Steve Stamkos?

[herman]

Aren't UFA deals 7 max, assuming that player is from outside your organization? If so, does that change your stance on Toews?

Yeah, they are. But I was playing off Patrick's initial question and just went with it.

It doesn't really change my stance on Toews. 34/5 is pretty much the same for most people, in my mind.

That's a tight list, Seguin is pretty interchangeable there too.

It's pretty much Nik's list. I tried to find alternatives, but there really aren't many in this age range to anoint as franchise players @ $10M. I might slot Eichel in over Taveres, but I really don't know enough about him.

Basically I went with Centers who could do everything (including score), and very mobile defensemen with hockey smarts. Skills and talents with some longevity to them that aren't solely dependent on the physical side of the game.

Either way, I wouldn't trade for Stamkos at this point, nor would I sign a 10M+ contract for him unless it was 5 years or less.

 

[herman]

Maybe it's just because I don't really see any defenceman in this league hitting the $10mil mark any time soon, but I have a hard time including Ekblad on these lists. Especially after just 1.5 seasons. I understand how good he is, and I guess if push came to shove and I'd probably do it, I just think it wouldn't come to that.

Market money seems to follow goal scorers primarily, so I do agree with the premise of this.

 

[rdowdall]

Only two people have answered with serious answers.

That's not my fault.  I stand by my sample size.

 

[Kin]

Nobody has said Patrick Kane...that's interesting.

Is it? He's 27 and has one season in his career of 70+ games and scoring better than a PPG.

 

[rdowdall]

Nobody has said Patrick Kane...that's interesting.

Is it? He's 27 and has one season in his career of 70+ games and scoring better than a PPG.

Sorry, instead of "That's interesting", I should have said "I find that interesting", and I find that interesting, because I would have thought that more people would have been enticed with his current scoring heroics and playoff pedigree.  When someone poses a question like Patrick posed, I find the lists very interchangeable based on the limited number of parameters provided.

If every player is a UFA, and I am going in to team building mode, then would my goal not be to win the cup within the next year or two?  Or is my goal simply the best contract value per player that I am about to sign?  If it's the first instance, would it not be prudent to weight cup experience as a commodity?  And if so would that place a higher premium on guys like Kopitar or Seabrook or Keith?  Their numbers and ages aren't as good as the others, but they have been there more then say a player like Tarasenko.  If it's the second instance, then yes I can see why you want the best dollar value for the contract.

I suppose the first situation only really exists if you believe that cup winning experience has a positive influence on a teams chances of winning the cup. 

 

[Kin]

Sorry, instead of "That's interesting", I should have said "I find that interesting", and I find that interesting, because I would have thought that more people would have been enticed with his current scoring heroics and playoff pedigree.  When someone poses a question like Patrick posed, I find the lists very interchangeable based on the limited number of parameters provided.

If every player is a UFA, and I am going in to team building mode, then would my goal not be to win the cup within the next year or two?  Or is my goal simply the best contract value per player that I am about to sign?  If it's the first instance, would it not be prudent to weight cup experience as a commodity?  And if so would that place a higher premium on guys like Kopitar or Seabrook or Keith?  Their numbers and ages aren't as good as the others, but they have been there more then say a player like Tarasenko.  If it's the second instance, then yes I can see why you want the best dollar value for the contract.

I suppose the first situation only really exists if you believe that cup winning experience has a positive influence on a teams chances of winning the cup.

Well, I think the goal of any player you'd sign in this scenario would be one who you think would give your team the best chance of winning the cup in every year of the eight year term. I don't know why you'd think that years one and two were more important than years 5 or 6.

I guess it just strikes me as a little strange that you'd think people would lean heavily on the first 27 games of this season and less on the cumulative numbers we have of these players careers.

 

[Kin]

And as for the cup experience question, isn't Patrick Kane himself the perfect example of how it doesn't matter much? He won the Conn Smythe in only the second year he made the playoffs.

 

[rdowdall]

Well, I think the goal of any player you'd sign in this scenario would be one who you think would give your team the best chance of winning the cup in every year of the eight year term. I don't know why you'd think that years one and two were more important than years 5 or 6.

