Steve Stamkos?

[Frank E]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[Frank E]

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?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[Zee]

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.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

 

[Tigger]

I think, at this point, I'd rather the Leafs have 11 mil in cap flex than Stamkos.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

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.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

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.

 

[hockeyfan1]

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.

 

[rdowdall]

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?

 

[Zee]

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?

 

[Redleaf]

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.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

 

[Bill_Berg]

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.

 

[Joe S.]

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.