Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

Sharp wasn't so integral if he became so tradeable, along with Saad.  Panarin offset Sharp nicely.  Those that were integral stayed locked up.  I think JVR could contribute nicely to a bid in the 2017/18 season while in his contract year and will have an expiration date as an integral core player at that time.

Sharp was their leading playoff goal scorer in 2 of their 3 cup years. I mean, by your same logic I could say Sharp clearly was integral as they traded him away and couldn't get out of the first round without him. 


That said we're probably at an impasse if you really think the team can genuinely make a run at things during JVR's current contract.

I believe they will be a perrennial playoff team as early as 2018 or 2019.  JVR's final contract year or 1 year removed and in the final year of Matthews and Marner's ELC's.

 

[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...

This nicely outlines the disconnect for me, I'm hopeful that Marner, Matthews and Nylander are going to be very good players but one of them has played 22 NHL games, 2 of them none and another is probably not in the Leafs long term plans. Banking on them quickly becoming a contending core is a pretty good bet for the house. I'm going to fall back on Babcocks own words, "for the next three years people are going to think we don't have a clue what we're doing".

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

 

[Kin]

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

What's that based on though? Marner's draft+1 year wasn't close to being as productive as Kane's draft year. Marner's draft+1 year is much closer to Drouin's draft+1 and we still don't know what Drouin will do in the NHL.

Lots of NHL stars, like legit stars who tore things up in junior, aren't stars in the league until they're 21-22. What are we basing Marner being different on?There's really not much in the way of evidence there and in the absense of it, isn't the wiser course of action patience and prudence?

 

[TBLeafer]

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

What's that based on though? Marner's draft+1 year wasn't close to being as productive as Kane's draft year. Marner's draft+1 year is much closer to Drouin's draft+1 and we still don't know what Drouin will do in the NHL.

Lots of NHL stars, like legit stars who tore things up in junior, aren't stars in the league until they're 21-22. What are we basing Marner being different on?There's really not much in the way of evidence there and in the absense of it, isn't the wiser course of action patience and prudence?

Or get the best players possible for them and insulate them so fans don't have such big expectations for them out of the gate, but having them still benefit by having them get the feeling of a winning culture at the NHL level.

Or we could be Edmonton.  I choose the former.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

What's that based on though? Marner's draft+1 year wasn't close to being as productive as Kane's draft year. Marner's draft+1 year is much closer to Drouin's draft+1 and we still don't know what Drouin will do in the NHL.

Lots of NHL stars, like legit stars who tore things up in junior, aren't stars in the league until they're 21-22. What are we basing Marner being different on?There's really not much in the way of evidence there and in the absense of it, isn't the wiser course of action patience and prudence?

Look, we have multiple chicken eggs and every one of them is going to hatch, end of story.

 

[Kin]

Or get the best players possible for them and insulate them so fans don't have such big expectations for them out of the gate, but having them still benefit by having them get the feeling of a winning culture at the NHL level.

Or we could be Edmonton.  I choose the former.

But not only is that an entirely false dichotomy it's a misleading one. Unless you think Edmonton is a model of patience and prudence, I suppose.

But to me they've fired coaches pretty much every year, swapped up management teams, tried to be in on relatively big ticket UFA's like Clarkson...those aren't the signs of a patient team. Those are the signs of a team that wants to take their high draft picks and get nearly immediate results which is the standard you're setting for this group of Leafs. I'm saying they can take their time and build the team correctly, which isn't what Edmonton did.

Of course, none of that even begins to address what we're basing the idea of Marner being more like Kane than Drouin on. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Or get the best players possible for them and insulate them so fans don't have such big expectations for them out of the gate, but having them still benefit by having them get the feeling of a winning culture at the NHL level.

Or we could be Edmonton.  I choose the former.

But not only is that an entirely false dichotomy it's a misleading one. Unless you think Edmonton is a model of patience and prudence, I suppose.

But to me they've fired coaches pretty much every year, swapped up management teams, tried to be in on relatively big ticket UFA's like Clarkson...those aren't the signs of a patient team. Those are the signs of a team that wants to take their high draft picks and get nearly immediate results which is the standard you're setting for this group of Leafs. I'm saying they can take their time and build the team correctly, which isn't what Edmonton did.

Of course, none of that even begins to address what we're basing the idea of Marner being more like Kane than Drouin on.

