

But you don't know that. And what if they draft Matthews? And he's as good as McDavid or Eichel? What if Nylander comes up and he's good? Keep them off he team? Should we trade Rielly because he might be really good?

I would be fairly confident in saying that all these things could happen, and the leafs would still be a lottery team. You're not likely to get 3 calder-worthy players on the same team, and even if you did, they're still rookies with a lot of dead wood around them. I don't see Eichel powering the Sabres to the top of the division.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:30:07 PM
But you don't know that. And what if they draft Matthews? And he's as good as McDavid or Eichel? What if Nylander comes up and he's good? Keep them off he team? Should we trade Rielly because he might be really good?

The fact that you have to preface the first three questions you ask with "What if" should explain to you why they're different situations than adding someone we know is an elite NHL talent.

Does Nylander get sent down if he's too good?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:32:11 PM
No, I don't. If I did, I'd question why I'd want Mitch Marner on the Leafs next year.

There's a better than fair shot that Mitch Marner isn't a very good NHL player next year.

But you don't know that. And what if they draft Matthews? And he's as good as McDavid or Eichel? What if Nylander comes up and he's good? Keep them off he team? Should we trade Rielly because he might be really good?

I would be fairly confident in saying that all these things could happen, and the leafs would still be a lottery team. You're not likely to get 3 calder-worthy players on the same team, and even if you did, they're still rookies with a lot of dead wood around them. I don't see Eichel powering the Sabres to the top of the division.

Or McDavid in Edmonton.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 09:35:08 PM
How does adding Stamkos at no asset cost change the direction the team is heading in?

How does he not?

Because you're just adding a good player to your roster and subtracting nothing.

A lot of cap flex gone on one player taking 1/7 of the pie, that's nothing? To a rebuilding team like Toronto, it should be everything.

Well maybe the Leafs see it that way and they won't sign him? I'd be fine with that too.

Yeah, maybe. I guess we'll see, for me this is the first real smell test of their willingness to see this through properly. It's the timing of it, where they're at, it just doesn't really work.

Now, I'm willing to admit they may have some moves up their sleeve I'm not privy to, but I have to go with what I know. If they rush this and fail, I'm not sure I'll ever believe them again.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:36:26 PM
Stamkos isn't going to make this team that much better next year. Like has nobody been watching? They're awful. One player, even one as good as Stamkos, isn't going to change it overnight.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 09:36:35 PM
The Leafs have to get better eventually.

Chicago went: '03-'08 Did not make playoffs - '09 Conference Finals - '10 Stanley Cup.

I'd say signing Stamkos this offseason would be 1 year too soon for the rebuild. I don't think it'd be a deal breaker. I think it would mean 1 season of pain with Stamkos in the lineup. The season after (presumably Nylander's second with the Leafs, perhaps Marner's first) the Leafs should be looking for a deep playoff run.

The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:37:28 PM
Does Nylander get sent down if he's too good?

Mcdavid, Crosby, Ovechkin...one good young player doesn't turn a team around by themselves right away. No matter how good.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on February 15, 2016, 09:37:55 PM
The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.

It's not about just being bad. Its about being strategically bad (top 5 picks) and not giving up assets to finish just out of the playoffs. They only started doing this properly last year.

Regarding the edmonton thing, I don't know why so many people hang their hats on it. You've got piles of good teams that have built through their own top draft picks (hint: we're playing one tonight), but because Edmonton is the exception that proves the rule, it isn't worth rebuilding like virtually all of the top team have?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:38:24 PM
Does Nylander get sent down if he's too good?

Mcdavid, Crosby, Ovechkin...one good young player doesn't turn a team around by themselves right away. No matter how good.

But Stamkos will?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:43:24 PM
But Stamkos will?

Shockingly, it's like there's a difference between adding a 26 year old and a teenager. Especially when you just finished illustrating the high talent teenagers they're adding anyway.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:45:40 PM
But Stamkos will?

Shockingly, it's like there's a difference between adding a 26 year old and a teenager. Especially when you just finished illustrating the high talent teenagers they're adding anyway.

Which would be?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 09:47:05 PM
Which would be?

I'm not holding your hand through rudimentary concepts of how Athletes develop into better players over time.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 09:49:00 PM
The Leafs have to get better eventually.

Chicago went: '03-'08 Did not make playoffs - '09 Conference Finals - '10 Stanley Cup.

I'd say signing Stamkos this offseason would be 1 year too soon for the rebuild. I don't think it'd be a deal breaker. I think it would mean 1 season of pain with Stamkos in the lineup. The season after (presumably Nylander's second with the Leafs, perhaps Marner's first) the Leafs should be looking for a deep playoff run.

The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.

1 year? how are the Leafs an 08' Hawks team?

A deep playoff run two years from now is way too optimistic.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 09:53:57 PM
But Stamkos will?

Shockingly, it's like there's a difference between adding a 26 year old and a teenager. Especially when you just finished illustrating the high talent teenagers they're adding anyway.

I'd trade Kadri and JVR for prospects and picks.  Add Stamkos.

I think they plan is still on course there.

Just so I'm clear, whose template are you wanting the Leafs to copy?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 09:55:41 PM
The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.

It's not about just being bad. Its about being strategically bad (top 5 picks) and not giving up assets to finish just out of the playoffs. They only started doing this properly last year.

Regarding the edmonton thing, I don't know why so many people hang their hats on it. You've got piles of good teams that have built through their own top draft picks (hint: we're playing one tonight), but because Edmonton is the exception that proves the rule, it isn't worth rebuilding like virtually all of the top team have?

Boston didn't tank. Detroit didn't tank. Anaheim didn't tank. Dallas didn't tank. San Jose didn't tank. New York Rangers didn't tank. St. Louis didn't tank. All put together cup contending teams. 

LA only drafted top 3 once. The only teams who legitimately "tanked" and had multiple top 3 picks to win the Stanley Cup in the last 10 years were Chicago and Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 09:59:14 PM
Which would be?

I'm not holding your hand through rudimentary concepts of how Athletes develop into better players over time.

Youre like a Jedi with the way you deflect basic questions. It's almost like the words "I don't know" aren't in your vocabulary.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 09:59:49 PM
I'd trade Kadri and JVR for prospects and picks.  Add Stamkos.

I think they plan is still on course there.

Oh man, it really isn't.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 10:02:35 PM
I'd trade Kadri and JVR for prospects and picks.  Add Stamkos.

I think they plan is still on course there.

Oh man, it really isn't.

I can play this game. 

Yes it is?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 10:08:40 PM
Youre like a Jedi with the way you deflect basic questions. It's almost like the words "I don't know" aren't in your vocabulary.

As soon as you have something to contribute to a discussion beyond basic questions, let me know.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 10:09:05 PM
I'd trade Kadri and JVR for prospects and picks.  Add Stamkos.

I think they plan is still on course there.

Oh man, it really isn't.

I can play this game. 

Yes it is?

Adding Stamkos at the expense of two of the Leafs better players doesn't make a lick of sense in terms of bottoming out and hoping adding Stamkos matters in the near future. If they were to trade Kadri and JVR, which I don't oppose at all, it should increase the positive confluence of bottoming out with a shitload of capspace, Stamkos drags it back down.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 10:11:24 PM
The Leafs have to get better eventually.

Chicago went: '03-'08 Did not make playoffs - '09 Conference Finals - '10 Stanley Cup.

I'd say signing Stamkos this offseason would be 1 year too soon for the rebuild. I don't think it'd be a deal breaker. I think it would mean 1 season of pain with Stamkos in the lineup. The season after (presumably Nylander's second with the Leafs, perhaps Marner's first) the Leafs should be looking for a deep playoff run.

The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.

1 year? how are the Leafs an 08' Hawks team?

A deep playoff run two years from now is way too optimistic.

It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 10:20:05 PM
Youre like a Jedi with the way you deflect basic questions. It's almost like the words "I don't know" aren't in your vocabulary.

As soon as you have something to contribute to a discussion beyond basic questions, let me know.

How can I contribute if I don't understand your line of thinking? I figured if you were capable of explaining it, you would. Guess I was right.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 10:22:46 PM
LA only drafted top 3 once. The only teams who legitimately "tanked" and had multiple top 3 picks to win the Stanley Cup in the last 10 years were Chicago and Pittsburgh.

The Kings had 3 straight years of top 5 picks and, when they picked Doughty at #2, had a 22 year old elite center on the roster.

Hoping that Nylander is that is one thing.  Making future plans like it's a guarantee is something entirely different.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 10:27:40 PM
How can I contribute if I don't understand your line of thinking?

Get better at understanding things?

I tried.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 10:30:28 PM
The Leafs have to get better eventually.

Chicago went: '03-'08 Did not make playoffs - '09 Conference Finals - '10 Stanley Cup.

I'd say signing Stamkos this offseason would be 1 year too soon for the rebuild. I don't think it'd be a deal breaker. I think it would mean 1 season of pain with Stamkos in the lineup. The season after (presumably Nylander's second with the Leafs, perhaps Marner's first) the Leafs should be looking for a deep playoff run.

The Leafs shouldn't want to be bad for too long (to beat a dead horse) and end up like Edmonton.

1 year? how are the Leafs an 08' Hawks team?

A deep playoff run two years from now is way too optimistic.

It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.

I'd say the Leafs will be extremely lucky if they get one Kane or Toews out of those two, it's pretty far from a sure thing. Chicago drafted Skille at 7 overall and Barker at 3 in between Seabrook and Toews, and the same year Chicago drafted Kane at 1, LA drafted Hickey at 4 bookended by Kopitar two years before and Doughty a year after ( winning the cup three years after Doughty, six after Kopitar, seven after Brown ).

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 10:35:31 PM
LA only drafted top 3 once. The only teams who legitimately "tanked" and had multiple top 3 picks to win the Stanley Cup in the last 10 years were Chicago and Pittsburgh.

The Kings had 3 straight years of top 5 picks and, when they picked Doughty at #2, had a 22 year old elite center on the roster.

Hoping that Nylander is that is one thing.  Making future plans like it's a guarantee is something entirely different.

That elite centre was picked at #11.

And the other 2 guys were Thomas Hickey and Brayden Schenn.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 10:37:13 PM
LA only drafted top 3 once. The only teams who legitimately "tanked" and had multiple top 3 picks to win the Stanley Cup in the last 10 years were Chicago and Pittsburgh.

The Kings had 3 straight years of top 5 picks and, when they picked Doughty at #2, had a 22 year old elite center on the roster.

Hoping that Nylander is that is one thing.  Making future plans like it's a guarantee is something entirely different.

None of this is guaranteed... Only 1 of LA's 3 years of top five picks contributed to their Stanley Cup runs.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 10:40:21 PM
I tried.

Well, keep at 'er and you'll be able to contribute to hockey discussions without asking people to pause and explain simple concepts to you in no time.

Well, it usually doesn't take two pages. Most people here aren't too arrogant to admit they can't explain something.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 10:41:24 PM
And the other 2 guys were Thomas Hickey and Brayden Schenn.

Goodness. One might draw the conclusion that even high draft picks taken by smart front offices don't all pan out and that a team shouldn't base a strategy around that not being a possibility.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 10:43:00 PM
And the other 2 guys were Thomas Hickey and Brayden Schenn.

Goodness. One might draw the conclusion that even high draft picks taken by smart front offices don't all pan out and that a team shouldn't base a strategy around that not being a possibility.

Can the Leafs call Seguin their high pick that didn't pan out?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 15, 2016, 10:49:16 PM
And the other 2 guys were Thomas Hickey and Brayden Schenn.

Goodness. One might draw the conclusion that even high draft picks taken by smart front offices don't all pan out and that a team shouldn't base a strategy around that not being a possibility.

Right. They should endeavour to acquire talent through other means as well.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 10:56:31 PM
Well, it usually doesn't take two pages.

That's because most people here aren't so humble as to admit they don't understand basic tenets of player development.

Maybe they just can't identify when you're full of crap, like now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 10:58:08 PM
Right. They should endeavour to acquire talent through other means as well.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't scout hard outside of the top 5 or make trades or even sign free agents when the time is right.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 15, 2016, 11:17:16 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:20:37 PM
Maybe they just can't identify when you're full of crap, like now.

So I should be more like you and make it blindingly obvious?

The difference between you and I is that I don't claim to know everything. So when I say something I say it with the full knowledge that I may not know what I'm talking about. That's why I asked you to explain your position.

I've been on this site for a long time. Long enough to know that you would never miss an opportunity to slap someone down who disagreed with you and to show everyone how much you know and how smart you are, and yet when I asked a very simple question you passed up that opportunity over and over again. That's how I know you're full of it.

And resorting to being this overtly insulting? That's a little low brow for you, isn't it? Must've knocked you off your game more than I thought.

Goodnight.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:21:31 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on February 15, 2016, 11:25:53 PM
Through all the sound and fury in this argument, I still feel it hasn't been fully discussed whether Stamkos is, in fact, among the most elite players worthy of the contract he appears likely to get.

In short: has his game regressed since the leg injury? 

I don't watch him enough to say, but others have expressed doubts.  Wondering what people here say.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:31:29 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:32:10 PM
Through all the sound and fury in this argument, I still feel it hasn't been fully discussed whether Stamkos is, in fact, among the most elite players worthy of the contract he appears likely to get.

In short: has his game regressed since the leg injury? 

I don't watch him enough to say, but others have expressed doubts.  Wondering what people here say.

To be honest, I don't think it matters at this point. The Leafs won't be winning a cup with Stamkos as the primary guy in the near future, even if he reverts back to a 60 goal player for a few years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:33:07 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:36:10 PM
And resorting to being this overtly insulting? That's a little low brow for you, isn't it? Must've knocked you off your game more than I thought.

"I've dragged you down to my level, therefore I've won".

Good god, you're not even clever for a troll.

I never insulted you. Calling you arrogant is an observation of your character.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:45:16 PM
LA only drafted top 3 once. The only teams who legitimately "tanked" and had multiple top 3 picks to win the Stanley Cup in the last 10 years were Chicago and Pittsburgh.

The Kings had 3 straight years of top 5 picks and, when they picked Doughty at #2, had a 22 year old elite center on the roster.

Hoping that Nylander is that is one thing.  Making future plans like it's a guarantee is something entirely different.

That elite centre was picked at #11.

Just for reference, so was Kyle Beach, by the Hawks in 08, still hasn't played an NHL game.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:46:02 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.

But why not? You said yourself that they aren't a Stamkos away from anything, so its not like they won't still be spending time at the bottom. If it's looking like Stamkos won't figure into the long term plans they can always trade him. That's been proven.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:49:26 PM
I never insulted you. Calling you arrogant is an observation of your character, not an insult.

"You're full of crap"

"No, you are"

"Hey, I never insulted you!"

Seriously, get a new act. You're boring. You're right that I'll engage in a discussion with just about anyone, you should really ask yourself what it says about you that you're the exception.

Saying someone is full of crap is not an insult, and if it is to you then I'm sorry but that says something about you, not me.

I always figured you didn't want to engage in discussion with me because I routinely call you on your BS and you can't handle it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:49:50 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.

But why not? You said yourself that they aren't a Stamkos away from anything, so its not like they won't still be spending time at the bottom. If it's looking like Stamkos won't figure into the long term plans they can always trade him. That's been proven.

If the plan is to sign Stamkos to trade him a couple years later, ok, I'm more interested ( but completely in awe of how that sounds ), however I have a sneaking suspicion that his NMC will get in the way of that, and, the Leafs could use that same cap flex you're espousing to much better ends over those years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 15, 2016, 11:52:07 PM
Just for reference, so was Kyle Beach, by the Hawks in 08, still hasn't played an NHL game.

Exactly. Nobody is saying ignore adding players in other ways beyond the top end of the draft and if Alex Nylander or Andrew Nielson(or whoever) establish themselves as the sort of elite talents we're talking about against the odds then, sure, you can look to alter plans accordingly.

As you point out though there's a huge a difference between "Hey, that guy we drafted at #11 is a terrific player, we can build around him" and "Oh don't worry, we can draft a terrific player at #11".
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:56:43 PM
It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.


I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.

But why not? You said yourself that they aren't a Stamkos away from anything, so its not like they won't still be spending time at the bottom. If it's looking like Stamkos won't figure into the long term plans they can always trade him. That's been proven.

If the plan is to sign Stamkos to trade him a couple years later, ok, I'm more interested ( but completely in awe of how that sounds ), however I have a sneaking suspicion that his NMC will get in the way of that, and, the Leafs could use that same cap flex you're espousing to much better ends over those years.

I didn't say it was the plan. I said it was an option. The plan would be to sign Stamkos in the hopes that he would figure to their long term plans, but things don't always go according to plan.

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 15, 2016, 11:57:27 PM
Saying someone is full of crap is not an insult, and if it is to you then I'm sorry but that says something about you, not me.

You're right but we already went over how I understand basic concepts and you need to work harder at them.

I thought I was boring. Why are you still talking? Oh sorry I asked a question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 15, 2016, 11:58:28 PM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:01:17 AM
I thought I was boring. Why are you still talking? Oh sorry I asked a question.

Next time you find someone who isn't well versed in your act, ask them what "Good Night" typically means.

Stiiiiiiiiiilllll talking...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:04:29 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 12:06:53 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:09:34 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 12:17:38 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:21:46 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).

Yep. They could. There are definitely benefits to not signing him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:25:14 AM
Stiiiiiiiiiilllll talking...

Stiiiiiiiiiilllll trolling...

I'm not trolling though. I'm not trying to get you angry. I'm just pointing out what's painfully obvious. You being offended by it is a reflection of you. I do understand some concepts, Nik. To be honest you were the one that was trolling me. I understand my character flaws and made a conscious choice not to succumb to them.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 12:32:34 AM
To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).

Yep. They could. There are definitely benefits to not signing him.

...and I think those benefits are much more realistic in terms of success to the ultimate goal of all this without signing Stamkos.

Say Rielly is Keith, on an even parallel, that's 4 years to a cup. Stamkos isn't worth it by then and I don't think there are any 'knowns' that can change that at this point.

Oh, and Rielly won't be paid like Keith, if he turns out to be something like him, and the Leafs won't have a Hossa circumventing the cap either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 12:58:26 AM
I'm not trying to get you angry.

I get wordy when I'm angry. I get dismissive with trolls.

In that case, I'm sorry that you're angry.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 01:05:35 AM
In that case, I'm sorry that you're angry.

I'm sorry you're a troll.

Found the mirror did ya?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 01:06:38 AM
C'mon, enough, talk hockey.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TML fan on February 16, 2016, 01:15:49 AM
Tigger you make good points but the one I don't agree with is Stamkos not being worth it in 4 years. Lots of players continue to play at a high level into their 30s.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 01:20:53 AM
Tigger you make good points but the one I don't agree with is Stamkos not being worth it in 4 years. Lots of players continue to play at a high level into their 30s.

I don't know what his level of play will be in 4 years, granted, but I do have an inkling of how players decline, a 30 year old Stamkos on a 10.5 mil per deal ( say ) with 3 years to go is close to the definition of not worth it, for the cap impact at the time and the 4 years worth of roster rolling with the same money.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 01:24:25 AM
Through all the sound and fury in this argument, I still feel it hasn't been fully discussed whether Stamkos is, in fact, among the most elite players worthy of the contract he appears likely to get.

In short: has his game regressed since the leg injury? 

I don't watch him enough to say, but others have expressed doubts.  Wondering what people here say.

I think there's too much going on in Tampa to really say definitively. From being played out of position to not getting on with his coach, there's probably real reason to think that whatever "decline" he might be experiencing being less about ability and more about situation.

Which of course feeds into the larger issue of there being an inherent catch-22 with the pro-signing Stamkos argument. There is a problem connecting "He's a terrific, no questions asked first line center who is worth the sort of 8 figure AAV contract he'll almost certainly be asking for" with "But don't worry, he won't help the team be good or anything".

As much as the gap between the middle and the top is shrinking, so is the bottom and the middle. Right now the difference between where the Leafs are and where Ottawa is, tied for 7th worst in the league, is 7 points. I think it would be a pretty conservative estimate to say that one of the best players in the league, which Stamkos may or may not be, can't be responsible for a team improving 7-10 points in a season just by himself.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on February 16, 2016, 07:43:41 AM
I'm on the fence. I've read all the polite, captivating arguments in this thread and still can't make my mind.

I think the safe bet is to just continue the course and not sign Stamkos. However, the safe bet is often a loser's bet. Marner or Nylander may not pan out. The Leafs might select 5th and get a player of no consequence.

When Kessel came in, it was at a great cost and the team didn't have a strong commitment to rebuilding. Stamkos will come at no cost -- other than a big chunk of cap space gone -- and the team can still keep their commitment to the rebuild.

Will Stamkos improve the team to such a level that they start drafting in the middle of the pack? I really don't know. Will his cap hit of $10M provide a huge impediment to future growth of the team? I really don't know.

I think I'm leaning toward skipping Stamkos. The main reason is simply that I think the team is just too early in the rebuild. The defense, in particular, is too far behind.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 16, 2016, 09:00:26 AM
I'm on the fence. I've read all the polite, captivating arguments in this thread and still can't make my mind.

I think the safe bet is to just continue the course and not sign Stamkos. However, the safe bet is often a loser's bet. Marner or Nylander may not pan out. The Leafs might select 5th and get a player of no consequence.

When Kessel came in, it was at a great cost and the team didn't have a strong commitment to rebuilding. Stamkos will come at no cost -- other than a big chunk of cap space gone -- and the team can still keep their commitment to the rebuild.

Will Stamkos improve the team to such a level that they start drafting in the middle of the pack? I really don't know. Will his cap hit of $10M provide a huge impediment to future growth of the team? I really don't know.

