Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

Would anyone feel the same way if it was Roman Josi coming into free agency?

More or less. Signing Josi would be less of an issue for me because he fills more of a need but, again, it would be an unnecessary attempt to jump start the process. The team would still go from the luxury of patience to needing all of their top tier prospects to working out and working out spectacularly.

 

[bustaheims]

Would anyone feel the same way if it was Roman Josi coming into free agency?

Considering I feel like Josi would come in cheaper than Stamkos, and addresses a need the Leafs don't appear to be able to fill imminently . . . I think you'd see a more measured discussion about him, and I think the people who were on the leaning against signing him would at least see more logic behind the thought of adding him.

 

[Coco-puffs]

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 

Last year, 22 defensemen received Norris trophy votes. Of the voting, you have to get to #11 before you find someone who was traded. That's Ryan McDonagh, who was traded before he'd ever signed a pro contract. Here are the other guys on the list who were traded:

Byfuglien
Stralman
Shattenkirk
Leddy
Wideman
Burns
Campbell

So you have two guys who weren't defensemen when they were traded, three guys who weren't established as top pairing defensemen, two guys moved in salary dumps...and Dennis Wideman.

So, no, the idea that you can just choose to trade for a top pairing defenseman whenever you want doesn't really hold water. If one of these guys is available it's likely to be in a situation where a team can't take money back and, even then, may not be a team that wants what you can offer. Even then, you're almost certainly looking at the bottom end of what constitutes a "top pairing" defenseman.

The chances of a player coming up, establishing themselves as a top pairing defenseman and then being deemed expendable by their team is extremely low. It's certainly not something you can plan around.

So you HAVE to get Norris trophy votes to be considered a Top 2 defenseman?  I bet Seth Jones didn't get a single vote, yet he's widely considered a Top 2 defenseman now.

I never said it was going to be easy.  Nothing is when it comes to building a sustainable contending team.  I'm not of the opinion that you build your team via the UFA route.  It definitely doesn't work in a hard cap system.  But that doesn't mean you skip over it entirely- especially when ELITE players are available.  Not 2nd pairing defensemen or middle-6 forwards.  I certainly would rather build from within than spend 5+ million on the UFA market for players that aren't truly part of the core.

One of the main arguments I see is we shouldn't sign Stamkos because he accelerates the rebuild and takes us out of contention for a Top 5 pick next summer.  I personally don't agree with that.  I think we are already good enough to not be a bottom 5 team next year.

The other main argument I see is we shouldn't sign Stamkos because we are already top heavy and we'd be better of spending the money on defense and in goal.  Well, if he's asking 13 million a season, then yes, the money can be better spent.  If he comes in around 9-9.5 you sign him and use your strength down the middle to address the other needs.  Or, on the other hand... if Nylander and Marner don't pan out, all you are left with up front in terms of Elite players is Matthews.  You're telling me you'd rather not have Stamkos up there with him?

 

[Coco-puffs]

The same bunch of rookies who almost climbed the standings post-deadline?  If it weren't for playing Sparks half of the games post-deadline I'm not sure we would have finished last when it looked guaranteed prior to the deadline. 

You mean that group of rookies that had a good initial run and then came down to earth once teams had a better scouting report on them. Goaltending played a part in it, but the team you're talking about improving has that same goaltending.

I'm thinking the Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones type of trade.  I don't think either team diluted their talent pool.  Columbus needed a top defenseman so they traded a top centerman.  Nashville had a glut of top defensemen and traded one to address a need up front.

Trades like that don't happen often. There would have to be another team with 3 top pairing options, and a need at forward. Considering how many teams struggle to find 2 top pairing defencemen, what are the odds that situation presents itself again in a reasonable timeframe?

Hmmm.... Justin Faulk, Noah Hanafin, Hadyn Fleury.... Carolina might be there soon.  And their forwards look awful.