I think the Leafs have put prudence in proper depth drafting and addressed areas of need better.  But your projections are akin to Edmonton. ANOTHER 5-6 years before the Leafs are ready to compete?  Good lord.  Its an Edmonton timeline regardless of how you slice it.

 

[Tigger]

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

What's that based on though? Marner's draft+1 year wasn't close to being as productive as Kane's draft year. Marner's draft+1 year is much closer to Drouin's draft+1 and we still don't know what Drouin will do in the NHL.

Lots of NHL stars, like legit stars who tore things up in junior, aren't stars in the league until they're 21-22. What are we basing Marner being different on?There's really not much in the way of evidence there and in the absense of it, isn't the wiser course of action patience and prudence?

Or get the best players possible for them and insulate them so fans don't have such big expectations for them out of the gate, but having them still benefit by having them get the feeling of a winning culture at the NHL level.

Or we could be Edmonton.  I choose the former.

Uh...so, hurm,... in honour of Heroic Shrimp's chicken eggs...

 

[Kin]

I think the Leafs have put prudence in proper depth drafting and addressed areas of need better.  But your projections are akin to Edmonton. ANOTHER 5-6 years before the Leafs are ready to compete?  Good lord.  Its an Edmonton timeline regardless of how you slice it.

I said that 5 or 6 years is a fair estimate as to how long it takes a team to assemble the depth needed for a cup run based on what Chicago and LA did(not Edmonton, who have yet to win a cup). By anyone's estimate the Leafs' aren't at year zero of the plan. I'm just saying they're not at year 4 or 5 either. "Compete" doesn't mean the same thing as "Contend" in this context and the time-frame you're talking about involves putting together one of the very best teams in the league. I'm not making any projections here, I'm saying that the Leafs are under no pressure to make projections and make decisions that only really make sense if their initial efforts turn out perfectly.

Again, I'll point to Chicago and LA's front offices who were both very smart front offices but who whiffed on high draft picks. They were smart enough not to rush things and just assume Cam Barker or Thomas Hickey were going to be immediate superstars.

 

[TBLeafer]

As long as they stay healthy, I think we can comfortably project what kind of NHL players they will make.

We have our Toews and Kane in Matthews and Marner, don't you worry.

What's that based on though? Marner's draft+1 year wasn't close to being as productive as Kane's draft year. Marner's draft+1 year is much closer to Drouin's draft+1 and we still don't know what Drouin will do in the NHL.

Lots of NHL stars, like legit stars who tore things up in junior, aren't stars in the league until they're 21-22. What are we basing Marner being different on?There's really not much in the way of evidence there and in the absense of it, isn't the wiser course of action patience and prudence?

Or get the best players possible for them and insulate them so fans don't have such big expectations for them out of the gate, but having them still benefit by having them get the feeling of a winning culture at the NHL level.

Or we could be Edmonton.  I choose the former.

Uh...so, hurm,... in honour of Heroic Shrimp's chicken eggs...

What?  Having a 70 point scoring winger in Marner and a 60 point center in Matthews in their rookie seasons, while playing protected minutes is a high expectation? 

 

[ZBBM]

I guess I'm a little more optimistic than that.  The current core starts with JVR and Kadri for at least 2 more seasons, unless we trade JVR, then it starts with Kadri.

Discounted are the likes of Bozak (who I think is as good as gone for futures this summer), Lupul (bury him in the AHL, buy him out, Robidas him, trade him ideally if at all possible, I don't care), Laich, PAP, etc.

Pittsburgh shows us this season that you really can't have too much of a good thing offensively.

New top six in no particular order with Stamkos:

Stamkos
JVR
Kadri
Matthews
Marner
Nylander

On D:

Rielly
Gardiner
Zaitsev (who really impressed Babcock)
Carrick

That's a really good start to a new core 10, IMO.

Now look at the depth:

Komarov
Brown
Sosh
Loov
Gauthier
Marincin
Hunwick
Kapanen

The future starts to look brighter.

I don't think it's a matter of optimism, I think it's a question of being patient with the development process. For example I think Marner might very well be a fantastic NHL player but until he actually is there's no rush to treat him like one.

I look at your lists, for instance, and I still have much of the same questions. There's no goaltending, our top 6 forwards has 4 centers and two wings, the defense is thin without a proven #1 and so on. These things can be addressed, sure, but until they are the Leafs are better off waiting on using the limited cap space they'll have on outside resources so as to tailor the team specifically to the talents they have once they establish themselves.