I think I'm leaning toward skipping Stamkos. The main reason is simply that I think the team is just too early in the rebuild. The defense, in particular, is too far behind.

I'm feeling this way too, but I've vacillated in both directions during the course of the season.

On the one hand: epic elite production when Stamkos has been relied upon heavily for that role; available without giving up hard assets. On the other hand: 1/7th of your Salary Cap in one player, which could hamstring our really efficient management team a bit.

Personally, I wouldn't jump for an opportune signing of this magnitude until we have enough horses in the stable that really look championship calibre (goalie, 1D, 1C, a structure that can literally skate the puck to the net). The sniper is preferably my last get.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 16, 2016, 09:06:14 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 16, 2016, 09:20:20 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

It's fun!

If it was a 26 year old Doughty, I'd say yes. Scoring Center/Winger at this stage of the build? Maaaaybe.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 16, 2016, 09:29:33 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

I'm pro-Stamkos, but I don't think it's insane for someone to not want him.

Anyway, I have faith that our management group will be able to build a successful team in the future either way.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zee on February 16, 2016, 09:53:33 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?   Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.   Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 10:02:59 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?   Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.   Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

Do you think that is not a bit of recency bias in questioning whether he's a top player in the league by virtue of his scoring rank right now?

Even if it takes the Leafs all of 5 seasons to compete where Stamkos is then 30 or 31, that's not a David Clarkson 31.  Alex Ovechkin is 30 going on 31 in the fall and he's leading the league in goals.  As I said previously, great players are better for longer and get worse slower.  It's not a bad gamble to make on someone like Stamkos.  On someone like Bolland, yes, bad gamble.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 10:03:47 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

I'm pro-Stamkos, but I don't think it's insane for someone to not want him.

Anyway, I have faith that our management group will be able to build a successful team in the future either way.

I feel similar.  I've argued for him, but I don't think it's crazy to take the other position either.  It's not something clear cut 100% yes or no, but things rarely are anyway.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on February 16, 2016, 10:14:08 AM
The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.


Bah. I can't decide!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 16, 2016, 10:24:10 AM
A lot of the uncertainty depends on where people assess the team to be on their development curve towards championship calibre, and overlaying where they see Stamkos' development curve.

I think Stamkos is about one or two steps from his peak. Our team is a couple more years away if the pieces from this past offseason make significant hay.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 10:34:44 AM
The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.

This is kind of where I'm at, too. From a purely rational perspective, looking at what I consider to be a realistic timeline for the Leafs, and what their needs really are going forward, I'm leaning against the team taking a serious run at Stamkos. There's also one big unknown that will have a significant impact on things - and that's if the Leafs get to draft Matthews. If they do, it becomes a really easy "no" for me. If they don't, it's a little more clouded. Even though adding Stamkos would only cost cap space, when the Leafs are in a position to take that next step, that space will likely be more effectively used to shore up the blueline, bring in a goalie, improve the secondary and depth scoring, etc. - the kind of things championship teams really need in addition to a 1st line centre.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: losveratos on February 16, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?   Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.   Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

I agree with the heart of your argument. He's potentially not worth the coming contract. But the scoring leaders comments are just not necessary.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 16, 2016, 10:42:06 AM
Yeah, I mean I can see merit in the counter argument for sure, but I still think it's a bit of a leap to say you shouldn't sign him for no asset cost.

It just seems like the nay camp are running in circles saying, don't sign him because of the cap, don't sign him because the team isn't good enough, don't sign him because what if he makes the team mediocre? It's like they're clutching at straws looking for reasons not to sign him and only consider the negative outcomes of his signing.

I get that being a Leafs fan recently comes with the need to use pessimism as a defence mechanism, but this seems over the top.

Yes, I know cap space is an asset, but the team has given themselves a lot of wiggle room in that regard and they still have a lot of fairly big ticket contracts to come off the books over the short term. In addition, they've also shown that they can get creative when it comes to moving out undesirable contracts.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 10:43:29 AM
The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.

This is kind of where I'm at, too. From a purely rational perspective, looking at what I consider to be a realistic timeline for the Leafs, and what their needs really are going forward, I'm leaning against the team taking a serious run at Stamkos. There's also one big unknown that will have a significant impact on things - and that's if the Leafs get to draft Matthews. If they do, it becomes a really easy "no" for me. If they don't, it's a little more clouded. Even though adding Stamkos would only cost cap space, when the Leafs are in a position to take that next step, that space will likely be more effectively used to shore up the blueline, bring in a goalie, improve the secondary and depth scoring, etc. - the kind of things championship teams really need in addition to a 1st line centre.

I have those concerns too, but then a big part of me thinks you just figure that out when the time comes.  All of the Leafs' good young players will be on their ELC's until, what, 2019 at least?  I kind of like the idea of guys like Nylander, Marner coming up with someone like Stamkos on the roster rather than the Edmonton way of throwing them all into the fire as the best offensive weapons on the team from a young age.  Plus at some point Lupul/Bozak are coming off the cap too.

I feel like other teams have been able to make it work with elite talent, Leafs should be able to as well.

But there's still that nagging worry as well...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 10:45:42 AM
Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

That might not be the best approach. Toews is currently undergoing a critical re-evaluation.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: losveratos on February 16, 2016, 10:54:08 AM
Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

That might not be the best approach. Toews is currently undergoing a critical re-evaluation.

Then quickly glance over the other names immediately below him and then the 16 people above him that he would immediately pass with a 3 point game. Which he's already attained multiple times this season so it's not even out of the question.

Like I said earlier. Its a value concern, but that argument doesnt hold traction (in my opinion) until either much closer to the end of the season or if theres an actual large disparity. And seeing as everyone below Ovechkin on the first page are all huddled around each other. I'd say he's just not out of the top of the league. And that his 43rd in scoring is unimportant (at the moment).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on February 16, 2016, 11:04:17 AM
Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

For me, I don't look at it from the perspective that Stamkos will be past his glory days at 30 years old (I think he will be quite productive well beyond that).  I'm thinking that he is 26, and the Leafs could potentially have him for at least the next dozen years. 

And there is really nothing that can convince me that a 26-year old talent like Stamkos can't grow with the team as it is being built. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 11:06:51 AM
I'd say he's just not out of the top of the league. And that his 43rd in scoring is unimportant (at the moment).

It's not something I want to parse especially but I suppose that sort of depends on what you think "top of the league" means.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 11:09:12 AM
I feel like other teams have been able to make it work with elite talent, Leafs should be able to as well.

While that's true, for the most part, those teams have done so either before they signed that elite talent to big money deals, or when they already had their other areas of concern filled with cost effective talent that were more than simply "good enough" to fill those roles. They also had the organizational depth that, when those secondary and depth pieces became too expensive, they had cheap, young options that were able to step in and fill those roles. I'm not convinced the Leafs are able to do any of that.

My concern is that, with Stamkos, the Leafs will become a very top heavy team before they're able to make the jump to contender.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 11:13:34 AM
While that's true, for the most part, those teams have done so either before they signed that elite talent to big money deals, or when they already had their other areas of concern filled with cost effective talent that were more than simply "good enough" to fill those roles. They also had the organizational depth that, when those secondary and depth pieces became too expensive, they had cheap, young options that were able to step in and fill those roles. I'm not convinced the Leafs are able to do any of that.

Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 11:16:04 AM
Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.

Hossa in Chicago, but that was one of those cap circumventing deals that aren't options now. But, yeah, for the most part, Cup teams and Cup contenders have brought in depth pieces via UFA, not big pieces. Partly because really high quality pieces haven't been available by UFA, and partly because they had those pieces in place internally before they became contenders. The perennial contenders definitely seem to have grasped the concept that spending UFA prices to being in major pieces is not a successful strategy.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 11:19:26 AM
I feel like other teams have been able to make it work with elite talent, Leafs should be able to as well.

While that's true, for the most part, those teams have done so either before they signed that elite talent to big money deals, or when they already had their other areas of concern filled with cost effective talent that were more than simply "good enough" to fill those roles. They also had the organizational depth that, when those secondary and depth pieces became too expensive, they had cheap, young options that were able to step in and fill those roles. I'm not convinced the Leafs are able to do any of that.

My concern is that, with Stamkos, the Leafs will become a very top heavy team before they're able to make the jump to contender.

Isn't that what the Leafs are doing now?  Filling their organization with young depth pieces?  I think a big reason why the better teams can fill out their roster with 'cheap, young options' is because they have those elite talents in the high profile slots allowing those players to slot in more effectively.  Not to continually go back to Chicago, but when they were naming off some of those depth players Chicago has signed recently - would any of them be lauded on any other team?  I think it just works in Chicago because they have Kane/Toews and then Hossa, Panarin so these players don't have to be anything other than depth players. 

I think the Leafs are building their organization in such a way and I think it's evident in how many picks they've been trying to acquire.  In the years to come they will hopefully have a ton of younger players who can fill certain roles as needed.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 11:24:17 AM
Hossa in Chicago, but that was one of those cap circumventing deals that aren't options now. But, yeah, for the most part, Cup teams and Cup contenders have brought in depth pieces via UFA, not big pieces. Partly because really high quality pieces haven't been available by UFA, and partly because they had those pieces in place internally before they became contenders. The perennial contenders definitely seem to have grasped the concept that spending UFA prices to being in major pieces is not a successful strategy.

Hossa was signed in the summer of '09 when they already had Toews, Kane, Keith and Seabrook established as pretty good players and had Sharp, Ladd, Byfuglien and so on up and contributing. He was very much a final piece of the puzzle.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 16, 2016, 11:32:01 AM
Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.

Hossa in Chicago, but that was one of those cap circumventing deals that aren't options now. But, yeah, for the most part, Cup teams and Cup contenders have brought in depth pieces via UFA, not big pieces. Partly because really high quality pieces haven't been available by UFA, and partly because they had those pieces in place internally before they became contenders. The perennial contenders definitely seem to have grasped the concept that spending UFA prices to being in major pieces is not a successful strategy.

Campbell in Florida?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 11:38:53 AM
Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.

Hossa in Chicago, but that was one of those cap circumventing deals that aren't options now. But, yeah, for the most part, Cup teams and Cup contenders have brought in depth pieces via UFA, not big pieces. Partly because really high quality pieces haven't been available by UFA, and partly because they had those pieces in place internally before they became contenders. The perennial contenders definitely seem to have grasped the concept that spending UFA prices to being in major pieces is not a successful strategy.

But you hit the nail on the head - the reason teams don't sign elite UFA's is because they almost never hit UFA status while still in their prime.  It's hard to say anything definitively on it because there's almost no parallels since the cap came about.  Did those perennial contenders grasp that concept or did they have no other choice?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 11:44:57 AM
Campbell in Florida?

When did Florida go on a Cup run?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 11:47:21 AM
Campbell in Florida?

When did Florida go on a Cup run?

All the examples will probably be from before the cap, or at least most of them.  Maybe Scott Niedermayer in Anaheim.  Kovalchuk if you want to get technical since he did become an UFA, just ended up signing back with NJ who had traded for him earlier in the season.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Groundskeeper Willie on February 16, 2016, 11:52:45 AM
I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but I'm curious what the cut off is for the anti Stamkos crowd. If he was 24 instead of 26 would he then be 'young enough'? Is it also imperative that JvR and Kadri be traded because they don't fit the age range?

As far as the team being too good with Stamkos even Pittsburgh finished last the season after adding Crosby and his 100+ point season. Are you happy the team missed McDavid? Or would the age difference have made the potential mediocrity OK?

Again I'm not in either camp (my biggest concern is if he'll be worth the cap hit), I'm just wondering about the thought process.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 16, 2016, 11:55:01 AM
Campbell in Florida?

When did Florida go on a Cup run?

Well, they're 5th in the league right now.  I think they'd have a shot over the next couple of seasons anyway, no?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 16, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

It's fun!

If it was a 26 year old Doughty, I'd say yes. Scoring Center/Winger at this stage of the build? Maaaaybe.

I wish it was Doughty that was going to be a FA. I honestly believe he's the best player in the league in terms of helping his team win a championship.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 12:04:46 PM
As far as the team being too good with Stamkos even Pittsburgh finished last the season after adding Crosby and his 100+ point season.

But look at the roster of that 05-06 Pittsburgh team. Crosby is literally the only good young player on the roster. There's a 25 year old Ryan Malone, a 22 year old Colby Armstrong and Ryan Whitney and Brooks Orpik. That's it.

Next year's Leaf team is almost certainly going to have Rielly, Marner and Nylander. Maybe Kapanen. Maybe one of Laine, Matthews or Puljujarvi. Even before you get to maybe still having JVR or Kadri and Gardiner there's going to be a lot of young talent on the roster.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 12:06:16 PM
Campbell in Florida?

When did Florida go on a Cup run?

When did Campbell sign in Florida as a UFA?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 12:06:53 PM
Well, they're 5th in the league right now.  I think they'd have a shot over the next couple of seasons anyway, no?

Well, if they go on one this season, they'd sort of qualify. They didn't sign Campbell - they traded for him - and he's a UFA at the end of the season.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 16, 2016, 01:16:46 PM
Campbell in Florida?

When did Florida go on a Cup run?

When did Campbell sign in Florida as a UFA?

I'm aware they traded for him. I thought we were debating whether or acquiring elite talent (at no talent cost) was a good idea at this point of the rebuild.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 01:29:36 PM
I'm aware they traded for him. I thought we were debating whether or acquiring elite talent (at no talent cost) was a good idea at this point of the rebuild.

So you brought up an example of a team acquiring non-elite talent for a talent cost?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 01:34:58 PM
I'm aware they traded for him. I thought we were debating whether or acquiring elite talent (at no talent cost) was a good idea at this point of the rebuild.

So you brought up an example of a team acquiring non-elite talent for a talent cost?

Well, that's debatable. It was a straight up trade for a player they would otherwise likely bought out or demoted to the AHL. The "talent" it cost them was a player that was unlikely to be on their roster.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 01:39:46 PM
Well, that's debatable. It was a straight up trade for a player they would otherwise likely bought out or demoted to the AHL. The "talent" it cost them was a player that was unlikely to be on their roster.

I don't disagree with the general point you're making but I don't know if I buy the rationale. Joe Colborne was a legit NHL talent(admittedly not one to write home about) regardless of whether or not the Leafs planned to demote him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 16, 2016, 01:58:31 PM
An inherently flawed theoretical question, but nonetheless:  Pretend Stamkos had played his career up to this point with the Leafs.  There's no baggage or ill will between him and the coach/management.  Pretend there's no option to trade him leading into free agency.  He's coming up for UFA as he is in July.  In that circumstance, for anybody who opposes the signing of Stamkos as it stands right now, would you also still take the position that the team should let him walk if he were a Leaf right now?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 02:04:35 PM
An inherently flawed theoretical question, but nonetheless:  Pretend Stamkos had played his career up to this point with the Leafs.  There's no baggage or ill will between him and the coach/management.  Pretend there's no option to trade him leading into free agency.  He's coming up for UFA as he is in July.  In that circumstance, for anybody who opposes the signing of Stamkos as it stands right now, would you also still take the position that the team should let him walk if he were a Leaf right now?

Well, the flawed premise is a problem, but there's also a significant difference between retaining an asset and adding one. Letting him walk for nothing represents a loss. Not adding him represents the status quo. From an asset management POV, you'd want to re-sign him. From a team building perspective? That's a more complicated question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 16, 2016, 02:04:59 PM
I trust Lamoriello and Shanahan and the rest of the Leafs management team on their decision-making.

The real question isn't even if the Leafs should sign Stamkos but rather, will the young prospects who will most certainly be with the big club come next season, be able to handle the 'pressure' of the big leagues.  One name in point: Mitchell Marner.  Will he turn out as another Kadri type or will he improve surely but steadily, not slowly with issues?  Will he eventually morph into one of the the team's elite centres?  Will Nylander be affected in any way especially should he be hit again (considering he already has been previously concussed)?  Yes, many questions.  Answers?  Wait and see.

I believe the Leafs management will have a more complete  picture of the team's situation after the Draft.  In this way, they will be able to assess everything and get a clearer picture of where the rebuild is going and whether signing Stamkos will truly fit into their plans.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
An inherently flawed theoretical question, but nonetheless:  Pretend Stamkos had played his career up to this point with the Leafs.  There's no baggage or ill will between him and the coach/management.  Pretend there's no option to trade him leading into free agency.  He's coming up for UFA as he is in July.  In that circumstance, for anybody who opposes the signing of Stamkos as it stands right now, would you also still take the position that the team should let him walk if he were a Leaf right now?

So in this situation the Maple Leafs have had a top flight, elite #1 center the last 7 years but that hasn't changed the situation they're in at all? Or affected personnel decisions along the way?

...I guess not?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 02:07:38 PM
I don't disagree with the general point you're making but I don't know if I buy the rationale. Joe Colborne was a legit NHL talent(admittedly not one to write home about) regardless of whether or not the Leafs planned to demote him.

For what it's worth, since the trade, Olesz has played in all of 16 NHL games - so, there's evidence that GMs around the league no longer considered him a legit NHL talent at the time of the trade. I don't think Florida management considered moving him to be a talent cost.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 02:09:00 PM
The real question isn't even if the Leafs should sign Stamkos but rather, will the young prospects who will most certainly be with the big club come next season, be able to handle the 'pressure' of the big leagues. 

No, no. This is the thread where the question is about Stamkos. It's right in the title.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 02:09:47 PM
For what it's worth, since the trade, Olesz has played in all of 16 NHL games - so, there's evidence that GMs around the league no longer considered him a legit NHL talent at the time of the trade. I don't think Florida management considered moving him to be a talent cost.

Again, I agree with the general point. Just not on the basis of what Florida thought.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Groundskeeper Willie on February 16, 2016, 02:17:30 PM
As far as the team being too good with Stamkos even Pittsburgh finished last the season after adding Crosby and his 100+ point season.

But look at the roster of that 05-06 Pittsburgh team. Crosby is literally the only good young player on the roster. There's a 25 year old Ryan Malone, a 22 year old Colby Armstrong and Ryan Whitney and Brooks Orpik. That's it.

Next year's Leaf team is almost certainly going to have Rielly, Marner and Nylander. Maybe Kapanen. Maybe one of Laine, Matthews or Puljujarvi. Even before you get to maybe still having JVR or Kadri and Gardiner there's going to be a lot of young talent on the roster.
What about the other example? What is the difference between adding Stamkos and McDavid right now? Both potentially have the same impact on the Leafs draft position moving forward, and by the time the team is ready to compete both likely have similar cap hits, so if you think it's too early to add a player like Stamkos to the team why is McDavid different?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 02:38:03 PM
What about the other example? What is the difference between adding Stamkos and McDavid right now? Both potentially have the same impact on the Leafs draft position moving forward, and by the time the team is ready to compete both likely have similar cap hits, so if you think it's too early to add a player like Stamkos to the team why is McDavid different?

Well, for one, I would say that I'm roughly 95-99% certain that, barring injury, Connor McDavid is going to be elite, cup contender worthy #1 center five years from now. I don't know what percentage I'd put that with in Stamkos' case but I'd say it's roughly half that.

Two, I think McDavid is going to be better than Stamkos when the team is eventually competitive.

Three, I disagree with the notion that their cap hits will be similar when the Leafs are competitive. I'd guess McDavid's will be anywhere from 20-40% lower.

Fourth, if we assume that both guys will be legit #1 centers(and the Leafs can keep them) until they're 35, that would represent the team getting 9 such years from Stamkos, 17 from McDavid.

Fifth, I'm more confident in an 18 year old under team control's willingness to be patient with the process than I am a veteran whose salary could be a real problem if ends up unhappy.

So while I agree there's risk to both, I think the reward with McDavid is much, much higher.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 16, 2016, 03:13:10 PM
Also, adding McDavid/Matthews is clearly sticking to the plan - it's a natural part of being a team that finishes at the bottom of the standings. Adding Stamkos would be a deviation, in that it's adding an established talent to the team, which is more akin to a team in the building process than one still trying to create their foundation. It also impacts expectations from management more than adding an 18 year old top prospect.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Groundskeeper Willie on February 16, 2016, 03:16:21 PM


What about the other example? What is the difference between adding Stamkos and McDavid right now? Both potentially have the same impact on the Leafs draft position moving forward, and by the time the team is ready to compete both likely have similar cap hits, so if you think it's too early to add a player like Stamkos to the team why is McDavid different?

Well, for one, I would say that I'm roughly 95-99% certain that, barring injury, Connor McDavid is going to be elite, cup contender worthy #1 center five years from now. I don't know what percentage I'd put that with in Stamkos' case but I'd say it's roughly half that.

Two, I think McDavid is going to be better than Stamkos when the team is eventually competitive.

Three, I disagree with the notion that their cap hits will be similar when the Leafs are competitive. I'd guess McDavid's will be anywhere from 20-40% lower.

Fourth, if we assume that both guys will be legit #1 centers(and the Leafs can keep them) until they're 35, that would represent the team getting 9 such years from Stamkos, 17 from McDavid.

Fifth, I'm more confident in an 18 year old under team control's willingness to be patient with the process than I am a veteran whose salary could be a real problem if ends up unhappy.

So while I agree there's risk to both, I think the reward with McDavid is much, much higher.

You really think McDavid is coming in with a 20-40% lower cap hit after his entry deal is up? If he's as good as you expect him to be (which is the general consensus) then he's hitting ten mil for sure. Tarasenko signed for 8 million on his second contract.