 

[rdowdall]

The same bunch of rookies who almost climbed the standings post-deadline?  If it weren't for playing Sparks half of the games post-deadline I'm not sure we would have finished last when it looked guaranteed prior to the deadline. 

You mean that group of rookies that had a good initial run and then came down to earth once teams had a better scouting report on them. Goaltending played a part in it, but the team you're talking about improving has that same goaltending.

I'm thinking the Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones type of trade.  I don't think either team diluted their talent pool.  Columbus needed a top defenseman so they traded a top centerman.  Nashville had a glut of top defensemen and traded one to address a need up front.

Trades like that don't happen often. There would have to be another team with 3 top pairing options, and a need at forward. Considering how many teams struggle to find 2 top pairing defencemen, what are the odds that situation presents itself again in a reasonable timeframe?

Hmmm.... Justin Faulk, Noah Hanafin, Hadyn Fleury.... Carolina might be there soon.  And their forwards look awful.

Justin Faulk's reaction when someone considered him a #2 defencemen:

 

[TBLeafer]

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Considering the types of moves the Hawks did make that summer, I don't think they would have shown that much interest in him then. They understood they were still in the growth phase at that point, and added veteran stopgaps and role players. Two years later, when they recognized that their biggest deficiency was scoring depth, they went all in on addressing that. It's also a really poor parallel, because the massive back-diving contract Hossa did eventually sign is not an option for the Leafs and Stamkos. If the Leafs could lock Stamkos up for 12 years at $5.3M on the cap, we'd be having a very different discussion.

And, since you have to look at things in the context on the contract Stamkos is capable and likely to sign, the specifics of who was available does not matter. All that matters is the impact of signing an equivalent contract would have on a team.

Hmmmmm where did I hear that this season?

 

[TBLeafer]

Somebody posted this link earlier in the thread (thanks to whoever posted it):

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

Thank you and you're welcome.  ;D

Y'all should thank Potvin29 actually, as he posted it back in page 48.

Correction.  Thanks Potvin29, I didn't go back far enough in the thread since joining.

 

[rdowdall]

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Considering the types of moves the Hawks did make that summer, I don't think they would have shown that much interest in him then. They understood they were still in the growth phase at that point, and added veteran stopgaps and role players. Two years later, when they recognized that their biggest deficiency was scoring depth, they went all in on addressing that. It's also a really poor parallel, because the massive back-diving contract Hossa did eventually sign is not an option for the Leafs and Stamkos. If the Leafs could lock Stamkos up for 12 years at $5.3M on the cap, we'd be having a very different discussion.

And, since you have to look at things in the context on the contract Stamkos is capable and likely to sign, the specifics of who was available does not matter. All that matters is the impact of signing an equivalent contract would have on a team.

Hmmmmm where did I hear that this season?

Are you comparing the Leafs of this year, to a Hawks team that went to the Conference finals and won the cup the following year?

 

[TBLeafer]

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Considering the types of moves the Hawks did make that summer, I don't think they would have shown that much interest in him then. They understood they were still in the growth phase at that point, and added veteran stopgaps and role players. Two years later, when they recognized that their biggest deficiency was scoring depth, they went all in on addressing that. It's also a really poor parallel, because the massive back-diving contract Hossa did eventually sign is not an option for the Leafs and Stamkos. If the Leafs could lock Stamkos up for 12 years at $5.3M on the cap, we'd be having a very different discussion.

And, since you have to look at things in the context on the contract Stamkos is capable and likely to sign, the specifics of who was available does not matter. All that matters is the impact of signing an equivalent contract would have on a team.

Hmmmmm where did I hear that this season?

Are you comparing the Leafs of this year, to a Hawks team that went to the Conference finals and won the cup the following year?

The year before Toews and Kane:

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2006 - Just 2 more points than the Leafs last season.

The year of Toews and Kane's rookie seasons

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2007 - BUBBLE TEAM!

Looks like they were very similar defensively to Toronto, before adding Towes and Kane. Hmmmmm

Next season, we're already adding more top rookie prospects than Toews and Kane.

