Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

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.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

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.

 

[mr grieves]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Frank E]

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. 

 

[Kin]

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?".

 

[Frank E]

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.   

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[mr grieves]

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?

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

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.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

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).

 

[bustaheims]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

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.

 

[Kin]

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.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

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

 

[nutman]

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.

 

[herman]

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?