And again, I'm not advocating for signing Stamkos, I just want to understand your thought process. Your argument for McDavid vs Stamkos is essentially age related as I suspected, so what is the cut off point? Again, if Stamkos were 24 would that be acceptable in your eyes?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 16, 2016, 03:24:47 PM
To maybe guess at what someone like McDavid should be looking at for his next contract, Crosby's first contract after his ELC signed for the 2008-09 season was a 5-year deal that came with a cap hit of $8.7 million (with a $56.7 million salary cap).  That was after putting up 294 points in his first 213 games (1.38 PPG).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on February 16, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
To maybe guess at what someone like McDavid should be looking at for his next contract, Crosby's first contract after his ELC signed for the 2008-09 season was a 5-year deal that came with a cap hit of $8.7 million (with a $56.7 million salary cap).  That was after putting up 294 points in his first 213 games (1.38 PPG).

Crosby's deal also represented 15.3% of the salary cap when it was signed too.

If you work with a 75 million cap, that would give McDavid approx $11.5 million a season.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 03:33:51 PM
You really think McDavid is coming in with a 20-40% lower cap hit after his entry deal is up? If he's as good as you expect him to be (which is the general consensus) then he's hitting ten mil for sure. Tarasenko signed for 8 million on his second contract.

Tarasenko was also 23 when he signed his contract so an eight year deal is buying five free agent years. McDavid's second contract will be when he's 21, so an 8 year deal would only be buying three. Tarasenko represents a high end, sure, but the more discounted RFA deals signed by players like Tavares, Seguin and Doughty present another consideration.

So I think a fair range for McDavid's second contract is 8-10 million. I think the range for Stamkos' is probably 10.5-12.5. So, yeah, 20-40% strikes me as about right.

And again, I'm not advocating for signing Stamkos, I just want to understand your thought process. Your argument for McDavid vs Stamkos is essentially age related as I suspected, so what is the cut off point? Again, if Stamkos were 24 would that be acceptable in your eyes?

I'd say the argument is actually primarily talent related.

But I guess I'd say my cut off point is the age at which players are allowed to be unrestricted free agents?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 03:40:51 PM
Crosby's deal also represented 15.3% of the salary cap when it was signed too.

Crosby also won a Hart trophy before he signed that deal. I wouldn't rule that out for McDavid but I don't think it should be assumed.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Groundskeeper Willie on February 16, 2016, 04:20:15 PM


You really think McDavid is coming in with a 20-40% lower cap hit after his entry deal is up? If he's as good as you expect him to be (which is the general consensus) then he's hitting ten mil for sure. Tarasenko signed for 8 million on his second contract.

Tarasenko was also 23 when he signed his contract so an eight year deal is buying five free agent years. McDavid's second contract will be when he's 21, so an 8 year deal would only be buying three. Tarasenko represents a high end, sure, but the more discounted RFA deals signed by players like Tavares, Seguin and Doughty present another consideration.

So I think a fair range for McDavid's second contract is 8-10 million. I think the range for Stamkos' is probably 10.5-12.5. So, yeah, 20-40% strikes me as about right.

And again, I'm not advocating for signing Stamkos, I just want to understand your thought process. Your argument for McDavid vs Stamkos is essentially age related as I suspected, so what is the cut off point? Again, if Stamkos were 24 would that be acceptable in your eyes?

I'd say the argument is actually primarily talent related.

But I guess I'd say my cut off point is the age at which players are allowed to be unrestricted free agents?

Personally I think the numbers are much more likely 10-11 for Stamkos and 10-12 for McDavid, but there's no point arguing over opinions. If Stamkos gets 12 or more I hope it's not the Leafs doing it.

And based on your age range then, you'd turn down a 26 year old Crosby or Ovechkin as a UFA too?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 04:38:58 PM
And based on your age range then, you'd turn down a 26 year old Crosby or Ovechkin as a UFA too?

Like I said, my reasoning is as much talent based as anything. A 26 year old Crosby was a multiple Hart Trophy winning Stanley Cup champion who'd just won the Art Ross by 17 points. Ovechkin was likewise a multiple Hart winner. I don't know what I'd say about those two but it'd be a harder call I think.

And like I've said, I'm not 100% no on Stamkos, just that I think that we all have points where we'd pass(for you it's if he wants 12 million apparently) and mine are just different.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Groundskeeper Willie on February 16, 2016, 04:46:23 PM



... like I've said, I'm not 100% no on Stamkos, just that I think that we all have points where we'd pass(for you it's if he wants 12 million apparently) and mine are just different.

You really haven't come across as being OK with a Stamkos signing under any reasonable circumstances from what I've read, but if that's your stance I'll take your word on it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 16, 2016, 04:57:12 PM
You really haven't come across as being OK with a Stamkos signing under any reasonable circumstances from what I've read, but if that's your stance I'll take your word on it.

Like I said I just think we differ on what constitutes a reasonable circumstance. If Stamkos walks into the ACC and tells Shanahan he's willing to take a deep discount to be here, that he's so crazy about being a Leaf that he doesn't care at all about how long the rebuild might take and that his disagreements with Cooper are just personality based and that he would have no problem playing the wing if that's what the team wanted...again, to me that would mitigate a lot of the risk. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on February 16, 2016, 06:20:36 PM
You really haven't come across as being OK with a Stamkos signing under any reasonable circumstances from what I've read, but if that's your stance I'll take your word on it.

Like I said I just think we differ on what constitutes a reasonable circumstance. If Stamkos walks into the ACC and tells Shanahan he's willing to take a deep discount to be here, that he's so crazy about being a Leaf that he doesn't care at all about how long the rebuild might take and that his disagreements with Cooper are just personality based and that he would have no problem playing the wing if that's what the team wanted...again, to me that would mitigate a lot of the risk.

My theory is that they're playing him on the wing because they're developing the centres because they knew he was leaving a long time ago.  Stamkos doesn't like that, but he's leaving anyways so he's dealing with it...but he gets a little pissy about it sometimes. 

Honestly, if the Lightning didn't want to sign Stamkos, would they be handling this any differently?

EDIT:  By the way, as far as the discount question, my number is max $10m AAV.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 16, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
An inherently flawed theoretical question, but nonetheless:  Pretend Stamkos had played his career up to this point with the Leafs.  There's no baggage or ill will between him and the coach/management.  Pretend there's no option to trade him leading into free agency.  He's coming up for UFA as he is in July.  In that circumstance, for anybody who opposes the signing of Stamkos as it stands right now, would you also still take the position that the team should let him walk if he were a Leaf right now?

So in this situation the Maple Leafs have had a top flight, elite #1 center the last 7 years but that hasn't changed the situation they're in at all?

Exactly, like when Joe Sak.... uuuhhhh, you know what, uh, nevermind...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 16, 2016, 09:53:06 PM
If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, I think this would be a very plausible lineup for next season:



FORWARDS

JVR - STAMKOS - NYLANDER

MARNER - KADRI - KOMAROV

LEIVO - BOZAK - LUPUL

LEIPSIC - FROESE - WINNIK


DEFENSE

HUNWICK - RIELLY 

GARDINER - MARINCIN

ZAITSEV - CORRADO


GOALIES

REIMER

STALOCK



What does everyone think of that?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on February 16, 2016, 10:27:07 PM
If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, I think this would be a very plausible lineup for next season:



FORWARDS

JVR - STAMKOS - NYLANDER

MARNER - KADRI - KOMAROV

LEIVO - BOZAK - LUPUL

LEIPSIC - FROESE - WINNIK


DEFENSE

HUNWICK - RIELLY 

GARDINER - MARINCIN

ZAITSEV - CORRADO


GOALIES

REIMER

STALOCK



What does everyone think of that?

Needs some Matthews.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on February 16, 2016, 10:58:31 PM
If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, I think this would be a very plausible lineup for next season:



FORWARDS

JVR - STAMKOS - NYLANDER

MARNER - KADRI - KOMAROV

LEIVO - BOZAK - LUPUL

LEIPSIC - FROESE - WINNIK


DEFENSE

HUNWICK - RIELLY 

GARDINER - MARINCIN

ZAITSEV - CORRADO


GOALIES

REIMER

STALOCK



What does everyone think of that?

The defense is a problem.  The goaltending is a problem.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 11:09:13 PM
If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos

One version...

FORWARDS

J. Van Riemsdyk ($ 4,250,000) --- S. Stamkos ($ 10,500,000) --- M. Michalek ($ 4,000,000)
L. Komarov ($ 2,950,000) --- N. Kadri ($ 5,500,000) --- M. Marner ($ 925,000)
P. Holland ($ 775,000) --- W. Nylander ($ 894,166) --- J. Lupul ($ 5,250,000)
N. Soshnikov ($ 736,666) --- D. Winnik ($ 2,250,000) --- F. Gauthier ($ 863,333)

DEFENCE

M. Hunwick ($ 1,200,000) --- M. Rielly ($ 5,500,000)
J. Gardiner ($ 4,050,000) --- N. Zaitsev ($ 925,000)
J. Cowen ($ 3,100,000) --- F. Corrado ($ 632,500)

GOAL

J. Reimer ($ 4,500,000) --- G. Backup ($ 1,500,000)

Extras

C. Greening ($ 2,650,000) --- C. Brown ($ 686,667) --- M. Marincin ($ 700,000)

2015 NHL Cap Limit: $ 71,400,000
23 Player Roster Cap Used: $ 72,638,332
Cap Buried in the Minors: + $ 0
Cap Hit from Buyout(s): + $ 1,833,333
Cap Retained in Trades : + $ 1,400,000
Long Term Injury Reserve: - $ 8,300,000
Cap Space Available : $ 3,828,335

I didn't bother changing the calculation numbers up there, the cap is actually 700k more with Gunnar off the books and Gleason 500k less, and that's with this years cap.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 11:09:26 PM
Needs some Matthews.

Another version...

FORWARDS

J. Van Riemsdyk ($ 4,250,000) --- S. Stamkos ($ 10,500,000) --- N. Kadri ($ 5,500,000)
L. Komarov ($ 2,950,000) --- A. Matthews ($ 925,000) --- M. Michalek ($ 4,000,000)
P. Holland ($ 775,000) --- W. Nylander ($ 894,166) --- J. Lupul ($ 5,250,000)
N. Soshnikov ($ 736,666) --- D. Winnik ($ 2,250,000) --- M. Marner ($ 925,000)

DEFENCE

M. Hunwick ($ 1,200,000) --- M. Rielly ($ 5,500,000)
J. Gardiner ($ 4,050,000) --- N. Zaitsev ($ 925,000)
J. Cowen ($ 3,100,000) --- F. Corrado ($ 632,500)

GOAL

J. Reimer ($ 4,500,000) --- G. Backup ($ 1,500,000)

Extras

C. Greening ($ 2,650,000) --- F. Gauthier ($ 863,333) --- M. Marincin ($ 700,000)

2015 NHL Cap Limit: $ 71,400,000
23 Player Roster Cap Used: $ 72,876,665
Cap Buried in the Minors: + $ 0
Cap Hit from Buyout(s): + $ 1,833,333
Cap Retained in Trades : + $ 1,400,000
Long Term Injury Reserve: - $ 8,300,000
Cap Space Available : $ 3,590,002

Same deal as the last, +700k on the cap.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 11:25:20 PM
Crap, I forgot to adjust Holland, so maybe that 700k goes to him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 16, 2016, 11:27:43 PM
Needs some Matthews.

Best case scenario the Leafs will have a 20% chance of landing Matthews. I'm not counting on it. If the Leafs come last overall, they're guaranteed at least the 4th pick… and with that pick the Leafs select Alex Nylander! Book it.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 11:30:41 PM
Needs some Matthews.

Best case scenario the Leafs will have a 20% chance of landing Matthews. I'm not counting on it. If the Leafs come last overall, they're guaranteed at least the 4th pick… and with that pick the Leafs select Alex Nylander! Book it.

Who would you pick at 4 is a good question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on February 16, 2016, 11:46:58 PM
Needs some Matthews.

Best case scenario the Leafs will have a 20% chance of landing Matthews. I'm not counting on it. If the Leafs come last overall, they're guaranteed at least the 4th pick… and with that pick the Leafs select Alex Nylander! Book it.

Who would you pick at 4 is a good question.

Jakob Chychrun would be a good bet.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: louisstamos on February 16, 2016, 11:48:51 PM
Needs some Matthews.

Best case scenario the Leafs will have a 20% chance of landing Matthews. I'm not counting on it. If the Leafs come last overall, they're guaranteed at least the 4th pick… and with that pick the Leafs select Alex Nylander! Book it.

Who would you pick at 4 is a good question.

Jakob Chychrun would be a good bet.

I'd go Chychrun as well.  Best D-prospect in the draft.  But Puljujärvi and Tkachuk would be tempting too if they were still available.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on February 16, 2016, 11:54:24 PM
I think there's a pretty good chance the Leafs draft top 3, but if they don't, I'd like to see them try to trade up for Sergachev ( regardless, actually ) and take Chychrun too. If a player slips out of the top 3, that changes things a bit, and yeah, Tkachuk wouldn't be wrong either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on February 17, 2016, 03:56:29 AM
Best case scenario the Leafs will have a 20% chance of landing Matthews. I'm not counting on it. If the Leafs come last overall, they're guaranteed at least the 4th pick… and with that pick the Leafs select Alex Nylander! Book it.


Picking 4th would not be bad at all.  I'd be fine if they chose Nylander, or Chychrun, or Puljujaärvi, or Tkachuk, or maybe  Laine.

Of course, a true #1 would set the LeafNation's heart aflutter and that would be Auston Matthews.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 17, 2016, 09:18:00 AM
Invalid Tweet IDInvalid Tweet IDhttp://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-big-show/friedman-lightning-trying-to-quiet-rumours/

Friedman speculates the market for Stamkos will primarily be Toronto, Vancouver, and Tampa.

He also notes the disconnect between team and player: Yzerman believes Stamkos to be more of a winger now, $8.5-9M AAV, and pretty much no longer the go-to option for offense anymore. Whereas Stamkos still believes he is a centre and should be the primary offensive weapon on the team, and worth $10+.

The money quote is around the 5:20 mark. No substantiation mentioned.

I tend to side with Yzerman's assessment.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on February 17, 2016, 01:38:50 PM
Invalid Tweet ID

Interesting on that first tweet. If that's true, Stamkos may have decided at that point he was leaving at the end of his contract. I wonder if that particular tidbit could be affecting his performance this year as well, especially if he had already decided he's done in Tampa.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: pnjunction on February 17, 2016, 02:53:26 PM
I tend to side with Yzerman's assessment.

Same here, the drop-off in his numbers post-injury is too drastic to ignore (and this year is even worse).  The previous stats were worthy of 10+, the recent ones are not.  Is he young enough that he could he get back to game-breaking form on a new team? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet ~15% of my salary cap on it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 17, 2016, 03:18:38 PM
I tend to side with Yzerman's assessment.

Same here, the drop-off in his numbers post-injury is too drastic to ignore (and this year is even worse).  The previous stats were worthy of 10+, the recent ones are not.  Is he young enough that he could he get back to game-breaking form on a new team? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet ~15% of my salary cap on it.

Wouldn't you bet on the 450+ previous games versus the 56 odd games at his current pace?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 17, 2016, 03:27:04 PM
Wouldn't you bet on the 450+ previous games versus the 56 odd games at his current pace?

I think there's some legitimacy in looking at things in a pre and post injury split, but, I agree that basing things mainly around his current season's production is short-sighted. Since the leg injury, his goal scoring rates have dropped slightly, while his overall production has taken a relatively significant hit. There are definitely other factors at play there, though, like having been moved to the wing, dissatisfaction the coach, etc. I think there's legit reason to be concerned his play has dropped a level, but not so much as people are making out.

While I don't necessarily agree with Friedman's suggestion of Yzerman's assessment of Stamkos as a player, I don't think he's far off in terms of his value against the cap.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 17, 2016, 03:32:53 PM
Wouldn't you bet on the 450+ previous games versus the 56 odd games at his current pace?

I think there's some legitimacy in looking at things in a pre and post injury split, but, I agree that basing things mainly around his current season's production is short-sighted. Since the leg injury, his goal scoring rates have dropped slightly, while his overall production has taken a relatively significant hit. There are definitely other factors at play there, though, like having been moved to the wing, dissatisfaction the coach, etc. I think there's legit reason to be concerned his play has dropped a level, but not so much as people are making out.

While I don't necessarily agree with Friedman's suggestion of Yzerman's assessment of Stamkos as a player, I don't think he's far off in terms of his value against the cap.

Drop in quality of linemates and a drop of about 2-3 minutes of TOI per game too.  He's also riding his worst SH% since being a rookie.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 17, 2016, 03:45:41 PM
My primary agreement with Yzerman's assessment is the cap hit estimate. I also see Stamkos' style of play better suited to being a winger. He's more a shooter than a wheeler and dealer to my eye.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 17, 2016, 03:53:37 PM

Winger or center or whatever, expecting Stamkos to sign as a UFA for essentially the same thing as what Tarasenko signed for as a RFA seems to be a pretty major misunderstanding of the salary structure of the league.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on February 17, 2016, 04:09:38 PM
Drop in quality of linemates and a drop of about 2-3 minutes of TOI per game too.  He's also riding his worst SH% since being a rookie.

Those are influences, too, though there's definitely potential for a chicken/egg debate there.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on February 17, 2016, 04:21:27 PM

Winger or center or whatever, expecting Stamkos to sign as a UFA for essentially the same thing as what Tarasenko signed for as a RFA seems to be a pretty major misunderstanding of the salary structure of the league.

Don't GMs just love it when one of their contemporaries jacks up the market price?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on February 17, 2016, 04:47:39 PM
Don't GMs just love it when one of their contemporaries jacks up the market price?

I assume they like it as much as players like it when impending UFAs re-sign with their clubs for less than they could have gotten on the market so it's probably a wash.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on February 24, 2016, 08:18:48 AM
All of a sudden his SH% is climbing and he's into a tie for 7th in the league in goals.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 24, 2016, 08:35:32 AM
All of a sudden his SH% is climbing and he's into a tie for 7th in the league in goals.

He was moved back to centre 4 games ago. Coincidently, I'm sure, he also has goals in 4 straight games. On pace for 35 goals, but if he stays hot for awhile 40 isn't out of the question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on February 24, 2016, 10:18:13 AM
Come on the last thing we need is a 40 goal scorer born in T.O.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on February 28, 2016, 09:39:16 PM
All of a sudden his SH% is climbing and he's into a tie for 7th in the league in goals.

He was moved back to centre 4 games ago. Coincidently, I'm sure, he also has goals in 4 straight games. On pace for 35 goals, but if he stays hot for awhile 40 isn't out of the question.

Make that goals in 6 straight games. 9 points in that span.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on March 12, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
All of a sudden his SH% is climbing and he's into a tie for 7th in the league in goals.

He was moved back to centre 4 games ago. Coincidently, I'm sure, he also has goals in 4 straight games. On pace for 35 goals, but if he stays hot for awhile 40 isn't out of the question.

Make that goals in 6 straight games. 9 points in that span.

And then, 1 goal 0 assists so far in 5 games in March.  0-0 in his last four games.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on March 12, 2016, 01:40:06 PM
All of a sudden his SH% is climbing and he's into a tie for 7th in the league in goals.

He was moved back to centre 4 games ago. Coincidently, I'm sure, he also has goals in 4 straight games. On pace for 35 goals, but if he stays hot for awhile 40 isn't out of the question.

Make that goals in 6 straight games. 9 points in that span.

And then, 1 goal 0 assists so far in 5 games in March.  0-0 in his last four games.

He knows to keep his value in check.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on March 12, 2016, 03:16:03 PM
According to Sportsnet, here's the top 15 UFAs. I didn't know Backes was up.

1. Steven Stamkos
2. David Backes
3. Kyle Okposo
4. Andrew Ladd
5. Milan Lucic
6. Eric Staal
7. Jaromir Jagr
8. Keith Yandle
9. Loui Eriksson
10. Brian Campbell
11. Kris Russell
12. Cam Ward
13. Mikkel Boedker
14. Jiri Hudler
15. James Reimer
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on March 12, 2016, 07:02:36 PM
According to Sportsnet, here's the top 15 UFAs. I didn't know Backes was up.

1. Steven Stamkos
2. David Backes
3. Kyle Okposo
4. Andrew Ladd
5. Milan Lucic
6. Eric Staal
7. Jaromir Jagr
8. Keith Yandle
9. Loui Eriksson
10. Brian Campbell
11. Kris Russell
12. Cam Ward
13. Mikkel Boedker
14. Jiri Hudler
15. James Reimer

Backes is up. He has been a good player but is having a down year. He's on the wrong side of 30. I wonder what kind of offer he'll receive.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 12, 2016, 07:18:07 PM
That's probably one of the best UFA groups we've seen recently, even without Stamkos. Most of those top guys will probably test the market too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on March 12, 2016, 07:55:08 PM
Stamkos or bust.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on March 12, 2016, 08:22:16 PM
Lucic and Stamkos please.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on March 12, 2016, 08:52:03 PM
That's probably one of the best UFA groups we've seen recently, even without Stamkos. Most of those top guys will probably test the market too.

Yeah, I was thinking the same. Although there's only a few in there that won't be looking for retirement deals.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on March 13, 2016, 12:40:13 AM
Lucic and Stamkos please.

I feel like Lucic has career derailing injury written all over him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on March 13, 2016, 01:00:08 AM
Lucic and Stamkos please.

I feel like Lucic has career derailing injury written all over him.

I like Lucic but I don't think he ever lives up to the next contract he's going to get.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on March 13, 2016, 07:49:21 AM
Lucic and Stamkos please.

I feel like Lucic has career derailing injury written all over him.

I like Lucic but I don't think he ever lives up to the next contract he's going to get.

Agree 100%. I like Lucic's game but I would bet even money right now that he gets at least 7 million per. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on March 13, 2016, 10:03:24 AM
Lucic and Stamkos please.