Really, we don't need to suck anymore.  Adding Stamkos now won't hurt us, or the rebuild already underway at all, IMO.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Justin Faulk's reaction when someone considered him a #2 defencemen:

Not that this matters in the context of this thread, but yes Justin Faulk is (at worst) a #2 defenceman.

 

[bustaheims]

The year before Toews and Kane:

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2006 - Just 2 more points than the Leafs last season.

The year of Toews and Kane's rookie seasons

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2007 - BUBBLE TEAM!

Looks like they were very similar defensively to Toronto, before adding Towes and Kane. Hmmmmm

Next season, we're already adding more top rookie prospects than Toews and Kane.

And you know what they didn't do until their rookie prospect showed they could be high quality NHL players? Commit themselves to expensive, long-term contracts. If Matthew/Marner/Nylander/etc can prove themselves to be high quality NHLers, then the team can start to considering investing in free agents. Not before. The Leafs may be adding more top prospects next season, but they're still just prospects. They're not NHL players yet.

You're jumping to the halfway point in the race before the team has even crossed the starting line.

 

[bustaheims]

Justin Faulk's reaction when someone considered him a #2 defencemen:

Not that this matters in the context of this thread, but yes Justin Faulk is (at worst) a #2 defenceman.

Yeah. If you were going to highlight any of the guys listed there as not being top pairing defenceman, it would be Fleury.

 

[TBLeafer]

I'm going to delve a little deeper based on the debate of "Chicago knew what it had defensively"  the year before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.

In the 2006-07 season, Chicago had 3.06 goals against per game average.

Adding Toews and Kane the following season dropped that to 2.82 goals against per game average.

Interesting how adding two offensive powerhouse rookie forwards started to make their existing D a whole lot better.

The Leafs (who have the biggest holes in D and G) ended the 2015-16 season with a 2.93 goals against average.

Now add Matthews, Marner, Nylander as rookies and Stamkos.  What do you think that added firepower and puck possession will do to our 2016-17 team goals against average?

 

[TBLeafer]

The year before Toews and Kane:

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2006 - Just 2 more points than the Leafs last season.

The year of Toews and Kane's rookie seasons

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2007 - BUBBLE TEAM!

Looks like they were very similar defensively to Toronto, before adding Towes and Kane. Hmmmmm

Next season, we're already adding more top rookie prospects than Toews and Kane.

And you know what they didn't do until their rookie prospect showed they could be high quality NHL players? Commit themselves to expensive, long-term contracts. If Matthew/Marner/Nylander/etc can prove themselves to be high quality NHLers, then the team can start to considering investing in free agents. Not before. The Leafs may be adding more top prospects next season, but they're still just prospects. They're not NHL players yet.

You're jumping to the halfway point in the race before the team has even crossed the starting line.

No you aren't.  You're getting the youngest NHL star to ever hit free agency and can continue to project your rebuild from there.

 

[louisstamos]

Now add Matthews, Marner, Nylander as rookies and Stamkos.  What do you think that added firepower and puck possession will do to our 2016-17 team goals against average?

You realize that only 1 of those rookie players have ever played an NHL game.  How do we know that any of them will have more firepower than, say, P.A Parenteau?

 

[TBLeafer]

Now add Matthews, Marner, Nylander as rookies and Stamkos.  What do you think that added firepower and puck possession will do to our 2016-17 team goals against average?

You realize that only 1 of those rookie players have ever played an NHL game.  How do we know that any of them will have more firepower than, say, P.A Parenteau?

Draft position matters and adding Stamkos is excellent insurance against one of them potentially flopping. 

Rielly is a top five pick.  He projected just fine.  Nylander had a just fine .PPG as an 8th OA pick during his time up. 

Marner made OHL history and tied CHL history with Brad Richards.

Matthews performed better than Eichel in the US, has a season playing adult pro, looked right at home in the World Championships for team USA, especially in the semi-final game against Canada and has a spot playing in the World Cup against all the league elite, so he'll be good and primed.