This is an analogy I've brought up before in reference to this but putting the cart before the horse isn't a question of excessive optimism, it's just a misreading of where the team is.

I'm in the pro-SS camp ? if you have a UFA of his caliber and his age, you add him unless he would be completely redundant ? but to me the best argument against adding him is pretty much summed up by Nik here.  Aside from the defense/goaltending gaps, which are huge, nobody knows whether Marner, Nylander, or even Matthews will be the heart of a contender's core.

What if one or more of them flop?  Does it make sense to add Stamkos if that turns out to be that case?  At first blush, no, but I think that specific question is worth thinking about in detail.

 

[jonlleafs]

I guess I'm a little more optimistic than that.  The current core starts with JVR and Kadri for at least 2 more seasons, unless we trade JVR, then it starts with Kadri.

Discounted are the likes of Bozak (who I think is as good as gone for futures this summer), Lupul (bury him in the AHL, buy him out, Robidas him, trade him ideally if at all possible, I don't care), Laich, PAP, etc.

Pittsburgh shows us this season that you really can't have too much of a good thing offensively.

New top six in no particular order with Stamkos:

Stamkos
JVR
Kadri
Matthews
Marner
Nylander

On D:

Rielly
Gardiner
Zaitsev (who really impressed Babcock)
Carrick

That's a really good start to a new core 10, IMO.

Now look at the depth:

Komarov
Brown
Sosh
Loov
Gauthier
Marincin
Hunwick
Kapanen

The future starts to look brighter.

I don't think it's a matter of optimism, I think it's a question of being patient with the development process. For example I think Marner might very well be a fantastic NHL player but until he actually is there's no rush to treat him like one.

I look at your lists, for instance, and I still have much of the same questions. There's no goaltending, our top 6 forwards has 4 centers and two wings, the defense is thin without a proven #1 and so on. These things can be addressed, sure, but until they are the Leafs are better off waiting on using the limited cap space they'll have on outside resources so as to tailor the team specifically to the talents they have once they establish themselves.

This is an analogy I've brought up before in reference to this but putting the cart before the horse isn't a question of excessive optimism, it's just a misreading of where the team is.

I'm in the pro-SS camp ? if you have a UFA of his caliber and his age, you add him unless he would be completely redundant ? but to me the best argument against adding him is pretty much summed up by Nik here.  Aside from the defense/goaltending gaps, which are huge, nobody knows whether Marner, Nylander, or even Matthews will be the heart of a contender's core.

What if one or more of them flop?  Does it make sense to add Stamkos if that turns out to be that case?  At first blush, no, but I think that specific question is worth thinking about in detail.

I'm also pro-SS.  Like you said, someone of his stature doesn't come along often.  Even if they do, they may not even like Toronto as a place to play.  You figure out a way to make it work under the cap and be done with it.

 

[TBLeafer]

I think the Leafs have put prudence in proper depth drafting and addressed areas of need better.  But your projections are akin to Edmonton. ANOTHER 5-6 years before the Leafs are ready to compete?  Good lord.  Its an Edmonton timeline regardless of how you slice it.

I said that 5 or 6 years is a fair estimate as to how long it takes a team to assemble the depth needed for a cup run based on what Chicago and LA did(not Edmonton, who have yet to win a cup). By anyone's estimate the Leafs' aren't at year zero of the plan. I'm just saying they're not at year 4 or 5 either. "Compete" doesn't mean the same thing as "Contend" in this context and the time-frame you're talking about involves putting together one of the very best teams in the league. I'm not making any projections here, I'm saying that the Leafs are under no pressure to make projections and make decisions that only really make sense if their initial efforts turn out perfectly.

Again, I'll point to Chicago and LA's front offices who were both very smart front offices but who whiffed on high draft picks. They were smart enough not to rush things and just assume Cam Barker or Thomas Hickey were going to be immediate superstars.

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

 

[TBLeafer]

I guess I'm a little more optimistic than that.  The current core starts with JVR and Kadri for at least 2 more seasons, unless we trade JVR, then it starts with Kadri.

Discounted are the likes of Bozak (who I think is as good as gone for futures this summer), Lupul (bury him in the AHL, buy him out, Robidas him, trade him ideally if at all possible, I don't care), Laich, PAP, etc.