I feel like Lucic has career derailing injury written all over him.

I like Lucic but I don't think he ever lives up to the next contract he's going to get.

Definitely. I'd say that conservatively applies to probably at least 10 of those 15 players, but that's free agency for you.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on March 13, 2016, 01:14:36 PM
Lucic= David Clarkson
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 13, 2016, 01:15:55 PM
Hypothetically if we were going after one of those other UFAs (and regardless of what happens with Stamkos I very much doubt we'd be after anyone else) I'd target Okposo over Lucic/Ladd/Backes.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on March 13, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
Lucic= David Clarkson

Lucic is miles ahead of Clarkson as a player. Miles. But yeah teams will regret both of their contracts, it just might take Lucic a couple of years to get to that point.

I think LA might be able to get him signed to a slightly less overpaid contract, but if he hits the open market you know Edmonton and Vancouver will go nuts here.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on March 13, 2016, 02:31:25 PM
Lucic= David Clarkson

Lucic is miles ahead of Clarkson as a player. Miles. But yeah teams will regret both of their contracts, it just might take Lucic a couple of years to get to that point.

I think LA might be able to get him signed to a slightly less overpaid contract, but if he hits the open market you know Edmonton and Vancouver will go nuts here.
I know Lucic right now is better than Clarkson,but he has a lot of hard miles on him.A long term contract would spell disaster for the Leafs.
I've been watching since the 60's Leaf management make stupid deals to look legit and half way rebuilds.If they sign him I will seriously have to think about dropping them as a fan.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on March 13, 2016, 02:48:56 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on March 13, 2016, 03:58:38 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.

I think that Darren Helm is a ufa as well. 29 yo, making 2.1. Hmm. obvious babcock connection....
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on March 13, 2016, 08:01:40 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.

I'd probably do the same. I'd consider Stamkos, depending on the contract he's looking for, but I'd pass on the rest. They're mostly the types of guys the Leafs should be looking at developing in-house at this point.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on March 13, 2016, 08:23:41 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.

I'd probably do the same. I'd consider Stamkos, depending on the contract he's looking for, but I'd pass on the rest. They're mostly the types of guys the Leafs should be looking at developing in-house at this point.

Yeah, I mean sure, listen on Stamkos ( or whoever if they're going to give an extremely unlikely sweet deal ) but for the most part the Leafs are still in 'flip' mode I think. Depth bruisers might be ok, as long as they can skate and play the system but you're right, the Leafs should be looking to develop right now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on March 13, 2016, 09:00:18 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.

I'd probably do the same. I'd consider Stamkos, depending on the contract he's looking for, but I'd pass on the rest. They're mostly the types of guys the Leafs should be looking at developing in-house at this point.

Yeah, I mean sure, listen on Stamkos ( or whoever if they're going to give an extremely unlikely sweet deal ) but for the most part the Leafs are still in 'flip' mode I think. Depth bruisers might be ok, as long as they can skate and play the system but you're right, the Leafs should be looking to develop right now.

Between Laich, Michalek, Greening, Hunwick, the only UFAs we need at this point might be on the back end, depending on what long-term forwards get moved at the draft, of course.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Tigger on March 13, 2016, 09:18:48 PM
For the Leafs I'd pretty much pass on that whole group, there's a few lower tier guys like Matt Martin and maybe Schlemko or another depth D that are financially less burdensome.

I'd probably do the same. I'd consider Stamkos, depending on the contract he's looking for, but I'd pass on the rest. They're mostly the types of guys the Leafs should be looking at developing in-house at this point.

Yeah, I mean sure, listen on Stamkos ( or whoever if they're going to give an extremely unlikely sweet deal ) but for the most part the Leafs are still in 'flip' mode I think. Depth bruisers might be ok, as long as they can skate and play the system but you're right, the Leafs should be looking to develop right now.

Between Laich, Michalek, Greening, Hunwick, the only UFAs we need at this point might be on the back end, depending on what long-term forwards get moved at the draft, of course.

Sure, though there is still a small part of me that would like to see Martin riding shotgun with Marner, at least for next year.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on March 18, 2016, 09:51:50 AM
http://www.shanaplandebate.com/5-pros-cons-steven-stamkos-signing-maple-leafs/

He will be the fulcrum of the Leafs Nation civil war to come once this season ends. Only Auston Matthews can save us from ourselves.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on April 01, 2016, 06:03:45 PM
Well this is pretty interesting...

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/4/1/11339206/steven-stamkos-to-the-maple-leafs
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on April 01, 2016, 06:15:29 PM

Yeesh. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on April 01, 2016, 09:54:55 PM
Lol.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bill_Berg_is_sad on April 01, 2016, 11:15:52 PM
Too much weight on the back foot and he should put his back elbow up too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on April 01, 2016, 11:26:07 PM
Well this is pretty interesting...

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/4/1/11339206/steven-stamkos-to-the-maple-leafs

It kind of feels like a lame April Fools joke, but, meh, I don't know.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Jolly good show chaps on April 02, 2016, 03:09:14 AM
Blimey, they've been busy.  The Lupul trade article was also a reasonable attempt at some nibbles.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on April 02, 2016, 09:57:41 AM
Blimey, they've been busy.  The Lupul trade article was also a reasonable attempt at some nibbles.

I liked the one that said that the Leafs forfeited their first round pick this year due to cap circumvention by placing Robidas on LTIR.  That one got me for a second.

I hate April fools day.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on April 03, 2016, 08:03:17 AM
Well. This is no April fools joke. Stamkos out for the rest of the season

http://www.tsn.ca/stamkos-out-one-to-three-months-with-blood-clot-in-right-arm-1.463784
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on April 03, 2016, 09:35:17 AM
Very scary, especially after knowing how it forced Pascal Dupuis into early retirement.

Wish him the best. Leaf or not we need guys like him in the game.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on April 03, 2016, 11:48:07 AM
Yes it is a real concern, hopefully it was caused by a hit, not an internal problem. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Al14 on April 06, 2016, 09:58:27 AM
Very scary, especially after knowing how it forced Pascal Dupuis into early retirement.

Wish him the best. Leaf or not we need guys like him in the game.

You bet we do.  However, I'm now not so sure our Leafs should take a chance on signing him.  With his leg, and now this blood clot injury requiring surgery, I think that the risk he may turn out to be as injury prone as Lupul is somewhat higher now.  No?   :-\

I can't imagine we'd be too thrilled at having Stamkos on the injury reserve as much as Lupul, and, have him at near double Lupul's cap hit.   :(
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on April 07, 2016, 10:49:57 AM
http://www.tsn.ca/mondaymustread-roy-puts-avs-core-under-the-microscope-1.464251

Quote
Surgeons will likely remove Steven Stamkos’ top rib on his right side today to alleviate pressure that caused a blood clot to form near his collarbone. “It isn’t a rib like you’d think of, it is much smaller, more like the size of an index finger,” explained Dr. Thomas Forbes, vascular surgeon at Toronto’s Peter Munk Cardiac Centre. Forbes said that rib, which is bonded by the collarbone, constricts blood flow to the vein and can cause clotting with trauma or repetitive motion, such as raising your arms above your head. It isn’t easy to pinpoint a timeline for Stamkos’ return; the Lightning said between one and three months. “Normal recovery for range of motion and exercise would be about one month from just the surgery alone,” Dr. Forbes said. “Doctors would then recommend some period of time on blood thinners, perhaps one month, which also complicates the timeline.” NHL players are not permitted to play games while on blood-thinning medication, as Chicago’s Kimmo Timonen revealed last year. A conservative doctor would peg a return to the ice in two months. Will Tampa Bay still be playing in early June?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Arn on April 08, 2016, 06:25:06 AM
Quote
can cause clotting with trauma or repetitive motion, such as raising your arms above your head.

Too many goal celebrations?

(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/bio-photo/2013/stamkos.jpg)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Al14 on April 08, 2016, 11:04:25 AM
Quote
can cause clotting with trauma or repetitive motion, such as raising your arms above your head.

Too many goal celebrations?

(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/bio-photo/2013/stamkos.jpg)

It will be really interesting to see his goal celebration after he recovers.   :o

Raising your arms after scoring is such a habit!   ;)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on April 14, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
In case you hadn't heard yet: Brian Lawton (ex-GM of TBL) joined Naylor and Landsberg and chatted about Stamkos/Toronto http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/lawton-stamkos-sees-himself-on-the-biggest-stage-1.471644

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/04/14/brian-lawton-steven-stamkos-toronto/
Quote
Lawton was asked if he thinks Stamkos will choose the Leafs if all offers on the open market are roughly equal:

I do. I really do. I think Steven is really close with this family. He loves Toronto. He loves Tampa, don’t get me wrong; he’s enjoyed it down there, he’s had wonderful experiences down there. But, in my opinion, I could see him wanting to play very badly in Toronto. I say that because I think Steven is a guy that wants big moments for himself to be involved in. He’s not a selfish guy; he’s very humble, but I still think that he sees himself on the biggest stage in the National Hockey League. And that would be Toronto. I don’t think it’s discomforting for him. Further to that, I think his family is there. The people he trains with are there. I think his agents are there. I think there is a lot of outside influence around him, that in their own view would like to see Steven in Toronto, too.

Next, on whether there are backchannels letting GMs know in advance about where a soon-to-be UFA player is leaning:

Absolutely. Believe it or not, obviously players, GMs and agents are bound to rules with regard to tampering, but all of those ancillary sources – not withstanding agents – are not. It’s possible that there are friends of Stamkos that are talking to him, suggesting to him he should be in Toronto and those same friends are friends with people who work for other teams in the National Hockey League. Those things do go on. That’s just the facts of life. They’re not bounds in any rules in regard to that. There’s really nothing [you can do]. The National Hockey League oversees all of this – they watch it very closely.

Lawton then spoke to the possibility that tampering is or could become a factor:

Of all the people in the NHL, the one guy that will never break the rules on something like this is Lou Lamoriello. For him, more than anything, having had it happen to him way back when
  • … I just don’t see it. I’ve talked to Lou about what happened between the Blues and New Jersey Devils, pending fines and how that whole thing eventually came about. Lou’s integrity is off the charts and there’s just no way he would ever even remotely go down that path. There might be some other people in the NHL that do it, but Lamoriello will not be one of them.
* http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/05/sports/hockey-devils-get-1.4-million-and-draft-pick-in-tampering-case.html
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: cabber24 on April 19, 2016, 03:58:30 PM
In case you hadn't heard yet: Brian Lawton (ex-GM of TBL) joined Naylor and Landsberg and chatted about Stamkos/Toronto http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/lawton-stamkos-sees-himself-on-the-biggest-stage-1.471644

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/04/14/brian-lawton-steven-stamkos-toronto/
Quote
Lawton was asked if he thinks Stamkos will choose the Leafs if all offers on the open market are roughly equal:

I do. I really do. I think Steven is really close with this family. He loves Toronto. He loves Tampa, don’t get me wrong; he’s enjoyed it down there, he’s had wonderful experiences down there. But, in my opinion, I could see him wanting to play very badly in Toronto. I say that because I think Steven is a guy that wants big moments for himself to be involved in. He’s not a selfish guy; he’s very humble, but I still think that he sees himself on the biggest stage in the National Hockey League. And that would be Toronto. I don’t think it’s discomforting for him. Further to that, I think his family is there. The people he trains with are there. I think his agents are there. I think there is a lot of outside influence around him, that in their own view would like to see Steven in Toronto, too.

Next, on whether there are backchannels letting GMs know in advance about where a soon-to-be UFA player is leaning:

Absolutely. Believe it or not, obviously players, GMs and agents are bound to rules with regard to tampering, but all of those ancillary sources – not withstanding agents – are not. It’s possible that there are friends of Stamkos that are talking to him, suggesting to him he should be in Toronto and those same friends are friends with people who work for other teams in the National Hockey League. Those things do go on. That’s just the facts of life. They’re not bounds in any rules in regard to that. There’s really nothing [you can do]. The National Hockey League oversees all of this – they watch it very closely.

Lawton then spoke to the possibility that tampering is or could become a factor:

Of all the people in the NHL, the one guy that will never break the rules on something like this is Lou Lamoriello. For him, more than anything, having had it happen to him way back when
  • … I just don’t see it. I’ve talked to Lou about what happened between the Blues and New Jersey Devils, pending fines and how that whole thing eventually came about. Lou’s integrity is off the charts and there’s just no way he would ever even remotely go down that path. There might be some other people in the NHL that do it, but Lamoriello will not be one of them.
* http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/05/sports/hockey-devils-get-1.4-million-and-draft-pick-in-tampering-case.html
The agent who negotiated the contract prior to being allowed to died two months later...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on April 19, 2016, 04:37:42 PM
In case you hadn't heard yet: Brian Lawton (ex-GM of TBL) joined Naylor and Landsberg and chatted about Stamkos/Toronto http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/lawton-stamkos-sees-himself-on-the-biggest-stage-1.471644

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/04/14/brian-lawton-steven-stamkos-toronto/
Quote
Lawton was asked if he thinks Stamkos will choose the Leafs if all offers on the open market are roughly equal:

I do. I really do. I think Steven is really close with this family. He loves Toronto. He loves Tampa, don’t get me wrong; he’s enjoyed it down there, he’s had wonderful experiences down there. But, in my opinion, I could see him wanting to play very badly in Toronto. I say that because I think Steven is a guy that wants big moments for himself to be involved in. He’s not a selfish guy; he’s very humble, but I still think that he sees himself on the biggest stage in the National Hockey League. And that would be Toronto. I don’t think it’s discomforting for him. Further to that, I think his family is there. The people he trains with are there. I think his agents are there. I think there is a lot of outside influence around him, that in their own view would like to see Steven in Toronto, too.

Next, on whether there are backchannels letting GMs know in advance about where a soon-to-be UFA player is leaning:

Absolutely. Believe it or not, obviously players, GMs and agents are bound to rules with regard to tampering, but all of those ancillary sources – not withstanding agents – are not. It’s possible that there are friends of Stamkos that are talking to him, suggesting to him he should be in Toronto and those same friends are friends with people who work for other teams in the National Hockey League. Those things do go on. That’s just the facts of life. They’re not bounds in any rules in regard to that. There’s really nothing [you can do]. The National Hockey League oversees all of this – they watch it very closely.

Lawton then spoke to the possibility that tampering is or could become a factor:

Of all the people in the NHL, the one guy that will never break the rules on something like this is Lou Lamoriello. For him, more than anything, having had it happen to him way back when
  • … I just don’t see it. I’ve talked to Lou about what happened between the Blues and New Jersey Devils, pending fines and how that whole thing eventually came about. Lou’s integrity is off the charts and there’s just no way he would ever even remotely go down that path. There might be some other people in the NHL that do it, but Lamoriello will not be one of them.
* http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/05/sports/hockey-devils-get-1.4-million-and-draft-pick-in-tampering-case.html

The agent who negotiated the contract prior to being allowed to died two months later...


Sounds like Lou.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on April 30, 2016, 08:46:55 PM
To Stamkos or not to Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on April 30, 2016, 08:48:09 PM
To Stamkos or not to Stamkos.

Not.  We don't need him now.  You have Kadri locked up long term, Nylander and Matthews as your centers.  You don't need him at this point and there is no point in paying 10 million dollars for Stamkos.  I mean if he signs for like 7 million maybe you bite but I just don't see that happening.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Boston Leaf on April 30, 2016, 08:50:48 PM
To Stamkos or not to Stamkos.

Not.  We don't need him now.  You have Kadri locked up long term, Nylander and Matthews as your centers.  You don't need him at this point and there is no point in paying 10 million dollars for Stamkos.  I mean if he signs for like 7 million maybe you bite but I just don't see that happening.

I agree
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on April 30, 2016, 08:54:04 PM

Hard pass. I love the guy but between the health stuff and the money he'll want and the fact that Center really isn't the team's area of need...yeah. Unless he's like "Man, I really want to take one-timers from Auston MAtthews for the next 5 years at 7 million per" I think the Leafs can chill on that one.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on April 30, 2016, 08:54:50 PM
To Stamkos or not to Stamkos.

Not.  We don't need him now.  You have Kadri locked up long term, Nylander and Matthews as your centers.  You don't need him at this point and there is no point in paying 10 million dollars for Stamkos.  I mean if he signs for like 7 million maybe you bite but I just don't see that happening.

More or less what I'm thinking. if Stamkos really really wants to play for the Leafs at that price, I wouldn't say no though.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on April 30, 2016, 09:01:02 PM
Definitely pass. Tavares/mcdavid offer sheet in a few years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on April 30, 2016, 10:39:52 PM
Hard pass. I love the guy but between the health stuff and the money he'll want and the fact that Center really isn't the team's area of need...yeah. Unless he's like "Man, I really want to take one-timers from Auston MAtthews for the next 5 years at 7 million per" I think the Leafs can chill on that one.

Basically the same thoughts I have. I was on the fence about Stamkos before the lottery. Now, it's a pretty easy no for me. I expect the team to still kick the tires on him and such, but, unless he's really desperate to be a Leaf, he'll be playing for someone else next season.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on May 01, 2016, 01:27:28 AM
I disagree. If he's available they'll sign him. UFAs his caliber come along about as often as an Auston Matthews.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bender on May 01, 2016, 09:22:50 AM
Hard pass. I love the guy but between the health stuff and the money he'll want and the fact that Center really isn't the team's area of need...yeah. Unless he's like "Man, I really want to take one-timers from Auston MAtthews for the next 5 years at 7 million per" I think the Leafs can chill on that one.

Basically the same thoughts I have. I was on the fence about Stamkos before the lottery. Now, it's a pretty easy no for me. I expect the team to still kick the tires on him and such, but, unless he's really desperate to be a Leaf, he'll be playing for someone else next season.
Is this solely based on not needing a centre anymore?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on May 01, 2016, 09:32:24 AM
Hard pass. I love the guy but between the health stuff and the money he'll want and the fact that Center really isn't the team's area of need...yeah. Unless he's like "Man, I really want to take one-timers from Auston MAtthews for the next 5 years at 7 million per" I think the Leafs can chill on that one.

Basically the same thoughts I have. I was on the fence about Stamkos before the lottery. Now, it's a pretty easy no for me. I expect the team to still kick the tires on him and such, but, unless he's really desperate to be a Leaf, he'll be playing for someone else next season.
Is this solely based on not needing a centre anymore?

Not needing a center anymore , probably.  Not needing an 8-9M center when our top 3 centers are at most going to cost 11.5M for the next two years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on May 01, 2016, 09:36:21 AM
How much has Steve already earned? If he took 7M on a 10 year contract=$70,000,000.00  not bad chump change to add to his aready stuffed bank account. I think I could live on this (plus the Canadian endorsment market, another 1-2M a year).
I wasn't born in a barn and lets face it we are all greedy piggys, but he may just give something of a home discount to make it happen.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Deebo on May 01, 2016, 09:37:39 AM
How much has Steve already earned? If he took 7M on a 10 year contract=$70,000,000.00  not bad chump change to add to his aready stuffed bank account. I think I could live on this (plus the Canadian endorsment market, another 1-2M a year).
I wasn't born in a barn and lets face it we are all greedy piggys, but he may just give something of a home discount to make it happen.

7 years is the term limit.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on May 01, 2016, 09:38:20 AM
I didnt know that, thanks.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: nutman on May 01, 2016, 09:50:53 AM
I would sign him for the right price, not no insane number though. I am hoping he can see the talent we have coming up and wants to be part of leaf history, thus giving us a big discount.
seven mil per over six yrs is the max I would go.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Deebo on May 01, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
I would sign him for the right price, not no insane number though. I am hoping he can see the talent we have coming up and wants to be part of leaf history, thus giving us a big discount.
seven mil per over six yrs is the max I would go.

That is less than his expiring contract
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on May 01, 2016, 10:09:38 AM
Well I'd still like him on the leafs.

Call me crazy but I think this team could be drastically improved over last season with Stamkos and a goalie.

I don't see why it hurts to have a veteran star amongst the kids...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: ThatLeafsFan on May 01, 2016, 10:33:59 AM
Bring in Stammer on a good contract, get Reimer signed and try add a vet dman! Give them 2-3 years to play together and boom! Contendor!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on May 01, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
I think he'll come with an 8 figure cap hit so I'll pass.

Anything around the 8 million per year or under and I am fine with it.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on May 01, 2016, 01:07:23 PM
Pass, pass, pass. Which was my feeling even before winning the 1st overall pick.

I just don't think he's needed right now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 01, 2016, 02:16:27 PM
Is this solely based on not needing a centre anymore?

Not solely, no. The future cap math comes into play, as well, and, more importantly, I feel like it will still be a few seasons until the team will be a position where the type of contract it'll take to sign Stamos will be worthwhile.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 01, 2016, 02:43:02 PM
Is this solely based on not needing a centre anymore?

Not solely, no. The future cap math comes into play, as well, and, more importantly, I feel like it will still be a few seasons until the team will be a position where the type of contract it'll take to sign Stamos will be worthwhile.

But a guy of Stamkos' calibre isn't likely available in 2018, so we eat the contract in the meantime.

We got the prize, now let's get a mentor for the youngins.  Invest Busta, don't cheap out here! 

And I've yet to see a good projection showing me that Stamkos ruins the cap number in 3 years.  I think he could do for the Leafs what he did for the younger guys in Tampa.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Britishbulldog on May 01, 2016, 03:43:22 PM
"Elliotte Friedman recently had a tweet that seemed to imply Tampa might try to trade Stamkos before July 1st"

Stamkos would shield Matthews from other teams top lines, media and captained a team to the Stanley Cup finals.