But if that was the case, wouldn't that rule out players like McDavid and Ekblad?  If you are going to treat all years equally, wouldn't the sweet spot be someone like Tavares, Hedman or Seguin?  It's very rare that rookie phenoms like McDavid come in and win a cup.  Most of that can probably be attributed to the team they are playing for, but it may be hard for an 18 year old, even one as supremely talented as McDavid, to be a primary focal point on a cup winning team.  If you were to sign McDavid, wouldn't it be for what he could do long term over the course of his career, and not necessarily in that first or second year?

I guess it just strikes me as a little strange that you'd think people would lean heavily on the first 27 games of this season and less on the cumulative numbers we have of these players careers.

People do strange things.  I wondered why someone didn't pick Kane, which is strange.  People may have picked Kane based on his first 27 games which also would have been strange.

Personally though, I think Patrick Kane is a little more than these first 27 games.  He has won a Conn Smythe, as you point out, and he is a fairly prominent member of a core that has won 3 cups in 6 years.  He does have the character issues, which is a minus.  Seguin may also have character  issues, although nothing has surfaced since he has been in Dallas. 

I understand the reasoning, after you really think about, why you wouldn't offer a player after the age of 25 a 10/8 deal.  I guess I just thought through the initial process, someone would have put him down.  Much like someone put down Crosby but then recanted.

 

[Kin]

But if that was the case, wouldn't that rule out players like McDavid and Ekblad?  If you are going to treat all years equally, wouldn't the sweet spot be someone like Tavares, Hedman or Seguin?  It's very rare that rookie phenoms like McDavid come in and win a cup.  Most of that can probably be attributed to the team they are playing for, but it may be hard for an 18 year old, even one as supremely talented as McDavid, to be a primary focal point on a cup winning team.  If you were to sign McDavid, wouldn't it be for what he could do long term over the course of his career, and not necessarily in that first or second year?

Well, maybe I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was that I think the player you want to sign is the guy that gives you the best cumulative chance  of winning a Stanley Cup(or Cups) over the life of the deal. So even going with your premise that a young player like that might not have the immediate impact of someone like Tavares or Hedman I think the reason they'd be there is that they're such singular talents with such high ceilings that the likelihood that McDavid is the best player in the league through a good part of his deal would trump that.

As to your premise though, I'm not sure I see it. I have no doubt that it would be difficult for a young player to play a huge role on a cup winner but it's also incredibly difficult for a young player to score 80 points in their first season. So I don't know that I'd try to make a sort of blanket statement about "rookies" apply to players who have already established themselves as exceptional even among talented NHL rookies.

Personally though, I think Patrick Kane is a little more than these first 27 games.  He has won a Conn Smythe, as you point out, and he is a fairly prominent member of a core that has won 3 cups in 6 years.  He does have the character issues, which is a minus.  Seguin may also have character  issues, although nothing has surfaced since he has been in Dallas. 

You're right, Kane is more than these 27 games but, again, most of that career tells us a story that's pretty detailed and leans away from him being really among the elites of the elites. Just eyeballing it it looks like his best finish points wise is 5th in the league(in the shortened season, 9th over a full season). His career high in goals is 30.

Are both of those excellent numbers? Sure. But I think you'd agree they're a half-step down from that real top tier. And that's being done, mind you, surrounded by a pretty exceptional cast. His career playoff ppg is good, sure, but it's not exceptional. As a point of reference Claude Giroux, who nobody mentioned, has a higher PPG in the playoffs, single season point total, is a a better two-way player, has missed less time due to injury etc, etc.

 

[rdowdall]

You're right, Kane is more than these 27 games but, again, most of that career tells us a story that's pretty detailed and leans away from him being really among the elites of the elites. Just eyeballing it it looks like his best finish points wise is 5th in the league(in the shortened season, 9th over a full season). His career high in goals is 30.

Are both of those excellent numbers? Sure. But I think you'd agree they're a half-step down from that real top tier. And that's being done, mind you, surrounded by a pretty exceptional cast. His career playoff ppg is good, sure, but it's not exceptional. As a point of reference Claude Giroux, who nobody mentioned, has a higher PPG in the playoffs, single season point total, is a a better two-way player, has missed less time due to injury etc, etc.