 

[louisstamos]

Now add Matthews, Marner, Nylander as rookies and Stamkos.  What do you think that added firepower and puck possession will do to our 2016-17 team goals against average?

You realize that only 1 of those rookie players have ever played an NHL game.  How do we know that any of them will have more firepower than, say, P.A Parenteau?

Draft position matters and adding Stamkos is excellent insurance against one of them potentially flopping. 

Rielly is a top five pick.  He projected just fine.  Nylander had a just fine .PPG as an 8th OA pick during his time up. 

Marner made OHL history and tied CHL history with Brad Richards.

Matthews performed better than Eichel in the US, has a season playing adult pro, looked right at home in the World Championships for team USA, especially in the semi-final game against Canada and has a spot playing in the World Cup against all the league elite, so he'll be good and primed.

Nail Yakupov was a 1st overall pick, and looks like a decidedly average winger.  Who would you rather have at this point - Yak, who went 1st, or Rielly who went 5th?

Eric Gudbranson was a 3rd overall pick, and went ahead of Johansen, Skinner and Tarasenko.  If draft position matters so much, shouldn't Gudbranson be the best of the bunch?

A LOT of players don't live up to their draft hype - whether reasonable or unreasonable (we had that whole debate about Kadri a few months back).  A lot can be made through scouting, but the NHL is a different monster so it's impossible to know until they're actually there.  Why put the cart ahead of the horse?  It's not just if one of them flame out...it's what happens if more than one flames out?  Then it's Sundin and no wingers again.

I go back and forth on the Stamkos bandwagon as well. I'm currently on it - but everyone here are making an excellent points.  My one counter would be that players like a Duncan Keith can be found outside of the top 10.  Duncan Keith himself was a 2nd round pick.  Ditto Subban, Karlsson, Brent Burns, John Klingberg.  It does require really, really good scouting, strong and patient development, and a LOT of luck.  But not impossible.

 

[rdowdall]

Justin Faulk's reaction when someone considered him a #2 defencemen:

Not that this matters in the context of this thread, but yes Justin Faulk is (at worst) a #2 defenceman.

Oh I know.  I just thought that the picture played perfectly in to the discussion.  He is a very good d-man.

 

[rdowdall]

The year before Toews and Kane:

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2006 - Just 2 more points than the Leafs last season.

The year of Toews and Kane's rookie seasons

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2007 - BUBBLE TEAM!

Looks like they were very similar defensively to Toronto, before adding Towes and Kane. Hmmmmm

Next season, we're already adding more top rookie prospects than Toews and Kane.

And you know what they didn't do until their rookie prospect showed they could be high quality NHL players? Commit themselves to expensive, long-term contracts. If Matthew/Marner/Nylander/etc can prove themselves to be high quality NHLers, then the team can start to considering investing in free agents. Not before. The Leafs may be adding more top prospects next season, but they're still just prospects. They're not NHL players yet.

You're jumping to the halfway point in the race before the team has even crossed the starting line.

No you aren't.  You're getting the youngest NHL star to ever hit free agency and can continue to project your rebuild from there.

So in your mind, why didn't the Leafs win a cup with Sundin?

 

[bustaheims]

I go back and forth on the Stamkos bandwagon as well. I'm currently on it - but everyone here are making an excellent points.  My one counter would be that players like a Duncan Keith can be found outside of the top 10.  Duncan Keith himself was a 2nd round pick.  Ditto Subban, Karlsson, Brent Burns, John Klingberg.  It does require really, really good scouting, strong and patient development, and a LOT of luck.  But not impossible.

Top defenceman can be found outside the top 5-10 picks, yeah, and that's usually my argument for favouring a forward with a top 10 pick. However, it is still much much easier to find a top defenceman in the top 5 than anywhere else in the draft. Goaltending is a different story - they're the most unpredictable, but, they also take the longest to establish themselves in the NHL.