If the Leaf youngster became league stars and through off the cap structure for the Leafs, that would be a great thing and is very optimistic.  The Leafs could then look at moving someone for younger assets, draft picks, etc.

It was reported that Stamkos rejected a 8 year, $68 MIL offer ($8.5 MIL AAV) from the Lightning.  If it was because he thought he was worth more then we have a problem because that is more than Getzlaf and only slightly less than Crosby.  If he rejected it because he wanted out then he is very enticing. 

Stamkos, Matthews, Kadri as the top 3 centers for the next 7 years would be fantastic.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 01, 2016, 03:51:57 PM

And I've yet to see a good projection showing me that Stamkos ruins the cap number in 3 years.

It's not that Stamkos ruins it. It's that we don't right now know enough about what shape the team is eventually going to be in right now to make spending potentially 10+ million on Stamkos a good investment. We don't really know what the team's D will look like when they're contending. We have absolutely no idea who'll be in net when they're contending.

The question is whether you want to sacrifice a good chunk of the team's flexibility to address those areas to spend market prices on Stamkos when the team will already have Matthews/Nylander/Kadri.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 01, 2016, 03:55:36 PM

It was reported that Stamkos rejected a 8 year, $68 MIL offer ($8.5 MIL AAV) from the Lightning.  If it was because he thought he was worth more then we have a problem because that is more than Getzlaf and only slightly less than Crosby.  If he rejected it because he wanted out then he is very enticing. 

It's also significantly less than Kopitar or Toews. If Stamkos rejected that offer because he wants out and he knows that his market value is higher, then he's almost certainly right.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 01, 2016, 05:20:09 PM
We got the prize, now let's get a mentor for the youngins.  Invest Busta, don't cheap out here! 

I prefer to diversify my investment portfolio rather than sinking so much of my available funds into one non-liquid commodity.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 01, 2016, 11:06:39 PM
Shanahan said last night that the results of the draft lottery don't change their UFA plans at all.

I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless they were never planning to pursue Stamkos... No way they can make a $10.5m x 7 offer to Stamkos without screwing things up down the line.

But I do hope they offer him $9m or so and tell him he can play center and pick which of Matthews, Marner, or Nylander to take passes from for the next 7 years. I mean, talent like that becoming available without any asset cost is a rarity in today's NHL, so you gotta at least see. And, if he passes to "the guy" in Detroit or wherever, the outcome of the draft lottery makes me more sanguine about missing out.

Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 01, 2016, 11:22:17 PM
Shanahan said last night that the results of the draft lottery don't change their UFA plans at all.

I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless they were never planning to pursue Stamkos... No way they can make a $10.5m x 7 offer to Stamkos without screwing things up down the line.

But I do hope they offer him $9m or so and tell him he can play center and pick which of Matthews, Marner, or Nylander to take passes from for the next 7 years. I mean, talent like that becoming available without any asset cost is a rarity in today's NHL, so you gotta at least see. And, if he passes to "the guy" in Detroit or wherever, the outcome of the draft lottery makes me more sanguine about missing out.

Another way to look at it is that the Leafs plans always involved making Stamkos a pretty team friendly offer and holding firm on it. I don't think the people running the Leafs ever had the sort of "If we don't land Matthews/Stamkos this off-season we're doomed" mentality. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 01, 2016, 11:35:09 PM
Shanahan said last night that the results of the draft lottery don't change their UFA plans at all.

I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless they were never planning to pursue Stamkos... No way they can make a $10.5m x 7 offer to Stamkos without screwing things up down the line.

But I do hope they offer him $9m or so and tell him he can play center and pick which of Matthews, Marner, or Nylander to take passes from for the next 7 years. I mean, talent like that becoming available without any asset cost is a rarity in today's NHL, so you gotta at least see. And, if he passes to be "the guy" in Detroit or wherever, the outcome of the draft lottery makes me more sanguine about missing out.

Another way to look at it is that the Leafs plans always involved making Stamkos a pretty team friendly offer and holding firm on it. I don't think the people running the Leafs ever had the sort of "If we don't land Matthews/Stamkos this off-season we're doomed" mentality.

That sounds plausible enough, and in line with the philosophy we've seen from this group. I'm glad that (it seems) getting Matthews doesn't immediately rule out making an offer to Stamkos.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on May 02, 2016, 12:00:01 AM

It was reported that Stamkos rejected a 8 year, $68 MIL offer ($8.5 MIL AAV) from the Lightning.  If it was because he thought he was worth more then we have a problem because that is more than Getzlaf and only slightly less than Crosby.  If he rejected it because he wanted out then he is very enticing. 

It's also significantly less than Kopitar or Toews. If Stamkos rejected that offer because he wants out and he knows that his market value is higher, then he's almost certainly right.

It's tough to assess.  Did Stamkos reject because he simply wants out of Tampa (whether to try and play closer to home or because he really wants to play center) or did he reject it because he can make more money on a 7-year deal than Tampa is offering for 8 years.  We won't know until July 1st or 4th (or whenever free agency is this year).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on May 02, 2016, 12:10:41 AM
Shanahan said last night that the results of the draft lottery don't change their UFA plans at all.

I don't see how that could possibly be true, unless they were never planning to pursue Stamkos... No way they can make a $10.5m x 7 offer to Stamkos without screwing things up down the line.


When the Leafs win the Stanley Cup in 2 years, it's going to generate so much money for the league that the salary cap is going to sky rocket.

Stamkos at $10.5m is going to be peanuts.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: pmrules on May 02, 2016, 02:01:45 AM
I'd still take a run at him, but only if the price is right. I'm hoping Stamkos isn't in it for the prestige of being a top earner in the league, and is more interested in playing for HIS team.  I'm hoping he takes a hometown discount.

I can see Lou saying we especially don't need you now at 9-11M, with Auston on his way.   We'll take you at something lower (7-9M per year), otherwise enjoy continuing being irrelevant in Tampa or Nashville or wherever he ends up going. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on May 02, 2016, 07:49:11 AM
I'd still take a run at him, but only if the price is right. I'm hoping Stamkos isn't in it for the prestige of being a top earner in the league, and is more interested in playing for HIS team.  I'm hoping he takes a hometown discount.

I can see Lou saying we especially don't need you now at 9-11M, with Auston on his way.   We'll take you at something lower (7-9M per year), otherwise enjoy continuing being irrelevant in Tampa or Nashville or wherever he ends up going.

Yeah, maybe Lou can slap him around a little, maybe show him some naughty pictures of his mom, you know really butter him up.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 07:59:24 AM
If I were the Leafs I wouldn't even contact Stamkos' agent. Let him come to you.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 02, 2016, 08:00:39 AM
I've been thinking recently what if the leafs offered something a little off the wall...like 2 years at 22 mil.  He still gets to be a free agent at 28 and he can prove to the league that he can stay healthy and still produce at a high rate and then if he becomes the next leaf captain and the leafs have to resign him they could then offer 8 years if they so choose.

And if he can't stay healthy they get the cap relief.  And if it doesn't work out hes off the books before nylander, marner and matthews get their raises
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 02, 2016, 09:01:10 AM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 02, 2016, 09:14:35 AM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that.

As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 02, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.

If Stamkos decides not to come to Toronto for whatever reason(s), all the power to him as that is his right as a free agent.

It's the Leafs perspective I'm thinking from and believe it would be extremely narrow-minded for the team to not consider Stamkos now that Matthews will be a Leaf. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 02, 2016, 09:43:56 AM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that.

As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.

I don't see why that would be the case or how he could think that so likely unless he actually spoke with him about it.  Plenty of star players have not been concerned about being surrounded with other star players.  I can't imagine he's that full of himself that he would scoff at playing somewhere simply because there is another highly touted player there.

And there would be a very obvious way for Stamkos to show that he should be seen as #1...outperform him.  But I can't see a guy from Markham, ON, playing for the Leafs and, presumably, lighting it up on the Leafs, not being revered in Toronto.

EDIT:  And really - the guy is 2nd in goals per game since entering the league, 2nd only to perhaps the greatest goal scorer in NHL history.

If the Leafs could get him for under $10M per year I'd do it.  It will be years (maybe even 6-7) before there are any sort of cap issues.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 02, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
In a short period of time, the Leafs have gone from a team that was extremely short of talent to being able to take a pass on one of the league's premier players.  Hilarious.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
In a short period of time, the Leafs have gone from a team that was extremely short of talent to being able to take a pass on one of the league's premier players.  Hilarious.

It really wasn't too long ago that Clarkson and Bolland could have been cornerstone players on this team (well, at least salary cap wise).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 02, 2016, 09:57:21 AM
In a short period of time, the Leafs have gone from a team that was extremely short of talent to being able to take a pass on one of the league's premier players.  Hilarious.

It really wasn't too long ago that Clarkson and Bolland could have been cornerstone players on this team (well, at least salary cap wise).

Dude, put a warning on posts like this.  I'm suffering flashbacks.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 09:59:23 AM
Two things that would now need to happen for me to even consider Stamkos at this point:

1) He needs to accept that he won't be the highest paid player in the league. I'm not giving him a Toews/Kane/Kopitar contract. If his buddy P.K. Subban can accept $9mil long-term to play somewhere he loves then so can Stamkos. (And yes, I know Subban wasn't a UFA but he was pretty much negotiating as one).

2) He needs to accept that Mike Babcock tells him where he's going to play, not the other way around. There's a lot of good centres in the organization now. If Babcock thinks it's better to move Stamkos to wing than Nylander then Stamkos needs to swallow his pride or whatever and play wing. Maybe that doesn't happen next season or even the season after that, but he needs to be open to the possibility if it arises.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 10:02:25 AM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 02, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that.

As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.

Then I think Patrick O'Sullivan is full of shit.

I'd make an argument that it's the exact opposite...Stamkos should want to be surrounded by great players.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 02, 2016, 10:08:26 AM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 10:12:32 AM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*

Oh right, that guy. Probably starts on the 4th line in any event.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zee on May 02, 2016, 10:25:40 AM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*

Oh right, that guy. Probably starts on the 4th line in any event.

I totally forgot about Connor Brown when I made some imaginary lines up.   Leafs seem to have lots of potential at forward positions, hopefully the promise from the Marlies guys pans out.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 02, 2016, 11:09:12 AM
I've been thinking recently what if the leafs offered something a little off the wall...like 2 years at 22 mil.  He still gets to be a free agent at 28 and he can prove to the league that he can stay healthy and still produce at a high rate and then if he becomes the next leaf captain and the leafs have to resign him they could then offer 8 years if they so choose.

And if he can't stay healthy they get the cap relief.  And if it doesn't work out hes off the books before nylander, marner and matthews get their raises

If I'm Stamkos and I had the health scare I had this year, I'm getting money and I'm getting term.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 02, 2016, 11:17:37 AM
I've been thinking recently what if the leafs offered something a little off the wall...like 2 years at 22 mil.  He still gets to be a free agent at 28 and he can prove to the league that he can stay healthy and still produce at a high rate and then if he becomes the next leaf captain and the leafs have to resign him they could then offer 8 years if they so choose.

And if he can't stay healthy they get the cap relief.  And if it doesn't work out hes off the books before nylander, marner and matthews get their raises

If I'm Stamkos and I had the health scare I had this year, I'm getting money and I'm getting term.

Definitely good point.  I would pass on a long term deal unless it's cheap.  But it's not going to be.  I just really don't want him to go to detroit.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 02, 2016, 11:20:38 AM
If I'm Stamkos and I had the health scare I had this year, I'm getting money and I'm getting term.

Even without the health scare, you'd have to think he'd want some sort of security/stability. I don't imagine he's going to want to be in the position where he might find himself moving to another new city in 2 years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 02, 2016, 11:33:45 AM

See, this is just why I think it's so unlikely/unwise to really go after Stamkos. Signing a top notch free agent is like selling a luxury car. The people you're selling to are going to have options. They're going to want the total package. Already when it comes to Stamkos we're saying "Well, maybe he'll sign here if he doesn't care about making markt value and he doesn't care about winning right away and he doesn't care about playing center."

There are teams who are going to be able to offer him those things. Basically the entire sales pitch at this point is "Hey, don't you want to live closer to your parents?".   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 02, 2016, 11:40:36 AM
I imagine the number of teams that can offer him a place with the "total package" (i.e. no 'conditions') is going to be very, very small.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 02, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
I imagine the number of teams that can offer him a place with the "total package" (i.e. no 'conditions') is going to be very, very small.

Sure. But it really only takes two or three of those teams to make clear class of better offer.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 02, 2016, 12:19:44 PM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that.

As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.

I don't see why that would be the case or how he could think that so likely unless he actually spoke with him about it.  Plenty of star players have not been concerned about being surrounded with other star players.  I can't imagine he's that full of himself that he would scoff at playing somewhere simply because there is another highly touted player there.

And there would be a very obvious way for Stamkos to show that he should be seen as #1...outperform him.  But I can't see a guy from Markham, ON, playing for the Leafs and, presumably, lighting it up on the Leafs, not being revered in Toronto.

EDIT:  And really - the guy is 2nd in goals per game since entering the league, 2nd only to perhaps the greatest goal scorer in NHL history.

If the Leafs could get him for under $10M per year I'd do it.  It will be years (maybe even 6-7) before there are any sort of cap issues.

To be clear, that was O'Sullivan's opinion and I was more relaying it than endorsing it.  But he was very articulate and his opinion about it as a player was strong and defined, and not the Glenn Healy kind of strong and defined.  I have no idea how much other players would agree with him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on May 02, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
Having your top 3 centers be:

Stamkos
Matthews
Kadri

is a very good thing. I'd imagine that'll be among the best top 3 centers in the league.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 02, 2016, 01:18:25 PM
If I'm Stamkos and I had the health scare I had this year, I'm getting money and I'm getting term.

This is actually a pretty good point. 

But to your other point about what Toronto really has to offer, I think coach Babcock under contract for the next million years is a big plus.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 02, 2016, 01:24:26 PM
Having your top 3 centers be:

Stamkos
Matthews
Kadri

is a very good thing. I'd imagine that'll be among the best top 3 centers in the league.

Plus Bozak!!!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 02, 2016, 01:50:07 PM
If I'm Stamkos and I had the health scare I had this year, I'm getting money and I'm getting term.

This is actually a pretty good point. 

But to your other point about what Toronto really has to offer, I think coach Babcock under contract for the next million years is a big plus.

I think that if the leafs really want him babcock, lou, and shanahan will sit down with stamkos and his agent and go through their world famous vision for the team.

basically they'll say that they plan on contending for the cup in X number of years, this is how we are going to do it and could you just imagine being a top forward from toronto on a cup winning leaf team?

and they have to pay him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 02, 2016, 01:54:48 PM
Not only is there absolutely no benefit for Stamkos in signing a short-term deal, it makes just as little sense for the Leafs to offer something like that.  What's the point of going after him if he wouldn't be here for the long haul and for the years in which the team plans to be competitive? 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 02, 2016, 01:56:35 PM
Not only is there absolutely no benefit for Stamkos in signing a short-term deal, it makes just as little sense for the Leafs to offer something like that.  What's the point of going after him if he wouldn't be here for the long haul and for the years in which the team plans to be competitive?

bridge type contract....a show me deal.

needs to stay healthy before I give you 7 years
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 02, 2016, 02:06:07 PM
bridge type contract....a show me deal.

needs to stay healthy before I give you 7 years

I get your thinking, but we're not talking about a guy coming off a couple injury plagued, unproductive seasons, or having suffered a potentially career threatening injury. A number of teams will be offering him 7 years - some at near the annual rate you're suggesting. There's no benefit to him whatsoever.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 02, 2016, 02:16:26 PM
bridge type contract....a show me deal.

needs to stay healthy before I give you 7 years

Why would Stamkos need (or want to sign) a show me deal? 

If it's not the Leafs offering 7 years, it'll be someone else.  He'd be a fool to take anything less than 5 years (and he only signs for 5 years if the AAV nears the max amount).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 02, 2016, 02:24:17 PM
just for the record I was playing devils advocate...and being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 02, 2016, 02:50:35 PM
In a short period of time, the Leafs have gone from a team that was extremely short of talent to being able to take a pass on one of the league's premier players.  Hilarious.

It really wasn't too long ago that Clarkson and Bolland could have been cornerstone players on this team (well, at least salary cap wise).

Dude, put a warning on posts like this.  I'm suffering flashbacks.

Do you remember that Free Agency day after Nonis bought out Grabovski? How he said he was so relieved -- and sounded so pleased with himself -- that he managed to lock down #1C Tyler Bozak and shore up the Maple Leafs depth at center ice...?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 02, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*

Oh right, that guy. Probably starts on the 4th line in any event.

Don't forget Andreas Johnson!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 02, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*

Oh right, that guy. Probably starts on the 4th line in any event.

Don't forget Andreas Johnson!

He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Bullfrog on May 02, 2016, 03:42:45 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 02, 2016, 04:06:31 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.

We could probably squeeze him in on our 5th line.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 02, 2016, 04:21:42 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.

We could probably squeeze him in on our 5th line.

Subbing in for the inevitable Lupul injury?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: WhatIfGodWasALeaf on May 02, 2016, 04:26:42 PM
JVR-Matthews-Stamkos
Hyman-Nylander-Brown
Soshnikov-Kadri-Komarov

I'm just posting this so I can look at it every now and then.

*cough* *cough* Marner *cough* *cough*

Oh right, that guy. Probably starts on the 4th line in any event.

Don't forget Andreas Johnson!

He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

If he is it'll be systems/smaller ice related.

If he picks the systems stuff up fairly quickly in camp he probably has the talent to start with the Maple Leafs.

What is really a strange concept for me as a Leafs fan is that we might have too many good young players to the point we don't have spots for them. I still suspect we will see one or two more Grabner type deals where multiple assets are shipped for one more valuable piece.

I know they still have to resolve some RFA signings etc but as it stands they will be exposing quite a few good young players to waivers at the end of camp next season.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: caveman on May 02, 2016, 04:29:06 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.

We could probably squeeze him in on our 5th line.

Subbing in for the inevitable Lupul injury?

Has Lupul been on anyone's projected line up card for next season ??
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 02, 2016, 04:37:10 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.

My rationale was what Patrick suggested:  getting used to smaller ice and systems stuff.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 02, 2016, 04:53:09 PM
He's destined for the Marlies this year, we figure, right?

Hard to say. He's one year younger than Soshnikov so it would fit the timeline. But, I think this year was so clearly the year of hte tank and that next year will be introducing all the young players that he could make the direct leap. He was 5th in the SHL for points, so I think he's got a real chance of going straight to the Leafs. Or, if he does go to the AHL, I doubt it's for very long.

My rationale was what Patrick suggested:  getting used to smaller ice and systems stuff.

He has (hopefully) a month or two of that with the Marlies already while they pursue the Calder Cup. Then an entire summer in Toronto wouldn't be out of the question, ostensibly training with Nylander et al. It's not game stuff, but it does help with the acclimatization process.

I think Training Camp will be quite the showcase of skill and a dogfight for spots in the lineup. We will lose some names we've grown accustomed to due to their waiver eligibility but inability to crack the lineup, hopefully for picks/younger prospects in return, or Grabner-esque trades.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 02, 2016, 07:16:35 PM

This is actually a pretty good point. 

But to your other point about what Toronto really has to offer, I think coach Babcock under contract for the next million years is a big plus.

It's not a minus, I wouldn't think. But I think with something like that it's really hard to guess. If, just for instance, Nashville is one of the other teams in the mix or maybe Buffalo I wouldn't jump at saying Babcock is an advantage over Laviolette or Bylsma. So long as it's a good coach, I think it'll just come down to personalities and how they mesh.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 02, 2016, 10:38:15 PM
I'd still be all in on Stamkos.  Matthews or no Matthews, I just don't see any reason to pass on a young talent like that.

As Patrick O'Sullivan put it on 590 this morning, there's likely no way that Stamkos would want to come to Toronto now and ultimately (or very shortly) be the #2 guy behind Matthews both on the ice and in public opinion.

I don't see why that would be the case or how he could think that so likely unless he actually spoke with him about it.  Plenty of star players have not been concerned about being surrounded with other star players.  I can't imagine he's that full of himself that he would scoff at playing somewhere simply because there is another highly touted player there.

And there would be a very obvious way for Stamkos to show that he should be seen as #1...outperform him.  But I can't see a guy from Markham, ON, playing for the Leafs and, presumably, lighting it up on the Leafs, not being revered in Toronto.

EDIT:  And really - the guy is 2nd in goals per game since entering the league, 2nd only to perhaps the greatest goal scorer in NHL history.

If the Leafs could get him for under $10M per year I'd do it.  It will be years (maybe even 6-7) before there are any sort of cap issues.

To be clear, that was O'Sullivan's opinion and I was more relaying it than endorsing it.  But he was very articulate and his opinion about it as a player was strong and defined, and not the Glenn Healy kind of strong and defined.  I have no idea how much other players would agree with him.

