Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

Then why are we here?  What does this all mean?  Where are my pants?

Maybe they're hanging on top of one of those bars in one of those fancy graphs in the article link I posted. 

 

[Highlander]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

Then why are we here?  What does this all mean?  Where are my pants?

Are they in the dryer?

 

[Al14]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

Then why are we here?  What does this all mean?  Where are my pants?

Are they in the dryer?

Better check under the bed too!

 

[herman]

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"

I'm not entirely anti-Stamkos, but that is pretty much where I stand on this.

I'd love to have Stamkos in the right context: 8M AAV (or less!), Matthews, Marner, Nylander already in their primes; #1D and #1G already firmly established; Since the timelines don't really match up, and the rest of the cast isn't quite there, I'm okay holding off on blowing significant cap space on 1 really good player. If this thread was about McDavid, then please throw him all the moneys. Sadly it isn't.

Getting Stamkos or any single premier UFA too soon only hurts the team (esp. rebuilding phase draft position). The UFA market is the most cost-inefficient route to building a team core.

 

[Deebo]

it's about whether they have room for Stamkos and whatever else they might need in the future and two that just about every pro-signing Stamkos argument tends to revolve around Stamkos signing for what Toews/Kane got or lower.

To answer that, I like to compare where the Leafs could be in 2019-20 Cap wise if they were to sign Stamkos. vs. a current contender.

The Penguins will  have 40.5 in cap room allocated to their top 5 forwards (Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Hornqvist, Hagelin) + Letang next season.

If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are signed at an average of 7M each add in Stamkos at 10.5M,  Kadri at 4.5M and Rielly at 5.0M and we are at 41M. If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are commanding that type of AAV between the 3 of them on their second contracts, they would have developed into top line players and that should be the makings of a contending core.

If the Penguins can fill out their roster with quality depth with the remaining cap room, we should be able to as well.

I think it can work at ~10.5M, If it will take significantly more than that, I'd pass. I suspect that's where Leafs management is as well. Not specifically at 10.5 perhaps, but I think they have a number in mind that they would be willing to go to with him. Honestly, I would be surprised if they have no interest.

 

[TBLeafer]

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"

I'm not entirely anti-Stamkos, but that is pretty much where I stand on this.

I'd love to have Stamkos in the right context: 8M AAV (or less!), Matthews, Marner, Nylander already in their primes; #1D and #1G already firmly established; Since the timelines don't really match up, and the rest of the cast isn't quite there, I'm okay holding off on blowing significant cap space on 1 really good player. If this thread was about McDavid, then please throw him all the moneys. Sadly it isn't.

Getting Stamkos or any single premier UFA too soon only hurts the team (esp. rebuilding phase draft position). The UFA market is the most cost-inefficient route to building a team core.

Thing is though for the Leafs, it isn't core building.  Its piece adding.  A real expensive top piece in Stamkos' case, but a piece nonetheless.  Our future core is still our future core and looking like all will comfortable fit under cap for the foreseeable future based on reasonable projections.

Let me highlight a huge takeaway from that article I posted in that regard:

 

[Kin]

If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are signed at an average of 7M each add in Stamkos at 10.5M,  Kadri at 4.5M and Rielly at 5.0M and we are at 41M. If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are commanding that type of AAV between the 3 of them on their second contracts, they would have developed into top line players and that should be the makings of a contending core.

The sort of depth you're talking about took Pittsburgh a significant amount of time to assemble though. So that three or four years out becomes five or six and already we're talking about nearing the end of the Stamkos contract. That's also operating under the assumption that Rielly becomes as good as Letang and the team isn't still looking for someone who is.

Like I said, the cap hit isn't so much the issue for me outside of cap space being limited. It's less about whether or not Stamkos' salary can work and more about whether or not the Leafs should try and make it work.

 

[Kin]

Thing is though for the Leafs, it isn't core building.  Its piece adding.  A real expensive top piece in Stamkos' case, but a piece nonetheless.  Our future core is still our future core and looking like all will comfortable fit under cap for the foreseeable future based on reasonable projections.

I think the problem people have with that projection(and the reason people aren't referring to it so much is that that specific article has already been posted in this thread) is that it assumes that Rielly-Gardiner-Zaitsev are going to be a cup-calibre top 3 and very few people have read scouting reports on this "Future Goalie".

 

[bustaheims]

Thing is though for the Leafs, it isn't core building.  Its piece adding.  A real expensive top piece in Stamkos' case, but a piece nonetheless.  Our future core is still our future core and looking like all will comfortable fit under cap for the foreseeable future based on reasonable projections.