Pittsburgh shows us this season that you really can't have too much of a good thing offensively.

New top six in no particular order with Stamkos:

Stamkos
JVR
Kadri
Matthews
Marner
Nylander

On D:

Rielly
Gardiner
Zaitsev (who really impressed Babcock)
Carrick

That's a really good start to a new core 10, IMO.

Now look at the depth:

Komarov
Brown
Sosh
Loov
Gauthier
Marincin
Hunwick
Kapanen

The future starts to look brighter.

I don't think it's a matter of optimism, I think it's a question of being patient with the development process. For example I think Marner might very well be a fantastic NHL player but until he actually is there's no rush to treat him like one.

I look at your lists, for instance, and I still have much of the same questions. There's no goaltending, our top 6 forwards has 4 centers and two wings, the defense is thin without a proven #1 and so on. These things can be addressed, sure, but until they are the Leafs are better off waiting on using the limited cap space they'll have on outside resources so as to tailor the team specifically to the talents they have once they establish themselves.

This is an analogy I've brought up before in reference to this but putting the cart before the horse isn't a question of excessive optimism, it's just a misreading of where the team is.

I'm in the pro-SS camp ? if you have a UFA of his caliber and his age, you add him unless he would be completely redundant ? but to me the best argument against adding him is pretty much summed up by Nik here.  Aside from the defense/goaltending gaps, which are huge, nobody knows whether Marner, Nylander, or even Matthews will be the heart of a contender's core.

What if one or more of them flop?  Does it make sense to add Stamkos if that turns out to be that case?  At first blush, no, but I think that specific question is worth thinking about in detail.

Then at least we know for certain that we have someone that isn't a flop and go from there, especially if he was happy to sign and be a Leaf.  That by virtue of itself means it wasn't a waste of a signing for him.  Cup or no cup, he's realizing his childhood dream.

 

[Kin]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top. 

 

[rdowdall]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top.

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

 

[bustaheims]

Then at least we know for certain that we have someone that isn't a flop and go from there, especially if he was happy to sign and be a Leaf.  That by virtue of itself means it wasn't a waste of a signing for him.  Cup or no cup, he's realizing his childhood dream.

That's the exact scenario the Leafs found themselves in through the back half of the 90s, when they wasted the prime years of Sundin's career with mediocre teams. The difference is that, now, they can't buy their way out of trouble.

Also, I don't think too many people are arguing whether or not it would be a waste of a signing for Stamkos. Quite frankly, I don't care whether or not it would be. What I care about is whether or not it's a waste for the Leafs - and, without having the right talent around him, it absolutely would be.

 

[TBLeafer]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top.

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

Nobody knows for certain one way or another at this point, we can only speculate and do our best to project.

How many year did it take Chicago to be a contender once Toews and Kane were added to the roster?

 

[Kin]

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

To me it's also the counter to the idea that Stamkos being local matters that much. Chara's not from Boston, Hossa's not from Chicago, Niedermayer didn't grow up outside of Disneyland. What those teams did was they identified the player who fit their needs regardless of boyhood rooting interest and...offered them a ton of money. Those players were primarily interested in winning and signed where they did to win a cup.

If Stamkos were so into being a Leaf that he wanted to sign at some ridiculous discount, sure, but the Leafs have brought in enough local guys that we should know by now that it doesn't really mean much. If the team is good, if the players on the team are ones people want to play with...that attracts good free agents. Being from Markham is great, it's a good story if it plays out, but it doesn't really offer the Leafs an advantage.

 

[TBLeafer]

Then at least we know for certain that we have someone that isn't a flop and go from there, especially if he was happy to sign and be a Leaf.  That by virtue of itself means it wasn't a waste of a signing for him.  Cup or no cup, he's realizing his childhood dream.

That's the exact scenario the Leafs found themselves in through the back half of the 90s, when they wasted the prime years of Sundin's career with mediocre teams. The difference is that, now, they can't buy their way out of trouble.

Also, I don't think too many people are arguing whether or not it would be a waste of a signing for Stamkos. Quite frankly, I don't care whether or not it would be. What I care about is whether or not it's a waste for the Leafs - and, without having the right talent around him, it absolutely would be.

Might have been a totally different scenario if they didn't have to trade away Clark to bring in Sundin, eh?