To clarify more, here's my transcription of O'Sullivan's opinion, as a player, about Stamkos not likely wanting to sign in Toronto:

"It’s not because the Leafs aren’t completely interested, I think they would be.  But when I look at it from a player’s perspective [....]  for me, he’s looking at going to a place that is going to have their new #1 guy for a decade, hopefully, if things go well for Auston and the team.  So I just don’t see how it makes sense for Steven more importantly than anybody else;  I don’t know why he would want to go there and walk into a situation where they’re realistically 3 or 4 years from really being a team that’s contending and then to be their 2nd line centre or to play wing.  That’s one of the reasons he’s unhappy in Tampa because he’s been put on the wing, you know Tyler Johnson has kind of come in and taken a little bit of the ice time that was usually given to him without thinking twice about it.  So that’s really kind of where my thoughts come from.  If he’s looking for the money that I believe he is, which would be a max deal like Kane and Toews have, I don’t see a lot of teams even being interested in that, and I don’t see a team wanting to pay a guy that much money that’s not even going to be their #1 guy."
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 02, 2016, 10:54:16 PM

Yeah, I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Not everyone is going to be looking at Stamkos' decision from a "maybe he doesn't really care about money" standpoint. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: L K on May 03, 2016, 05:37:28 AM
I don't think Toronto is the perfect fit for Stamkos at this point, but are the Leafs really 3-4 years away from contending if they sign Stamkos?  I mean, yeah, if they don't fix their goaltending, sure but let's say Bernier figures it out or they make a trade in the offseason along the lines of JVR/Stuff for Anderson/Vatanen.

Pittsburgh made the playoffs in Crosby/Malkin's second season (won 47 games), make the finals in their 3rd season and win it in their 4th.  To me the definition of contending isn't really "being the best in the league", it's a team that's good enough that they can potentially beat anyone.

I fully expect next year to be tough because a lot of rookies means a lot of guys who are potentially 50-90 point players are going to score at 30-50 point paces.  But while I wouldn't equate Stamkos to Crosby, or Matthews to Malkin, you are also talking about adding Nylander and Marner to that list.   It's still a year or two before this team is good but I think adding a #1 pick like Matthews AND a premier established NHL goalscorer absolutely accelerates the rebuild.

So I don't really buy that argument that Stamkos is then coming to a team that is 3-4 years away.  I think he sacrifices 1-2 years maybe but this team is a hell of a lot closer if he does end up here.

I do buy the argument that he's just not a great fit because he comes in as arguably the #2 guy behind Matthews right away AND given that Tampa keeps moving him away from center I'm not entirely convinced that he's guaranteed to keep a spot up the middle in Toronto either.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 03, 2016, 06:20:07 AM
Also just to nitpick a little.  Max money isn't kane and toews money.  Max money is 14 million per year.  So on a 7 year deal that's like a hair short of 100 million dollars.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: jdh1 on May 03, 2016, 08:30:34 AM
They don't need Stamkos. Keep the money and sign up the good prospects that are coming into the system. Need a top goalie right now.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 03, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
To clarify more, here's my transcription of O'Sullivan's opinion, as a player, about Stamkos not likely wanting to sign in Toronto:

"It’s not because the Leafs aren’t completely interested, I think they would be.  But when I look at it from a player’s perspective [....]  for me, he’s looking at going to a place that is going to have their new #1 guy for a decade, hopefully, if things go well for Auston and the team.  So I just don’t see how it makes sense for Steven more importantly than anybody else;  I don’t know why he would want to go there and walk into a situation where they’re realistically 3 or 4 years from really being a team that’s contending and then to be their 2nd line centre or to play wing.  That’s one of the reasons he’s unhappy in Tampa because he’s been put on the wing, you know Tyler Johnson has kind of come in and taken a little bit of the ice time that was usually given to him without thinking twice about it.  So that’s really kind of where my thoughts come from.  If he’s looking for the money that I believe he is, which would be a max deal like Kane and Toews have, I don’t see a lot of teams even being interested in that, and I don’t see a team wanting to pay a guy that much money that’s not even going to be their #1 guy."

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, there seems to be a lot of moving parts with this argument.  Which teams out there: a) have the type of cap space to throw money at him; b) a #1 centre role needing to be filled; and c) based on the previous point, would be a contending team if Stamkos is coming in and being the #1 centre without a doubt. 

If going to a contender or to a team on the cusp of contention is a big influence on his decision, those teams will have a solid foundation already and fact is he is going to have to share the spotlight and/or accept a different role than he is used to. 

Otherwise he should just sign in Carolina.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on May 03, 2016, 12:24:36 PM
I'm torn. On one hand, the idea of Stamkos/Matthews/Kadri down the middle with Marner, Nylander, JVR, etc. on the wings is pretty appealing. But the max I would be willing to do, had I the choice, would be $9M/year. Stamkos is really going to have to value playing for his boyhood team to take that deal.

I'm curious how many teams could actually afford to pay him $10+/year, and how many of those teams wouldn't be scared off by his injury history. I would think the list is fairly short.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on May 03, 2016, 04:14:34 PM
I'm torn. On one hand, the idea of Stamkos/Matthews/Kadri down the middle with Marner, Nylander, JVR, etc. on the wings is pretty appealing. But the max I would be willing to do, had I the choice, would be $9M/year. Stamkos is really going to have to value playing for his boyhood team to take that deal.

I'm curious how many teams could actually afford to pay him $10+/year, and how many of those teams wouldn't be scared off by his injury history. I would think the list is fairly short.

I would wager that list is longer than you would think.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: No.92 on May 03, 2016, 07:00:35 PM
While getting Matthews is going to be huge for the franchise, I don't buy that we don't need him now that we have Matthews.  The cap hit is gonna suck, but when can you get a guy like Stamkos at 26yrs of age at his prime?  Not often at all nowadays.  There are a few positives in adding him to the teams that I can't overlook:

1.  A superstar Canadian-boy who loves the Leafs and wants to play for the Leafs.
2.  A player who steps in as the leader (and/or Captain) of the biggest hockey franchise in the world.  A guy the whole Leafs nation can get behind (i.e. Gilmour)
3.  Matthews is not going to be a #1 center his rookie season.  If he is thrust into that role, it may do more harm than good.  Having him start on the 3rd line is probably best where he'll be shielded from other #1 centers.  So having Stamkos then Kadri /Nylander above him in the depth chart for next season is probably the best way to go. 
4.  Again, Matthews will be shield from the constant scrutiny of this city and the media.  Stamkos is older and can handle most of the focus of the media on him. 
5.  We immediately become closer to becoming a playoff team and contender.  We could be knocking on the playoff door if we have him on the team next season not that we are expecting it of course.  They could surprise us next season.  Nylander was on a tear for a while there along with Soshnikov. 
6.  We would have some serious offensive threats on 3 lines versus 2.

The only thing will be salary that is a negative that I can see signing Stamkos, which everyone's already delved into.  If we can figure that out with him, then I don't see why we don't sign Stamkos. 
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 03, 2016, 07:45:02 PM

Some counterpoints:

1. I can only speak for myself but that doesn't mean a ton to me.
 
2. To be honest, I have some concerns re: Stamkos and Leadership. One of the reasons he seems to be on the outs with his coach is he's upset at the idea of being asked to play the wing. Maybe it's just me but that's the sort of thing I'd want the Team's Captain to say "Yup, no problem coach" to.  Regardless, I think the Captaincy should always be earned by what is done by a player on his current team.

3. I'm confident in Babcock's ability to find the right spot for Matthews. The presence of Nylander and Kadri means Babcock can start Matthews in the #1, #2 or #3 spot depending on how he thinks the kid looks.

4. I think that may be optimistic. There'll be a ton of pressure on Matthews regardless. Also, it seems like you'd be adding the pressure of a fanbase that may expect the team to go from worst in the league to a playoff contender immediately.

5. The team gets better but the defense is still young and, frankly, not very good. The goaltending is a mess. Stamkos doesn't really help the team in either area and, in fact, his cap hit would prevent them from addressing those areas to a degree.

6. That could be true anyway. Again, Kadri/Nylander/Matthews is already pretty good.   

I think everyone would welcome Stamkos for the right price. The issue is that I think we're getting to a point where for a lot of people "the right price" is kind of unrealistic given what other teams will be willing/capable of offering.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on May 03, 2016, 09:46:15 PM
While getting Matthews is going to be huge for the franchise, I don't buy that we don't need him now that we have Matthews.  The cap hit is gonna suck, but when can you get a guy like Stamkos at 26yrs of age at his prime?  Not often at all nowadays.  There are a few positives in adding him to the teams that I can't overlook:

1.  A superstar Canadian-boy who loves the Leafs and wants to play for the Leafs.
2.  A player who steps in as the leader (and/or Captain) of the biggest hockey franchise in the world.  A guy the whole Leafs nation can get behind (i.e. Gilmour)
3.  Matthews is not going to be a #1 center his rookie season.  If he is thrust into that role, it may do more harm than good.  Having him start on the 3rd line is probably best where he'll be shielded from other #1 centers.  So having Stamkos then Kadri /Nylander above him in the depth chart for next season is probably the best way to go. 
4.  Again, Matthews will be shield from the constant scrutiny of this city and the media.  Stamkos is older and can handle most of the focus of the media on him. 
5.  We immediately become closer to becoming a playoff team and contender.  We could be knocking on the playoff door if we have him on the team next season not that we are expecting it of course.  They could surprise us next season.  Nylander was on a tear for a while there along with Soshnikov. 
6.  We would have some serious offensive threats on 3 lines versus 2.

The only thing will be salary that is a negative that I can see signing Stamkos, which everyone's already delved into.  If we can figure that out with him, then I don't see why we don't sign Stamkos.

Let me add another, and perhaps biggest potential positive.

* it allows the Leafs to trade one of their other talented forwards for a much needed #1 or #2 defenseman
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 03, 2016, 11:07:34 PM
I can't think of anything less relevant to whether Stamkos would love to play for the Leafs than the personal feelings of a TMLFans.ca poster to the same question.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 03, 2016, 11:10:57 PM
I can't think of anything less relevant to whether Stamkos would love to play for the Leafs than the personal feelings of a TMLFans.ca poster to the same question.

I think most of us would like to play for the Leafs.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 04, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
I'm curious how many teams could actually afford to pay him $10+/year, and how many of those teams wouldn't be scared off by his injury history. I would think the list is fairly short.

Well, I've heard that one reason he wouldn't come to Toronto would be that he wants to win now. So, which teams that are contenders could actually afford to pay him $10m+/year? Quick skim of team's cap space: the Predators, the Stars, the Sharks? Maybe the Panthers...?

If he's not that concerned about having a chance at the Cup immediately, there are plenty of rebuilding teams with enough space. Then we're imagining getting into a bidding war with Buffalo and Stamkos choosing the Sabres for a few million extra dollars.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 04, 2016, 05:11:50 PM

I'm curious how many teams could actually afford to pay him $10+/year, and how many of those teams wouldn't be scared off by his injury history. I would think the list is fairly short.

I'd guess the list is pretty long if you include any team that could reasonably make that sort of space by trading players.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on May 04, 2016, 07:12:27 PM

I'm curious how many teams could actually afford to pay him $10+/year, and how many of those teams wouldn't be scared off by his injury history. I would think the list is fairly short.

I'd guess the list is pretty long if you include any team that could reasonably make that sort of space by trading players.

I suppose I was thinking more of who could do it with available cap space, rather than having to make moves to create that space. To clear up $10M a team  would likely have to trade a useful piece or two, and maybe that's not worth it. And that still doesn't address his injury history, assuming it's an issue.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 04, 2016, 07:57:01 PM

I suppose I was thinking more of who could do it with available cap space, rather than having to make moves to create that space. To clear up $10M a team  would likely have to trade a useful piece or two, and maybe that's not worth it. And that still doesn't address his injury history, assuming it's an issue.

Sure, but what I was saying was that teams don't really have to have 10 million in cap space. They just need to get there. And that doesn't necessarily involve clearing the whole 10 million either. A team out there right now might figure on having 6 million to spend on free agency but, if Stamkos is available, might figure out a way to make that extra 4 million happen and that's a figure you can get to by trading a relatively minor piece or even through an incentivized salary dump like how we took on Brooks Laich.

But I guess the real question is what we mean by a long or short list of teams. Obviously there are some teams like Chicago or LA or Pittsburgh that couldn't swing it and there are probably some teams like Arizona or Carolina where an internal budget probably rules it out but there's probably a good 8-10 teams that are real possibilities provided, like you said, they aren't too bothered by the injuries.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on May 04, 2016, 08:06:31 PM
dump like how we took on Brooks Laich.

Hahahaha. Oh, grow up mcgarnagle.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 04, 2016, 08:13:39 PM
dump like how we took on Brooks Laich.

Hahahaha. Oh, grow up mcgarnagle.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b8/98/85/b89885585112f2130e71c82011b1b86c.jpg)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 05, 2016, 08:44:26 PM
Is this solely based on not needing a centre anymore?

Not solely, no. The future cap math comes into play, as well, and, more importantly, I feel like it will still be a few seasons until the team will be a position where the type of contract it'll take to sign Stamos will be worthwhile.

But won't the type of contract it'll take to sign Stamkos only get trickier from here on out?

Using the cap space to sign a top UFA (which means max term) this summer means the contract comes off the books as Marner and Matthews hit unrestricted free agency. 

For the three drafted stars to cause real cap trouble before that, each would have to pan out, by end of their ELCs, more or less as projected under the most wildly optimistic projections -- we'd have the 2020 versions of Kopitar (RFA 12% of cap), Kane (RFA 10.5%), and Backstrom (RFA 11%). That seems unlikely to happen, though I'm confident they'll all be really good players in playoff team's top six.

If the goal of the capped system is to extract as much value as possible from the ELC years of your talent, then having a Stamkos-level UFA ready for a run in 2018-19 seems like a smart move. If they can get him at a reasonable price, of course.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 07, 2016, 10:54:44 PM
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on May 08, 2016, 10:36:40 AM

Hooboy. Here we go. No doubt another "accidental" like. :)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 08, 2016, 10:41:10 AM
Hooboy. Here we go. No doubt another "accidental" like. :)

Or purposeful "troll" like.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on May 08, 2016, 10:49:03 AM
Hooboy. Here we go. No doubt another "accidental" like. :)

Or purposeful "troll" like.

Makes you wonder what constitutes tampering....
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 08, 2016, 11:09:50 AM
Hooboy. Here we go. No doubt another "accidental" like. :)

Or purposeful "troll" like.

Makes you wonder what constitutes tampering....

It's pretty much a given that the Leafs will forfeit this year's 1st round pick as punishment.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Joe S. on May 08, 2016, 11:47:40 AM
Tapping like by mistake is completely feasible especially on a phone. I've done it myself by mistake a few times and then removed it... I've done this in Facebook many times.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on May 08, 2016, 12:32:52 PM
Hooboy. Here we go. No doubt another "accidental" like. :)

Or purposeful "troll" like.

Makes you wonder what constitutes tampering....

This... everything else is okay

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/12/article-0-003E779B00000258-295_306x377.jpg)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 08, 2016, 03:15:40 PM
Tapping like by mistake is completely feasible especially on a phone. I've done it myself by mistake a few times and then removed it... I've done this in Facebook many times.

Still, it's kind of funny that he's going out of his way to view those tweets.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Heroic Shrimp on May 08, 2016, 03:53:42 PM

Wait a second... the erndog44 that Shanahan is liking isn't Dredjaw/Erndog from here, is it...?  Ernie hasn't been around here for a year or two.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Al14 on May 09, 2016, 07:45:29 PM
Tapping like by mistake is completely feasible especially on a phone. I've done it myself by mistake a few times and then removed it... I've done this in Facebook many times.

Still, it's kind of funny that he's going out of his way to view those tweets.

Me thinks he's just trolling us Leaf fans.   ::)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 10, 2016, 09:30:42 AM
Fairly lengthy look into signing Stamkos here (https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/?utm_content=buffer85caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 10, 2016, 09:51:39 AM
Fairly lengthy look into signing Stamkos here (https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/?utm_content=buffer85caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

It's a good article. I think though it's a little disconnected from the actual anti- or, at least, cautious side on Stamkos which seems to me to be less about how Stamkos will fit in with the existing core the team has and more about how Stamkos will affect the team's ability to add to the core if Rielly, Gardiner and Zaitsev aren't really the three guys you can build a championship blueline around.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 10, 2016, 09:56:36 AM
Fairly lengthy look into signing Stamkos here (https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/?utm_content=buffer85caa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Quote
[My] own conclusion is that Toronto should definitely attempt to sign Steven Stamkos; however, like in any negotiation, they should do so own their own terms, and only in a manner that fits within their broader salary cap strategy.

(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/4/4a/Orly_owl.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20051112001744)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: CarltonTheBear on May 10, 2016, 10:34:27 AM
My only concern with that article is that while it projects the cap to rise a decent amount over the years it doesn't take into consideration what effect that might have on player salaries. Post-ELCs Nylander and Marner (assuming they perform at the level we expect them to) might be worth $6-ish in this climate, but will that still be true when we're looking at a cap that's going into the 80s and beyond?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 10, 2016, 10:48:30 AM
Wait a second... the erndog44 that Shanahan is liking isn't Dredjaw/Erndog from here, is it...?  Ernie hasn't been around here for a year or two.

Seems like that it is indeed him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM

So one of the most frequent things that has been brought up in the signing Stamkos discussion is "How often is an elite free agent on the market" and I thought it might be good to sort of answer that.

Now, as I said yesterday, "elite" is essentially a meaningless term so I thought to answer the question you should maybe limit it to people who unquestionably fit just about anyone's definition of a top player in the league.

To my mind anyway, that leaves us with 6 players who fit that definition that have been UFA's since the 04-05 lockout, namely: Niedermayer, Chara, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Suter, Stamkos(presumably).

Now keep in mind that this list excludes guys like Brad Richards(who hit UFA status after 2 seasons at better than a PPG as a #1 center), Zach Parise(who in his 3 full seasons before hitting UFA status as a 27 year old averaged 38 goals and 80 points) and it only counts Hossa once despite hitting UFA status once after coming off of three seasons averaging 37 goals and 86 points and then was a UFA again after a 40 goal, 71 point(in 74 game) season.

So, again, 6 elite free agents have hit UFA status. In 12 years of Salary Capped Unrestricted Free Agency. I don't need the calculator on my computer to tell you that means that an elite UFA is available roughly every other year in the current environment.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 19, 2016, 10:09:11 AM
Of those only Kovalchuk and Suter were under 29 years old when they signed and at 26 years old Stamkos would be the youngest of any of them to hit UFA.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 10:14:09 AM
Of those only Kovalchuk and Suter were under 29 years old when they signed and at 26 years old Stamkos would be the youngest of any of them to hit UFA.

Sure. I'd wager a guess that the Bruins, Blackhawks and Ducks wouldn't have demanded a refund though. They all got elite performance and at that point who cares about age?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 19, 2016, 10:29:51 AM
Of those only Kovalchuk and Suter were under 29 years old when they signed and at 26 years old Stamkos would be the youngest of any of them to hit UFA.

Sure. I'd wager a guess that the Bruins, Blackhawks and Ducks wouldn't have demanded a refund though. They all got elite performance and at that point who cares about age?

Who cares about age? 

Well how about production decline, injuries, and since the Leafs are trying to build a longer term contender, it'd be nice to know that they would have the opportunity to have him around longer in his more productive years?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 10:35:04 AM

Who cares about age? 

Yes, I find it's easier to answer questions if I only respond to one half of them too.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 19, 2016, 10:52:00 AM
Well how about production decline, injuries, and since the Leafs are trying to build a longer term contender, it'd be nice to know that they would have the opportunity to have him around longer in his more productive years?

This goes back to what Babcock said about adding big pieces when the team is ready, and not in the growing phase - as the Leafs currently are. At that point, production decline and such factors are much less important, because the focus is on the next few seasons. Teams like Boston, Chicago, and Anaheim received the elite-level performance when they needed it. We still don't really know when that point will be for the Leafs, so, looking at any more established additions in that light is kind of fruitless - and, also helps to hammer home the point many of us have made in regardless to signing Stamkos and where the Leafs are in the building process.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 19, 2016, 10:55:55 AM
All I was trying to say is that Stamkos is unique in being the youngest of the elite players to hit UFA.  An extra year or two is significant IMO.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 11:03:21 AM
All I was trying to say is that Stamkos is unique in being the youngest of the elite players to hit UFA.   

And I agree with that. A compelling case can be made that Stamkos is, of all of these guys, the most attractive UFA in the post-lockout era if seen in isolation from things like a team's needs.

But I wasn't stating otherwise. I was just saying that a lot of people have made it sound like teams only get the chance to add major pieces to their team via free agency once in a blue moon when the reality is that players of roughly that impact are available somewhat regularly.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on May 19, 2016, 12:26:33 PM
Based on your predictive model Nik, the next free agent is due in approximately 2 years. And that will most certainly be John Tavares. Given that (EVERYONE knows) he HATES practicing in Long Island, he'll almost certainly start to favorite Maple Leafs tweets as he enters the last year of his contract. Once it's apparent he won't be resigning with the Islanders, someone here will suggest the Leafs give the Islanders a free 2nd rounder for negotiating rights. And then Tavares is a Leaf, and Stamoks goes on to produce at .46 ppg with the Canadiens.

This has become my new sort-of dream scenario. The Leafs will be 2 years further along in their development, and Tavares could be a great addition at that  point. And assuming the rebuild is humming along as we all hope, they could be a pretty good team.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 19, 2016, 03:32:55 PM
Well how about production decline, injuries, and since the Leafs are trying to build a longer term contender, it'd be nice to know that they would have the opportunity to have him around longer in his more productive years?

This goes back to what Babcock said about adding big pieces when the team is ready, and not in the growing phase - as the Leafs currently are. At that point, production decline and such factors are much less important, because the focus is on the next few seasons. Teams like Boston, Chicago, and Anaheim received the elite-level performance when they needed it. We still don't really know when that point will be for the Leafs, so, looking at any more established additions in that light is kind of fruitless - and, also helps to hammer home the point many of us have made in regardless to signing Stamkos and where the Leafs are in the building process.

Which is why I'd go for the 26 year old free agent, and wouldn't the 29 year old one.

There's still elite-level performance for a few years after they get good.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 19, 2016, 03:41:30 PM
Which is why I'd go for the 26 year old free agent, and wouldn't the 29 year old one.