With the kind of money and term Stamkos is going to command, I don't see how signing him can be considered anything other than adding to the core. You don't spend that kind of coin or make that kind of commitment to just add a piece. Adding Stamkos would absolutely be core building.

 

[herman]

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"

I'm not entirely anti-Stamkos, but that is pretty much where I stand on this.

I'd love to have Stamkos in the right context: 8M AAV (or less!), Matthews, Marner, Nylander already in their primes; #1D and #1G already firmly established; Since the timelines don't really match up, and the rest of the cast isn't quite there, I'm okay holding off on blowing significant cap space on 1 really good player. If this thread was about McDavid, then please throw him all the moneys. Sadly it isn't.

Getting Stamkos or any single premier UFA too soon only hurts the team (esp. rebuilding phase draft position). The UFA market is the most cost-inefficient route to building a team core.

Thing is though for the Leafs, it isn't core building.  Its piece adding.  A real expensive top piece in Stamkos' case, but a piece nonetheless.  Our future core is still our future core and looking like all will comfortable fit under cap for the foreseeable future based on reasonable projections.

We have different definitions of what piece adding is then, because the $$$ Stamkos is commanding is an amount teams generally would allocate to their cores. As busta said before, you want those in the same age range, and I'll add that ideally they'd be at the primes of their careers to maximize your performance/$.

 

[Deebo]

We have different definitions of what piece adding is then, because the $$$ Stamkos is commanding is an amount teams generally would allocate to their cores. As busta said before, you want those in the same age range, and I'll add that ideally they'd be at the primes of their careers to maximize your performance/$.

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

 

[TBLeafer]

If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are signed at an average of 7M each add in Stamkos at 10.5M,  Kadri at 4.5M and Rielly at 5.0M and we are at 41M. If Matthews, Marner and Nylander are commanding that type of AAV between the 3 of them on their second contracts, they would have developed into top line players and that should be the makings of a contending core.

The sort of depth you're talking about took Pittsburgh a significant amount of time to assemble though. So that three or four years out becomes five or six and already we're talking about nearing the end of the Stamkos contract. That's also operating under the assumption that Rielly becomes as good as Letang and the team isn't still looking for someone who is.

Like I said, the cap hit isn't so much the issue for me outside of cap space being limited. It's less about whether or not Stamkos' salary can work and more about whether or not the Leafs should try and make it work.

Well IMO we're in a much better position now than Tampa to "make it work" because we have higher quality pieces overall, save our goaltending.  Tampa has to pay through the teeth this Summer for the triplets, which will have the highest negative impact on cap per player than anyone. Think 4-6 mil increase per triplet to their ELC most likely. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Thing is though for the Leafs, it isn't core building.  Its piece adding.  A real expensive top piece in Stamkos' case, but a piece nonetheless.  Our future core is still our future core and looking like all will comfortable fit under cap for the foreseeable future based on reasonable projections.

With the kind of money and term Stamkos is going to command, I don't see how signing him can be considered anything other than adding to the core. You don't spend that kind of coin or make that kind of commitment to just add a piece. Adding Stamkos would absolutely be core building.

Core piece yes, but still a piece.

 

[Kin]

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

This is where Chicago as an example breaks apart. We can't be looking to build the 2013 Blackhawks because the likelihood of the Leafs ever being able to have a 28 year old Norris caliber defenseman coming in at 5.5 against the cap or an elite free agent like Hossa at 5.25 just isn't realistic with the current CBA.

The reason that, ideally, you want your core to be roughly the same age is so that you can take as many shots as possible with them before the cap forces you to make hard choices. That doesn't mean you ignore continuing to add good prospects, so guys like Ladd and Versteeg and Byfuglien and Bolland who were in that range can be replaced and the team still be competitive, but Chicago has had it relatively easy because of the contracts they were able to sign under the old CBA. The Leafs will have a tougher time juggling those players once they hit RFA status.

 

[TBLeafer]

We have different definitions of what piece adding is then, because the $$$ Stamkos is commanding is an amount teams generally would allocate to their cores. As busta said before, you want those in the same age range, and I'll add that ideally they'd be at the primes of their careers to maximize your performance/$.

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

Plus Stammer is JVR's age anyway.

 

[Kin]

Well IMO we're in a much better position now than Tampa to "make it work" because we have higher quality pieces overall, save our goaltending.  Tampa has to pay through the teeth this Summer for the triplets, which will have the highest negative impact on cap per player than anyone. Think 4-6 mil increase per triplet to their ELC most likely.

Right but again my issue isn't with whether or not the Leafs can fit the salary under the cap, it's whether or not they should given the relative uncertainty about the future. Tampa's situation doesn't have much bearing on what's right for the Leafs.

