Steve Stamkos?

[Frank E]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[Redleaf]

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.

 

[KadriFan]

Wouldn't sign him for long term if he wants a no trade clause.  Sick of those kind of deals.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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!"

 

[Bates]

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!"

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[L K]

Another embarrassing computer leak from Stamkos:

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So James Mirtle kinda dropped a bomb in his article on Stamkos today:

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).

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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).

 

[Frank E]

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?

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[herman]

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?

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.