There's still elite-level performance for a few years after they get good.

Possibly, but, you're still almost certainly wasting around half that contract before the team is in position to really take advantage of that elite-level performance - at which point, it would essentially be the same thing as adding a 29/30 year old free agent. Also, as Nik points out, there's the likelihood that another similarly talented player will become available as a UFA in that time span - and, with the current structure of free agency, one that could very well be a ~26 year old, as well (like, potentially Tavares in 2 years, for example).

Either way, it all boils down to the same thing to me - there's no reason for the team to feel a real sense of urgency to sign Stamkos this summer. In fact, it's quite likely that, in the long-run, the team is better off avoiding the cap commitment, waiting, and signing the next elite UFA that shakes loose 2 or 3 summers from now instead.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 19, 2016, 03:42:52 PM
Well how about production decline, injuries, and since the Leafs are trying to build a longer term contender, it'd be nice to know that they would have the opportunity to have him around longer in his more productive years?

This goes back to what Babcock said about adding big pieces when the team is ready, and not in the growing phase - as the Leafs currently are. At that point, production decline and such factors are much less important, because the focus is on the next few seasons. Teams like Boston, Chicago, and Anaheim received the elite-level performance when they needed it. We still don't really know when that point will be for the Leafs, so, looking at any more established additions in that light is kind of fruitless - and, also helps to hammer home the point many of us have made in regardless to signing Stamkos and where the Leafs are in the building process.

Which is why I'd go for the 26 year old free agent, and wouldn't the 29 year old one.

There's still elite-level performance for a few years after they get good.

That's exactly my point.  I wouldn't be in favour of signing a 29 year old Stamkos for 7 years at this point.

A 26 year old one?  I'm interested.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 03:52:32 PM
Chara, signed as a UFA as a 29 year old was essentially a 1st or 2nd team NHL all-star for every year of his deal. Hossa, in the five years after he signed his deal with the Blackhawks as a 30 year old, produced at a 33 goal/73 point per 82 game rate.

The mistake being made is using a sort of aggregated concept of how and when players decline and trying to simply slap it on the production of elite players. All of the players I listed produced at an elite level over the terms of their deals regardless of the age they were at when it was signed.

The point of my post was not "Is a 26 year old UFA a more attractive free agent than a 29 year old one?" but rather "How often do elite free agents find themselves on the market and then perform at elite levels for their new teams?".
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Frank E on May 19, 2016, 04:21:03 PM

Possibly, but, you're still almost certainly wasting around half that contract before the team is in position to really take advantage of that elite-level performance - at which point, it would essentially be the same thing as adding a 29/30 year old free agent.

The difference in that situation to me is the cap outlook on that particular 29 year old hypothetical free agent's contract you just signed him to.  I'm not really interested in signing guys through their 36th birthday, and if he's "elite", then he's getting max term.  Stamkos' deal expires at 33.  Theoretically, elite guys should be able to contribute past their 33rd birthday, but there's much more risk there.

Also, as Nik points out, there's the likelihood that another similarly talented player will become available as a UFA in that time span - and, with the current structure of free agency, one that could very well be a ~26 year old, as well (like, potentially Tavares in 2 years, for example).

But they have the cap space now?  What's the difference in adding a $10m Stamkos now vs. adding a $11m Tavares in 2018 in 2018?  If the issue is that Stamkos will make the team "too good" next season, then they've got players they can ship out this summer to even that out.

Either way, it all boils down to the same thing to me - there's no reason for the team to feel a real sense of urgency to sign Stamkos this summer. In fact, it's quite likely that, in the long-run, the team is better off avoiding the cap commitment, waiting, and signing the next elite UFA that shakes loose 2 or 3 summers from now instead.

I agree that there's not much urgency here, but it's a pretty unique opportunity that may not present itself in the future.  Nik's examples of guys coming into free-agency were generally before the advent of the extra year of contract term available to guys re-signing with their own teams.  I don't doubt that there will be some good players that will go to UFA, but I'm not as sure you'll see a bona fide 40 goal center that's a team captain.   
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 04:53:05 PM

But they have the cap space now?  What's the difference in adding a $10m Stamkos now vs. adding a $11m Tavares in 2018 in 2018?  If the issue is that Stamkos will make the team "too good" next season, then they've got players they can ship out this summer to even that out.

The issue is in maximizing the effect the big budget UFA they can sign on their cup chances by trying to align their peak years with the team's ability to legitimately contend for a cup as closely as possible. Unless you're of the belief that overnight Stamkos turns the team into a cup contender then he'll almost certainly be in his late 20's by the time the team is ready to compete. Signing Tavares in two years, however, means you're adding an elite 26 year old Center when the team is ready to compete.
 

I agree that there's not much urgency here, but it's a pretty unique opportunity that may not present itself in the future.  Nik's examples of guys coming into free-agency were generally before the advent of the extra year of contract term available to guys re-signing with their own teams.  I don't doubt that there will be some good players that will go to UFA, but I'm not as sure you'll see a bona fide 40 goal center that's a team captain.   

But that very well might be a good thing. Arguably between Nylander, Kadri and (probably) Matthews center is the position that the Leafs are strongest at for the future. Meanwhile they have massive holes on defense and in net. If elite free agents are available at those positions in the next few years then even if they're a hair below Stamkos in terms of relative individual impact they very well might be more valuable to the Leafs.

Given that, as Busta points out, Stamkos isn't likely to be on a contending Leafs team until he's 28 or 29 anyway the ledger has this hypothetical advantage Stamkos has on any future available UFAs against the flexibility of signing UFAs to suit your team's actual needs and the negative impact Stamkos will probably have on the team's draft position in the years to come.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 19, 2016, 04:54:00 PM
The difference in that situation to me is the cap outlook on that particular 29 year old hypothetical free agent's contract you just signed him to.  I'm not really interested in signing guys through their 36th birthday, and if he's "elite", then he's getting max term.  Stamkos' deal expires at 33.  Theoretically, elite guys should be able to contribute past their 33rd birthday, but there's much more risk there.

Honestly, for true elite players, the difference between how they contribute at 33 and how they contribute at 36 is minimal. What I'd prefer is to have that elite player through an extended stretch of the team being a Cup contender, rather than wasting half the contract while the team is still experiencing growing pains - with much more uncertain outcomes. Waiting until they're close to being Cup contenders or are Cup contenders means they can take advantage of much more - possibly all - of the contract, whereas, signing Stamkos this summer coudl still end up with his entire contract running out before the Leafs get to that point (though, obviously, I hope that's not going to be the case).

But they have the cap space now?  What's the difference in adding a $10m Stamkos now vs. adding a $11m Tavares in 2018 in 2018?  If the issue is that Stamkos will make the team "too good" next season, then they've got players they can ship out this summer to even that out.

Just because they have cap space now doesn't mean they should use it now. In fact, given the team's position, it's probably smarter to use that cap space to acquire a couple bad contracts and pick up draft picks rather than invest in a long-term piece in the UFA market. Holding on to that cap space will reduce the squeeze when it comes to having to sign the Nylanders, Marners, and Matthews of the world to their next contracts. If they're all on the roster next season, they'll be eligible to sign new deals the same summer Tavares is a UFA (and, for the record, I'm not specifically say the Leafs should wait for Tavares - he was just an example of a potential elite UFA that could be on the market in the near future). The Leafs need to have a long-term view, and, right now, that includes not making the kind of cap commitment adding a Stamkos would involve. That money can be used on short-term pieces that can be turned into assets that really help facilitate the team being a contender for an extended period. Being able to turn-over your secondary pieces and replace them with cheaper, younger, equally talented options is essential for long-term success - and to build that base, the Leafs still need to focus on adding picks and prospects for another year or two. That means more one and two year deals for guys they can hopefully flip at the trade deadline - even if it's only for 3rd/4th round picks.

I agree that there's not much urgency here, but it's a pretty unique opportunity that may not present itself in the future.  Nik's examples of guys coming into free-agency were generally before the advent of the extra year of contract term available to guys re-signing with their own teams.  I don't doubt that there will be some good players that will go to UFA, but I'm not as sure you'll see a bona fide 40 goal center that's a team captain.   

Honestly, if a guy wants out or simply wants to explore their options, that extra year isn't going to make them stick around. It's not a big enough incentive. As to whether or not we'll see a bona fide 40 goal centre that has captain experience . . . well, that may not happen in the time frame we're looking at, but, at the same time, that may not be the Leafs' biggest need when they're approaching contention. We could see a game-breaking winger, or a #1 defenceman, and those could be the hole the Leafs need to fill. That's another big reason to wait - we don't know what the primary piece the Leafs will need to push them over the top may be. Better to keep their options open until they A) know that if the current group of quality prospects is going to form the core that gets the Leafs to Cup contender status and B) have an understanding of where they have gaps.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 19, 2016, 06:51:39 PM
The difference in that situation to me is the cap outlook on that particular 29 year old hypothetical free agent's contract you just signed him to.  I'm not really interested in signing guys through their 36th birthday, and if he's "elite", then he's getting max term.  Stamkos' deal expires at 33.  Theoretically, elite guys should be able to contribute past their 33rd birthday, but there's much more risk there.

Honestly, for true elite players, the difference between how they contribute at 33 and how they contribute at 36 is minimal. What I'd prefer is to have that elite player through an extended stretch of the team being a Cup contender, rather than wasting half the contract while the team is still experiencing growing pains - with much more uncertain outcomes. Waiting until they're close to being Cup contenders or are Cup contenders means they can take advantage of much more - possibly all - of the contract, whereas, signing Stamkos this summer coudl still end up with his entire contract running out before the Leafs get to that point (though, obviously, I hope that's not going to be the case).

Good lord. If that that happens, I'd definitely want Stamkos on the team. What other assets would they have to trade for decent return in the rebuild?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on May 19, 2016, 06:59:38 PM
i'm sure it's not really the intention but i find it interesting how a lot of people make it sounds like Tavares becoming available is just going to happen.  when really it's still speculation that Stamkos will hit the market.  It reminds me how how montreal fans always seemed to think Lecavalier was going to be theirs at any moment.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 19, 2016, 07:00:18 PM
Good lord. If that that happens, I'd definitely want Stamkos on the team. What other assets would they have to trade for decent return in the rebuild?

The same kinds of assets the Blackhawks had when they started to build their current core.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Potvin29 on May 19, 2016, 07:03:52 PM
The Blackhawks became good basically as soon as they drafted Kane and Toews or as soon as they debuted.  Kane was in the league 2 seasons before they reached the Conference finals, Toews one year (and they made a big climb the year before).
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 19, 2016, 07:08:16 PM
The Blackhawks became good basically as soon as they drafted Kane and Toews or as soon as they debuted.  Kane was in the league 2 seasons before they reached the Conference finals, Toews one year (and they made a big climb the year before).

That's definitely when they started their climb, yeah. However, in the previous few seasons, they didn't exactly trade acquire a bunch of great picks or prospects in trades, because they had already failed in an attempted rebuild. Inevitably, it's going to be quality drafting (and some luck in terms of the "right" players being available when they have high picks) that determines whether or not the rebuild is successful, not who they can trade away and for what. Trades are going to bring in assets that help provide depth/secondary scoring/etc., not core pieces - so, not having great assets to move isn't a huge issue.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 07:36:24 PM
i'm sure it's not really the intention but i find it interesting how a lot of people make it sounds like Tavares becoming available is just going to happen.  when really it's still speculation that Stamkos will hit the market.  It reminds me how how montreal fans always seemed to think Lecavalier was going to be theirs at any moment.

Usually once you establish you're speaking in the hypothetical, you don't need to repeat it with every sentence.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on May 19, 2016, 08:54:45 PM
i'm sure it's not really the intention but i find it interesting how a lot of people make it sounds like Tavares becoming available is just going to happen.  when really it's still speculation that Stamkos will hit the market.  It reminds me how how montreal fans always seemed to think Lecavalier was going to be theirs at any moment.

Usually once you establish you're speaking in the hypothetical, you don't need to repeat it with every sentence.

perhaps, usually, however in this case it`s a pretty big hypothetical.  like a really big one.  of all the big named free agents that have been rumored to be coming to Toronto how many have actually done so?  On top of that it's not just this thread or even just this site.  This particular hypothetical situation comes up a lot.  And this guy isn't even a free agent.  Now perhaps you keep him as a place holder for the idea that some big name will be available in the next few years and we're just calling that concept Tavares.  I don't think that's the case with everyone though.  Also mentioning stamkos and tavares in the same hypothetical situation kind of treats both as being equally likely as becoming one available and two wanting to come to toronto and I really don't think that's the case.  Stamkos has gotten within months of his contract being up and still hasn't had a deal.  We also know more about Tampa's cap situation as it is likely to be for next year and because of that can imagine why Tampa wouldn't want to or wouldn't be able to keep him.  None of this same information exists for tavares.  The only thing that links them is they both grew up in the GTA. 

It just gets weird when you have this idea of let's pass on Stamkos so that we have the space open for Tavares without at least addressing the possibility that you pass on Stamkos and never have a shot at Tavares. 

Anyway..just my thought on it.  It wasn't specific to any one individual.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 19, 2016, 09:12:23 PM

It just gets weird when you have this idea of let's pass on Stamkos so that we have the space open for Tavares without at least addressing the possibility that you pass on Stamkos and never have a shot at Tavares.   

I mean, conversely I think it's weird to bring this up in the midst of a conversation where the idea of "Tavares" as simply a shorthand for "a comparable UFA a few years out" has been explicitly stated but, you know...weirdness abounds.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: crazyperfectdevil on May 19, 2016, 11:30:18 PM

It just gets weird when you have this idea of let's pass on Stamkos so that we have the space open for Tavares without at least addressing the possibility that you pass on Stamkos and never have a shot at Tavares.   

I mean, conversely I think it's weird to bring this up in the midst of a conversation where the idea of "Tavares" as simply a shorthand for "a comparable UFA a few years out" has been explicitly stated but, you know...weirdness abounds.

sure
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: nutman on May 20, 2016, 09:58:14 AM
I think Stamkos would be a great signing, the main reason being that we need a capt. He would also be a very good mentor for all the stars we have coming up. His scoring punch will be very welcomed on a team that will be better then most would like to admit. If our goaltending issue is fixed, and the players buy into the coach I think we would take our first steps this up coming season. I am of the belief that in two seasons the way things are going, and if we sign Stamkos and our goalie thing is fixed we will be a good young playoff team. So if we sign Stamkos for seven yrs, then how is it wasting his contract. this means two seasons for while we are growing and five while we are a playoff team. So in my opinion I say the Leafs should be all over signing him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: herman on May 20, 2016, 10:29:49 AM
I think Stamkos would be a great signing, the main reason being that we need a capt. He would also be a very good mentor for all the stars we have coming up. His scoring punch will be very welcomed on a team that will be better then most would like to admit. If our goaltending issue is fixed, and the players buy into the coach I think we would take our first steps this up coming season. I am of the belief that in two seasons the way things are going, and if we sign Stamkos and our goalie thing is fixed we will be a good young playoff team. So if we sign Stamkos for seven yrs, then how is it wasting his contract. this means two seasons for while we are growing and five while we are a playoff team. So in my opinion I say the Leafs should be all over signing him.

I agree with a lot of the benefits you've listed. I'd like to add a couple of questions in addition that we should ask even if Stamkos pans out exactly as expected (Art Ross, etc.).

Are these things enough to push the Leafs in their current (albeit fluid) state into contending for the conference finals on a regular basis (i.e. 5-6 years)?

Or will Stamkos' projected scoring only push the Leafs up 5-6 spots in the standings? From a bottom 3 finish up to a bottom-9?

Are we content to draft 7-12 (or even lower) for the next two growth years? Or would it be better to have a good shot at the top-5 again for at least one more year?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Peter D. on May 20, 2016, 10:39:05 AM
If the debate is about Stamkos now vs. Tavares in two years, unless you see the latter as being far superior than the former (I don't), I really don't see the point in passing on a 26-year old Stamkos today for a 28-year old Tavares tomorrow. 

Similar age, similar talents, both with a major injury on their resume, both proven as #1 centres, both will command similar cap hits (Tavares possibly more based on how the cap trajects over the next two seasons).  One is mere days after from hitting free agency.  The other is no guarantee to hit the market in two years time. 

Both would be at the same stage in terms of the team's overall picture in two years time.  I'd grab the sure thing this summer if available.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 20, 2016, 10:56:04 AM
If the debate is about Stamkos now vs. Tavares in two years, unless you see the latter as being far superior than the former (I don't), I really don't see the point in passing on a 26-year old Stamkos today for a 28-year old Tavares tomorrow.   

It's not really. The debate is about Stamkos vs. saving the money for someone else in the future, Tavares just being a possibility. The point of holding off being that in a couple years time the Leafs will be in a better position to decide if where they want to invest that money is at center or at another position, as well as having that player signed for 7 years starting when they should be closer to contention as opposed to burning 2-4 years of the deal as they develop the internal talent that's almost certainly going to be more crucial to any cup runs they go on in the future.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 20, 2016, 10:57:58 AM
If the debate is about Stamkos now vs. Tavares in two years, unless you see the latter as being far superior than the former (I don't), I really don't see the point in passing on a 26-year old Stamkos today for a 28-year old Tavares tomorrow. 

Similar age, similar talents, both with a major injury on their resume, both proven as #1 centres, both will command similar cap hits (Tavares possibly more based on how the cap trajects over the next two seasons).  One is mere days after from hitting free agency.  The other is no guarantee to hit the market in two years time. 

Both would be at the same stage in terms of the team's overall picture in two years time.  I'd grab the sure thing this summer if available.

That's not really the debate, though. Tavares is just being used as example of a premiere UFA who could be available when the Leafs are closer to being/are contenders rather than a specific target. The debate is whether it's in the team's best interests to commit to Stamkos now, or to wait until they have a better idea of how the prospects are going to pan out and what holes they'll need to fill to take the next step in their growth as a team.

There's also the question as to whether it could be in the Leafs' interest to split the cap hit for two or three pieces, rather than committing all to Stamkos. For example, could, say, a $6M defenceman and a $4.5M forward provide better value to the team than Stamkos at $10M and another player at the league minimum?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: No.92 on May 20, 2016, 12:30:27 PM
If the debate is about Stamkos now vs. Tavares in two years, unless you see the latter as being far superior than the former (I don't), I really don't see the point in passing on a 26-year old Stamkos today for a 28-year old Tavares tomorrow.   

It's not really. The debate is about Stamkos vs. saving the money for someone else in the future, Tavares just being a possibility. The point of holding off being that in a couple years time the Leafs will be in a better position to decide if where they want to invest that money is at center or at another position, as well as having that player signed for 7 years starting when they should be closer to contention as opposed to burning 2-4 years of the deal as they develop the internal talent that's almost certainly going to be more crucial to any cup runs they go on in the future.

I'm sorry but just like how a generational player like McDavid comes every decade or so, same goes with elite talents hitting the open market while they are still well before their prime (assuming prime is around 28-30) PLUS someone who wants to play for his childhood team the Leafs.  That just doesn't happen often.  Stamkos is closer to a "sure thing" of wanting to sign with the Leafs now versus a complete unknown in Tavares in 2yrs.  I take Stamkos any day of the week and would be content that we get even 1 Stanley Cup contending team in the 7yrs he is here.  Beggars cannot be choosers and as we stand now we would all be ecstatic if we just reach the final for 1 of the 7 years because Stamkos helped.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 20, 2016, 12:49:23 PM
I'm sorry but just like how a generational player like McDavid comes every decade or so, same goes with elite talents hitting the open market while they are still well before their prime (assuming prime is around 28-30) PLUS someone who wants to play for his childhood team the Leafs.  That just doesn't happen often.  Stamkos is closer to a "sure thing" of wanting to sign with the Leafs now versus a complete unknown in Tavares in 2yrs.  I take Stamkos any day of the week and would be content that we get even 1 Stanley Cup contending team in the 7yrs he is here.  Beggars cannot be choosers and as we stand now we would all be ecstatic if we just reach the final for 1 of the 7 years because Stamkos helped.

As Nik point out earlier in the thread, on average, elite talents hit the open market every other summer, and, with the current free agency rules, they'll be getting there in their mid-20s at a similar rate (and, for the record, prime production seasons for forwards tend to be in their early 20s). On top of that, as has been pointed out a number of times, no one who is suggesting that the Leafs don't aggressive pursue Stamkos is suggesting they wait specifically for Tavares. The question is about waiting until the Leafs are actually in a position to take full advantage of adding a high-end free agent - which is very much not this summer.

Also, the Leafs aren't beggars in this situation. They're not in a situation where their choice is Stamkos or Stamkos. They're not desperate to add a #1C this summer - and, even if they were, they're in a prime position to draft one. This management team has been preaching patience since they started the team down this path. The idea that they have to sign Stamkos or that waiting to add big pieces until they're in a position where adding big pieces makes sense just flies in the face of that. They're 100% in a position where they can wait. They can absolutely afford to be choosers. In fact, they basically have to be. They can't hamstring themselves because of today's opportunity.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 20, 2016, 04:13:24 PM
I think Stamkos would be a great signing, the main reason being that we need a capt. He would also be a very good mentor for all the stars we have coming up. His scoring punch will be very welcomed on a team that will be better then most would like to admit. If our goaltending issue is fixed, and the players buy into the coach I think we would take our first steps this up coming season. I am of the belief that in two seasons the way things are going, and if we sign Stamkos and our goalie thing is fixed we will be a good young playoff team. So if we sign Stamkos for seven yrs, then how is it wasting his contract. this means two seasons for while we are growing and five while we are a playoff team. So in my opinion I say the Leafs should be all over signing him.