Also, I don't know I agree that we've got higher quality pieces than Tampa save goaltending. Unless you're only talking about prospects.

 

[TBLeafer]

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

This is where Chicago as an example breaks apart. We can't be looking to build the 2013 Blackhawks because the likelihood of the Leafs ever being able to have a 28 year old Norris caliber defenseman coming in at 5.5 against the cap or an elite free agent like Hossa at 5.25 just isn't realistic with the current CBA.

The reason that, ideally, you want your core to be roughly the same age is so that you can take as many shots as possible with them before the cap forces you to make hard choices. That doesn't mean you ignore continuing to add good prospects, so guys like Ladd and Versteeg and Byfuglien and Bolland who were in that range can be replaced and the team still be competitive, but Chicago has had it relatively easy because of the contracts they were able to sign under the old CBA. The Leafs will have a tougher time juggling those players once they hit RFA status.

A 26 and under core from this point forward is something that the Leafs currently have even with Stammer and a core that young can also stay good for a long time.

I would take issue with signing Stammer if he was 30+, but he isn't.  He is the age of a current Leaf's core player.

 

[herman]

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

This is where Chicago as an example breaks apart. We can't be looking to build the 2013 Blackhawks because the likelihood of the Leafs ever being able to have a 28 year old Norris caliber defenseman coming in at 5.5 against the cap or an elite free agent like Hossa at 5.25 just isn't realistic with the current CBA.

The reason that, ideally, you want your core to be roughly the same age is so that you can take as many shots as possible with them before the cap forces you to make hard choices. That doesn't mean you ignore continuing to add good prospects, so guys like Ladd and Versteeg and Byfuglien and Bolland who were in that range can be replaced and the team still be competitive, but Chicago has had it relatively easy because of the contracts they were able to sign under the old CBA. The Leafs will have a tougher time juggling those players once they hit RFA status.

A 26 and under core from this point forward is something that the Leafs currently have even with Stammer and a core that young can also stay good for a long time.

I would take issue with signing Stammer if he was 30+, but he isn't.  He is the age of a current Leaf's core player.

Is Kadri/JvR/Gardiner the core you believe will win the Cup?
Or is it Matthews/Nylander/Marner/Rielly?

i.e. which group do you invest your limited cap space to maximizing?

 

[TBLeafer]

Well IMO we're in a much better position now than Tampa to "make it work" because we have higher quality pieces overall, save our goaltending.  Tampa has to pay through the teeth this Summer for the triplets, which will have the highest negative impact on cap per player than anyone. Think 4-6 mil increase per triplet to their ELC most likely.

Right but again my issue isn't with whether or not the Leafs can fit the salary under the cap, it's whether or not they should given the relative uncertainty about the future. Tampa's situation doesn't have much bearing on what's right for the Leafs.

Also, I don't know I agree that we've got higher quality pieces than Tampa save goaltending. Unless you're only talking about prospects.

Well I'm taking top prospects along with existing core players so little bit of column A and B there.

Marner>Kucherov
Matthews>Namestnikov
Kadri>Killorn
JVR>Palat
Nylander>Johnston

etc...

 

[TBLeafer]

Why do we need the core to be of same age?

Chicago's 2013 cup winning "core":

Saad (1992)
Kane & Toews (1988)
Hjalmersson (1987)
Seabrook (1985)
Crawford (1984)
Kieth (1983)
Sharp (1981)
Hossa (1979)

This is where Chicago as an example breaks apart. We can't be looking to build the 2013 Blackhawks because the likelihood of the Leafs ever being able to have a 28 year old Norris caliber defenseman coming in at 5.5 against the cap or an elite free agent like Hossa at 5.25 just isn't realistic with the current CBA.

The reason that, ideally, you want your core to be roughly the same age is so that you can take as many shots as possible with them before the cap forces you to make hard choices. That doesn't mean you ignore continuing to add good prospects, so guys like Ladd and Versteeg and Byfuglien and Bolland who were in that range can be replaced and the team still be competitive, but Chicago has had it relatively easy because of the contracts they were able to sign under the old CBA. The Leafs will have a tougher time juggling those players once they hit RFA status.

A 26 and under core from this point forward is something that the Leafs currently have even with Stammer and a core that young can also stay good for a long time.

I would take issue with signing Stammer if he was 30+, but he isn't.  He is the age of a current Leaf's core player.

Is Kadri/JvR/Gardiner the core you believe will win the Cup?
Or is it Matthews/Nylander/Marner/Rielly?

i.e. which group do you invest your limited cap space to maximizing?

I'd say both right now given the current timeline with a little sprinkle of Stamkos to blend them together nicely.