True.  I  guess I was swayed by the point streak.  Seeing his picture up there with the likes of Gretzky,  Lemieux, and Sundin elevated my opinion of where he fits in with today's players.  A hot streak is a hot streak.  Nobody cares about John Druce anymore.

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

 

[herman]

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

I agree. What constitutes a correct deal is open to debate; it'll be another David Price situation if he hits free agency.

 

[Peter D.]

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

No need to waste assets trying to acquire Stamkos.  But I for one really hope the Leafs go all out for Stamkos.

 

[Kin]

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

Sort of. I'm lukewarm on adding Stamkos either way but it raises an interesting question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Stamkos is certainly open to the idea of being a Maple Leaf(and signing a fair value extension) but that he's just as open to the idea of joining other teams.

Let's also say that Tampa, knowing that they can't re-sign him(or don't want to), is looking to make a trade similar to the one that the Thrashers, in a similar situation, made for Ilya Kovalchuk. Certainly not a situation where they tried to get fair value but more like a situation where they wanted to at least get something in return for a departing superstar.

So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?

 

[rdowdall]

Just to get this back on track, we're all in agreement that it's a definite no on trading for Stamkos, and a maybe on signing him if the deal is right,  correct?

Sort of. I'm lukewarm on adding Stamkos either way but it raises an interesting question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Stamkos is certainly open to the idea of being a Maple Leaf(and signing a fair value extension) but that he's just as open to the idea of joining other teams.

Let's also say that Tampa, knowing that they can't re-sign him(or don't want to), is looking to make a trade similar to the one that the Thrashers, in a similar situation, made for Ilya Kovalchuk. Certainly not a situation where they tried to get fair value but more like a situation where they wanted to at least get something in return for a departing superstar.

So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?

It's an interesting question.  If you had an idea that he wanted to sign with your team then the extended negotiating time would be valuable.  At that point it would depend on what you had to give up.

I'm also lukewarm to adding Stamkos.  I am not so sure he is the player he used to be.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

He's since deleted it but everyone...it's happening: http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png

 

[LuncheonMeat]

He's since deleted it but everyone...it's happening: http://i.imgur.com/dOm53RF.png

More negotiations through the media. Now, we just have to figure out which team he's negotiating with.  :-*

 

[bustaheims]

So if those two situations are in play and you(being the Maple Leafs) really would like to add Stamkos and think he can be the building block you want...do you really pass on making that sort of trade so that you don't have to enter a bidding war where Stamkos might sign with someone else? Or just choose to go somewhere else depending on the presentation they make?

I suppose that depends on who the prospects TBay would be asking for would be. If, say, they were willing to make the deal with Gauthier and Leipsic (or similar calibre prospects that would be roughly equivalent to Bergfors and Cormier) as the main prospects, and Pitts' 1st round pick? Yeah, probably.

That being said, I'm pretty on the fence when it comes to adding Stamkos. He's still one of the best pure goal scorers in the league, and it would be interesting to see what a he could do playing with someone like Marner or Nylander, but, I'm very leery of the kind of contract he'll be looking for in terms of where the Leafs are in the process and the other holes they still need to fill.

 

[Frank E]

F it.  I'm in.

 

[herman]

Stamkos is the biggest temptation for Shanahan and Co. to diverge from the rebuild plan.

I think we'll still be struggling for the next year or two after this season, so the benefit for Stamkos on the ice is not going to be immediate.

The benefit for the up and coming stars (Nylander, Marner, 2016guy) being shepherded and shielded by a local boy, 1st overall pick, and Stanley Cup finalist would be tremendous, but I'd prefer to pick one or two more times in the top 5/10, rather than 10-15 range thanks to Stamkos.

Unless he is okay with a 3 year deal without an NMC/NTC, I'd say no thank you.

 

[cabber24]

F it.  I'm in.

F-ing eh.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/stamkos-likes-tweet-about-him-possibly-coming-to-toronto~766457

Only in Toronto.