I agree with a lot of the benefits you've listed. I'd like to add a couple of questions in addition that we should ask even if Stamkos pans out exactly as expected (Art Ross, etc.).

Are these things enough to push the Leafs in their current (albeit fluid) state into contending for the conference finals on a regular basis (i.e. 5-6 years)?

Or will Stamkos' projected scoring only push the Leafs up 5-6 spots in the standings? From a bottom 3 finish up to a bottom-9?

Are we content to draft 7-12 (or even lower) for the next two growth years? Or would it be better to have a good shot at the top-5 again for at least one more year?

I think the Leafs have already done about as well in terms of drafting as TBL, NYI, FLA did before they started moving out of the basement. I'm not sure whether those teams stopped bottoming out because external pressures forced their managements to begin building to compete or if the talent drafted proved good enough that the team was no longer in a position to draft really high.

But I'd consider the possibility that bottom 3 finishes aren't happening with or without Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 20, 2016, 05:44:51 PM
 
I'm sorry but just like how a generational player like McDavid comes every decade or so, same goes with elite talents hitting the open market while they are still well before their prime (assuming prime is around 28-30) PLUS someone who wants to play for his childhood team the Leafs.  That just doesn't happen often.  Stamkos is closer to a "sure thing" of wanting to sign with the Leafs now versus a complete unknown in Tavares in 2yrs.  I take Stamkos any day of the week and would be content that we get even 1 Stanley Cup contending team in the 7yrs he is here.  Beggars cannot be choosers and as we stand now we would all be ecstatic if we just reach the final for 1 of the 7 years because Stamkos helped.

I really don't get why people don't see a fundamental contradiction here. Either my list of elite talents available as UFAs is right, and elite talents are available every other year or so, or I'm wrong and Stamkos is virtually the only elite talent ever available on the UFA market in which case every single Cup winner has been put together without signing an elite UFA.

The Leafs aren't beggars. They're not desperate. For the first time in a long time they're not desperate to make the playoffs as quickly as possible just to appease an impatient ownership group or impatient fans. They can slow build it. They can try and do what Chicago/LA did. The difference between signing a 26 year old free agent and a 28-29 year old one as many cup winners have done in the past is not that big a deal. The idea that elite talents routinely hit the age of 33 and then fall off a cliff has absolutely no basis in fact.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 20, 2016, 05:58:10 PM

As Nik point out earlier in the thread, on average, elite talents hit the open market every other summer, and, with the current free agency rules, they'll be getting there in their mid-20s at a similar rate (and, for the record, prime production seasons for forwards tend to be in their early 20s).

Also, just to expand on this when I said that elite free agents hit the free agent market every other year it's important to keep in mind I'm not just talking about someone like Stamkos who might go on to produce at an elite rate. I'm strictly talking about the Free Agents who were terrific additions to their team. Who played up to their contracts. I mentioned not counting Brad Richards or Zach Parise(whose drop-off can't just be attributed to age). It also doesn't include someone like Brian Campbell, who hit UFA after a year where he was a second team all-star and finished 5th in Norris voting(his second consecutive top 10 finish) or Marian Gaborik who was a 40 goal scorer(and then hit 40 twice more with his new team).

Every other year is just how often teams were able to radically change the course of their franchises via free agency. If the question is just how often teams have a chance to add an elite free agent, the answer is probably closer to there being one a year on average.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on May 20, 2016, 06:12:01 PM
Don't we have to factor in burying Lupul on the LTIR and trading Bozak, that opens ups a lot of caps space for SS without hampering the team to much cap wise.  A lot of bold moves have been made in the past 2 years and I don't think it is time to get shy now. Lets do what needs to be done and secure one of the premier centres in the league, who wants to come home, cause that is what Babs promised. And he is C material the moment he signs his contract:  Stamkos, Matthews and Kadri down the middle sounds damn good to me or Stamkos and Laine on the same line sounds almost as good.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 20, 2016, 06:15:13 PM
Lets do what needs to be done and secure one of the premier centres in the league, who wants to come home, cause that is what Babs promised.

Actually, what Babcock said was that the way to bring Ontario-born players in was to win first, then bring them in. Or, essentially, the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Highlander on May 21, 2016, 09:37:20 AM
He said he would make it safe for the players and then they would come home. I think he has done that
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 21, 2016, 09:58:58 AM
He said he would make it safe for the players and then they would come home. I think he has done that

Quote
“We need to create a safe environment for the players — right now, it’s a hard place,” he explained. “Winning creates a safe place for players.

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/05/21/babcock-predicts-pain-for-leafs-who-are-a-massive-massive-challenge/ (http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2015/05/21/babcock-predicts-pain-for-leafs-who-are-a-massive-massive-challenge/)
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: sneakyray on May 21, 2016, 07:59:20 PM
http://www.tsn.ca/babcock-creating-safe-environment-for-players-1.439669

tsn article from feb 18, 2016

But with sick bay overflowing and the trade deadline now days away, will the task of keeping the Leafs players “safe” become harder?
"No, no, I don't think so," Babcock said shaking his head. "I think we've looked after them real good. We talked about that today. If you play real hard and you get prepared and stay determined and you play with structure and play real hard you can walk around town, go for breakfast, life's good, people like you, it's no problem. If you don't get prepared and you don't play with determination and you don't play with structure it's not as much fun being around town."
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: princedpw on May 21, 2016, 08:46:11 PM
Can someone point me to the list of free agents comparable to Stamkos that Nik posted earlier?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 21, 2016, 09:03:07 PM
Can someone point me to the list of free agents comparable to Stamkos that Nik posted earlier?  Thanks!

It's probably a mistake to categorize them as "comparable" to Stamkos as they are all very different players at varying stages of their careers but the 6 UFAs I described as elite were Niedermayer, Chara, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Suter and Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: princedpw on May 21, 2016, 10:31:48 PM
Can someone point me to the list of free agents comparable to Stamkos that Nik posted earlier?  Thanks!

It's probably a mistake to categorize them as "comparable" to Stamkos as they are all very different players at varying stages of their careers but the 6 UFAs I described as elite were Niedermayer, Chara, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Suter and Stamkos.

Id say those guys are of comparable quality.-- Suter, Hossa maybe a little lesser, Chara, Niedermayer even better perhaps, but same ballpark. 

Niedermayer was 2005 -- 11 years. Let's call it 12 so that would be 1 every 2 years.  There are 30 teams in the league.  You only need 1 place to be more desirable for the FA.  If they let decide not to go for the guy this year, they maybe have 2 more shots at that level guy over the next 2-5 years.  Nobody can calculate the probabilities on these things, but if those are the level of guy you want, it doesn't seem the chances are all that high. They arent zero either. It is a risk no matter what you do.

What I'd like to see are cap estimates for the 2020 season and a plan for getting a 1A defenseman.  On the latter, if buying Stamkos allows us  to trade a top prospect or young guy like a marner, nylander or kadri for a similar age and talent defenseman, Id consider it after mapping out the cap implications.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on May 22, 2016, 12:01:01 AM
I think I come down where prince is. All this discussion about where the team might be in x years is hypothetical. This July they may well be confronted with an actual opportunity to add a player who would undoubtedly make the team much better. You have to make decision about him at that time. I don't think you make it based primarily on largely imponderable future possible UFA choices.

To me the biggest question re Stamkos is whether you think he has peaked or not, which is certainly a possibility, and perhaps too his injury history.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: mr grieves on May 22, 2016, 12:10:06 AM
Can someone point me to the list of free agents comparable to Stamkos that Nik posted earlier?  Thanks!

It's probably a mistake to categorize them as "comparable" to Stamkos as they are all very different players at varying stages of their careers but the 6 UFAs I described as elite were Niedermayer, Chara, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Suter and Stamkos.

Id say those guys are of comparable quality.-- Suter, Hossa maybe a little lesser, Chara, Niedermayer even better perhaps, but same ballpark. 

Niedermayer was 2005 -- 11 years. Let's call it 12 so that would be 1 every 2 years.  There are 30 teams in the league.  You only need 1 place to be more desirable for the FA.  If they let decide not to go for the guy this year, they maybe have 2 more shots at that level guy over the next 2-5 years.  Nobody can calculate the probabilities on these things, but if those are the level of guy you want, it doesn't seem the chances are all that high. They arent zero either. It is a risk no matter what you do.

What I'd like to see are cap estimates for the 2020 season and a plan for getting a 1A defenseman.  On the latter, if buying Stamkos allows us  to trade a top prospect or young guy like a marner, nylander or kadri for a similar age and talent defenseman, Id consider it after mapping out the cap implications.

MLHS tried to do just that.

link: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

I think the author is maybe too conservative in estimating the cap hits of Nylander, Marner, and Matthews, but also a bit too conservative in projecting cap growth, too generous in budgeting a core...

As for getting a 1A defenseman, I think the Leafs best chance of having one that's developed in order to work with the primes of the aforementioned prospects is to have Stamkos, which would free them to package one of Marner, Nylander, or Matthews.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: RedLeaf on May 22, 2016, 08:31:23 AM
While getting Matthews is going to be huge for the franchise, I don't buy that we don't need him now that we have Matthews.  The cap hit is gonna suck, but when can you get a guy like Stamkos at 26yrs of age at his prime?  Not often at all nowadays.  There are a few positives in adding him to the teams that I can't overlook:

1.  A superstar Canadian-boy who loves the Leafs and wants to play for the Leafs.
2.  A player who steps in as the leader (and/or Captain) of the biggest hockey franchise in the world.  A guy the whole Leafs nation can get behind (i.e. Gilmour)
3.  Matthews is not going to be a #1 center his rookie season.  If he is thrust into that role, it may do more harm than good.  Having him start on the 3rd line is probably best where he'll be shielded from other #1 centers.  So having Stamkos then Kadri /Nylander above him in the depth chart for next season is probably the best way to go. 
4.  Again, Matthews will be shield from the constant scrutiny of this city and the media.  Stamkos is older and can handle most of the focus of the media on him. 
5.  We immediately become closer to becoming a playoff team and contender.  We could be knocking on the playoff door if we have him on the team next season not that we are expecting it of course.  They could surprise us next season.  Nylander was on a tear for a while there along with Soshnikov. 
6.  We would have some serious offensive threats on 3 lines versus 2.

The only thing will be salary that is a negative that I can see signing Stamkos, which everyone's already delved into.  If we can figure that out with him, then I don't see why we don't sign Stamkos.

Let me add another, and perhaps biggest potential positive.

* it allows the Leafs to trade one of their other talented forwards for a much needed #1 or #2 defenseman


Where was everyone's support on this idea 2 wks ago when I was suggesting the exact same thing in a few different threads? Lol ;D
Seriously though, trading one of the young forwards could certainly get you a good d-man. But the idea is rife with bad outcomes. The trust factor has to be huge for management to trade away one of Marner or Nylander for a defenseman. I wonder if anyone has an example of that sort of trade happening elsewhere, with such young players involved?
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on May 22, 2016, 09:33:46 AM
While getting Matthews is going to be huge for the franchise, I don't buy that we don't need him now that we have Matthews.  The cap hit is gonna suck, but when can you get a guy like Stamkos at 26yrs of age at his prime?  Not often at all nowadays.  There are a few positives in adding him to the teams that I can't overlook:

1.  A superstar Canadian-boy who loves the Leafs and wants to play for the Leafs.
2.  A player who steps in as the leader (and/or Captain) of the biggest hockey franchise in the world.  A guy the whole Leafs nation can get behind (i.e. Gilmour)
3.  Matthews is not going to be a #1 center his rookie season.  If he is thrust into that role, it may do more harm than good.  Having him start on the 3rd line is probably best where he'll be shielded from other #1 centers.  So having Stamkos then Kadri /Nylander above him in the depth chart for next season is probably the best way to go. 
4.  Again, Matthews will be shield from the constant scrutiny of this city and the media.  Stamkos is older and can handle most of the focus of the media on him. 
5.  We immediately become closer to becoming a playoff team and contender.  We could be knocking on the playoff door if we have him on the team next season not that we are expecting it of course.  They could surprise us next season.  Nylander was on a tear for a while there along with Soshnikov. 
6.  We would have some serious offensive threats on 3 lines versus 2.

The only thing will be salary that is a negative that I can see signing Stamkos, which everyone's already delved into.  If we can figure that out with him, then I don't see why we don't sign Stamkos.

Let me add another, and perhaps biggest potential positive.

* it allows the Leafs to trade one of their other talented forwards for a much needed #1 or #2 defenseman


Where was everyone's support on this idea 2 wks ago when I was suggesting the exact same thing in a few different threads? Lol ;D
Seriously though, trading one of the young forwards could certainly get you a good d-man. But the idea is rife with bad outcomes. The trust factor has to be huge for management to trade away one of Marner or Nylander for a defenseman. I wonder if anyone has an example of that sort of trade happening elsewhere, with such young players involved?

Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 22, 2016, 11:21:17 AM

Niedermayer was 2005 -- 11 years. Let's call it 12 so that would be 1 every 2 years.  There are 30 teams in the league.  You only need 1 place to be more desirable for the FA.  If they let decide not to go for the guy this year, they maybe have 2 more shots at that level guy over the next 2-5 years.  Nobody can calculate the probabilities on these things, but if those are the level of guy you want, it doesn't seem the chances are all that high. They arent zero either. It is a risk no matter what you do.

But there are other factors. For starters, the newer cap system where players aren't going to be taking artificially lowered cap hits on long-term deals probably means teams are going to be under more cap pressure which means you're probably going to see more and more good players find the free agent market. We can talk all we want about Stamkos clashing with Cooper or Stamkos wanting to be a Leaf but the reality is that Tampa can't really offer Stamkos a 10+ million dollar a year deal without then having to make some very hard choices about the future. That's a situation we're likely to see more, not less of in the future.

But also, and maybe more importantly, even if the odds aren't great for there being an elite free agent available(and this is again where I'll mention that those 6 are just the elite free agents who performed up to their contracts) there's really no evidence that one is necessary. Sure, some teams like the Ducks, Bruins and Blackhawks won with one but the Kings, Red Wings and Penguins didn't. Whoever wins the cup this year will do so without having signed a big-deal UFA. Adding big pieces through smart trades is just as valid a method of adding those final building blocks and teams like the Penguins, Sharks and Blues have added huge pieces to their team without breaking the bank and trading someone the calibre of a Marner or Nylander or even Kadri.

Honestly, I think people are making too much of that post of mine. It wasn't intended as a statement about the relative merits of UFA as a method of adding players, it was simply a response to the people acting as if elite free agents only find themselves on the free market once in a blue moon. That, in and of itself, is not a compelling argument for signing Stamkos.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 22, 2016, 11:36:25 AM
I think I come down where prince is. All this discussion about where the team might be in x years is hypothetical. This July they may well be confronted with an actual opportunity to add a player who would undoubtedly make the team much better. You have to make decision about him at that time. I don't think you make it based primarily on largely imponderable future possible UFA choices.
 

Nobody is suggesting you do. What is being suggested is that in a few years time the team will have a better concept of what they need and what areas they need to address and therefore will be in a better position to acquire the sort of piece that will fit their vision of the team they're trying to construct, rather than adding that piece immediately and then trying to shape their existing talent around that player.

UFA, Trades, more high draft picks...all of those are potential methods for adding the kinds of pieces we all know the Leafs need in order to build a contending team regardless of whether or not they sign Stamkos. The argument is that by signing Stamkos to such a high percentage of the cap and then watching him improve the team over the next few years when they probably won't be any good anyway you're reducing the Leafs' flexibility to take advantage of those avenues.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Nik on May 23, 2016, 07:48:28 PM
Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones

Just to highlight this for a second though, for all the talk about how often a UFA like Stamkos comes along can we talk for a second about the relative rarity of a legit #1 defenseman being traded? The best examples you can really come up with are either situations where the #1 defenseman in question essentially wasn't playing defense at the time he was dealt(Byfuglien, Burns) or you're looking at a situation like the above deal where a big, legit #1 Center, the kind of guy teams get built around and that we're all excited about having the chance to draft next month, got traded for someone who might get to that status. Other than that it's all guys getting drafted by teams and staying with them forever and the very occasional UFA and if you look at the last decade of Stanley Cup winners you can just as easily make the case that a #1 defenseman who can make a legitimate claim to being one of the top 5 if not top 3 in the league is as if not more important to winning the cup than the equivalent #1 C is. Counting this year, every single one of the last 10 cup winners will have had one of Lidstrom, Pronger/Niedermayer, Letang, Keith, Doughty, Chara or Burns/Hedman/Pietrangelo. 

Now, it is fair to say that more of these #1 defensemen come from later on in the draft and you don't need to be right near the top to take one but if we'd all agree that right now it's not likely that Rielly becomes a player on that level then the Leafs are still looking for one and the idea that you can just peel off Marner or Nylander and deal them for one at your convenience is banking on a situation that's 10x more remote and hypothetical than waiting on Stamkos because a better or comparable UFA might be around the corner. The best place to find impact players like that is still near the top of the draft and since, again, the Leafs aren't actually in a rush they're better off taking as good a shot as they can at drafting someone like that over the next few years.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: No.92 on May 23, 2016, 07:57:21 PM
I think I come down where prince is. All this discussion about where the team might be in x years is hypothetical. This July they may well be confronted with an actual opportunity to add a player who would undoubtedly make the team much better. You have to make decision about him at that time. I don't think you make it based primarily on largely imponderable future possible UFA choices.

To me the biggest question re Stamkos is whether you think he has peaked or not, which is certainly a possibility, and perhaps too his injury history.

Agreed.  Since he scored 60, he has had a downward trajectory in points.  Granted he's been injured but if you only look at this past season, it's way off from his highest totals.  Is he getting complacent?  Will a move to Toronto spark his interest again because Toronto is a new, major challenge?  Guys like him are super competitive.  You give him a difficult task (i.e. winning a Stanley Cup in Toronto), he will try his best to achieve it.  As far as physical attributes about him (not talking about injuries), he's still in his mid twenties and should be the best shape he can be in and he should be at his prime.  So, with all these factors, does he bounce back to be a 90+ point getter?  Hard to say without taking the risk in signing him.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Dappleganger on May 27, 2016, 12:56:31 PM
From the article: "When asked if he has thought about the possibility this could have been his last game in a Lightning sweater, No. 91 quickly answered, "No.""

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15758227/nhl-2016-stanley-cup-playoffs-steven-stamkos-return-not-enough-tampa-bay-lightning

We shall see...
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: bustaheims on May 27, 2016, 01:15:47 PM
I honestly wonder how much the issues between him and Cooper may be being overstated, and how much he really wants to leave a team that's been in the Conference finals for two straight seasons (and 3 of the last 6) - and got there this year without him. It really wouldn't surprise me if he takes a look at the team, and thinks that, if he's healthy for the playoffs, do they get to the Finals with a legit chance? Are they just a couple tweaks away from being able win the Cup? And, is that something he's really willing to walk away from?

I honestly would not be surprised to see him sign an extension with the Lightning in the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: hockeyfan1 on May 27, 2016, 01:31:28 PM
From the article:

Brian Boyle said it best...

"Oh man, just from what I've seen in two years, the amount of stuff he does behind closed doors, and what you guys don't see, everything that he does for Tampa in general, what he's done for the players on this team, it can't really be expressed in a two-minute blurb," Boyle said. "It's good to see him. It's good to see him on the ice and good to see him feeling better. It stings that we couldn't pick him up. He played great and almost scored for us in the second. I was happy to be out there playing with him."

When asked if he could imagine what the Lightning organization would be like without No. 91, Boyle could only shake his head in disbelief.

"I'm trying to wrap my head around our season being over right now," Boyle said. "That's enough bad news for me. I'm confident and I'm hoping he's back. Everything kind of changes year to year with the group, and it's hard to keep everybody together. We did that last year to this year, and hopefully we can keep the group together. Again, it's an unbelievable group to be a part of, and I'm very fortunate and very blessed to be a part of this. The city that we play in, the people that we're around, the people in the organization -- everybody -- I couldn't ask for anything better.

"That's what makes this [loss] a lot harder, because you never know what's going to happen in the offseason. We have a special group, and it takes a special group to get as far as we did. It's tough right now, but I'm sure someday in the future I'll look back on this season, and last season, very, very fondly.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: LuncheonMeat on May 27, 2016, 03:12:53 PM
From the article: "When asked if he has thought about the possibility this could have been his last game in a Lightning sweater, No. 91 quickly answered, "No.""

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15758227/nhl-2016-stanley-cup-playoffs-steven-stamkos-return-not-enough-tampa-bay-lightning

We shall see...

FWIW, he didn't say no to the idea that this was his last game with the lightning, he said no to the idea that he'd even thought about it. In the end, it'a meaningless statement.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TBLeafer on May 27, 2016, 09:32:29 PM
He'll be a Leaf, IMO.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: McGarnagle on May 28, 2016, 11:00:10 AM
If I'm Tampa, I can't look at how they played without him in the lineup (and with his very modest output last playoffs) and say its worth jettisoning other players to pay him double digits long term. I think Stamkos is a closer comparable to Kessel than Crosby - a great complimentary player.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: TBLeafer on May 30, 2016, 02:54:09 PM
If I'm Tampa, I can't look at how they played without him in the lineup (and with his very modest output last playoffs) and say its worth jettisoning other players to pay him double digits long term. I think Stamkos is a closer comparable to Kessel than Crosby - a great complimentary player.

I'd say it's more like Ovechkin than Crosby.

Stamkos is a whole tier of league elites higher than Kessel.  He's still a franchise player and a superstar.
Title: Re: Steve Stamkos?
Post by: Significantly Insignificant on May 30, 2016, 02:58:15 PM