Steve Stamkos?

[jonlleafs]

The reason I asked why you thought the Leafs didn't win a cup with Sundin, is because adding Stamkos is like adding a Sundin.  If the Leafs couldn't build a team around Sundin to reliably compete for the cup year in and year out through trades and UFA acquisitions in that era, then how is it going to be easier now?  In that era, pretty much every high profiled player ended up one of 6 teams (Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

So one time with Sundin the Leafs almost made it to the Stanley cup final.  What would you rather have, that situation, or one where for a string of 10 to 15 years, the Leafs are a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup?

Not the same at all though.  Different era and FAR different team build philosophy.  I appreciated the fact that we could compete for the cup and was saddened by the fact that we fell short like 29 other teams do each and every year.

Difference now is that we ain't trading Matthews to get Stamkos.  Our BEST internal players are just about to START their NHL careers.

This is where our difference in philosophy lies.  I don't want to cheer for a team that competes for a cup.  I want to cheer for a team that when they don't make it to the cup finals, it's considered an upset, or that the Leafs choked by not getting there.  The years that the Sundin lead teams didn't make it to the cup final, it wasn't a choke job.  Most of those years, when the Leafs got beat out, most pundits said "yeah that's about right".  I want to cheer for a truly great team, not a team that is satisfied with making it in to the playoffs and if luck holds might win a cup through an upset.  As a fan, I don't like the fact that for the best possible odds in the draft, the Leafs have to lose now, but I understand that the losing is the best possible way for the Leafs to build a powerhouse of a team.

That's fine and good but you can't expect to get there the very next year after winning the lottery. You have to start your climb up the standings though.

You missed my point.  You don't get to where I would like to see the Leafs get too without getting multiple lottery picks.  I will stomach the Leafs being bad next year because it gives them the highest percentage at getting a player like Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren.  That's one more good young player in the stable.  And if they are bad the year after that and get a high pick in 2018, then I will stomach that too, because when these players fully mature and start to reach their prime years all together, then they will more than likely be one of the most dominate teams in the NHL.  Then they will rise up the standings.  Bubble team at first, then in the playoffs, and then Stanley cup contender.  Their cap will be manageable because these players will all be close together in age so some will still be on entry level deals, some will have just signed their second contracts.  And if this is done right, then there should still be prospects on the farm that are pushing to make the Leafs, and those are the assets that you can use to turn in to those complimentary pieces that can push a team over the top.  The organisation would now be on solid footing.  It would have a pipeline of prospects, and a high quality NHL team.  That's the sustainable winning team that I would like the Leafs to become.  It takes losing right now to get to that point. 

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

Did you not just say two posts ago that it takes more than one lottery pick to start winning?  So what happens if the Leafs don't sign Stamkos?  What's the contingency plan there?  You don't answer any of the questions that the other posters are asking of you.  You make a smart remark that dismisses the holes that other posters bring up in your grand plan of:

Step 1:  Sign Stamkos
Step 2:  Maybe win a cup someday somehow 

After the Leafs get Stamkos and he magically takes us to the second round of the playoffs next year, then what?  How do the Leafs get better?  Where does the talent upgrade happen from?  You say internally, but how can it happen internally when the Leafs are picking in the mid to late stages of the first round?  Look at the teams that are in the Stanley Cup final.  Look at those rosters.  How can the Leafs, even with Stamkos, compete with those rosters.  They don't have the pieces that they need in order to beat those teams in a seven game series, and there is a high probability that they won't be able to get those pieces if the Leafs are drafting in the mid to late rounds.

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

 

[jdh1]

Signing Stamkos is not the right thing to do.We need a foundation of a team first and then the right free agent can be signed.

 

[bustaheims]

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

So, all the Leafs have to do is hope for another draft that as deep as 2003 - widely regarded as the deepest draft in NHL history - and, maybe, if they can also somehow get their hands on a pair of Hall of Fame defencemen and a Hall of Fame sniper, they might be able to win one Cup, if everything falls into place just right. Great plan.

 

[Tigger]

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

C'mon. I get that you've decided this is what the Leafs should do but we don't even know what those picks are yet and the rest of the team is pretty much a Hagersville smoke stack. I quoted Babcock earlier but I don't think it sank in, they aren't going to be contenders or even a playoff team for likely 3 years, buckle up, it's way more likely the Leafs pick top 5 again than anything else, by design, the way it should be.

92

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of OHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

Huh, there's some weird feeling naggin' at the back of my grey cells, like, there might have been some decent defensemen and other forwards, and a team that had been to the final and round three two of three years before, I dunno, maybe it's just what getting old feels like.

 

[jonlleafs]

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

So, all the Leafs have to do is hope for another draft that as deep as 2003 - widely regarded as the deepest draft in NHL history - and, maybe, if they can also somehow get their hands on a pair of Hall of Fame defencemen and a Hall of Fame sniper, they might be able to win one Cup, if everything falls into place just right. Great plan.

Point is, I think the leafs have drafted some high end talent already.  Even if we're a bubble team next year, we'll still get a good player.  And who's to say Rielly won't be our HOF defenseman and if we sign Stamkos, that's our HOF sniper.  So I think we're ok.  We're not stopping the rebuild as soon as we sign Stamkos.  We continue to stockpile talent as we continue.  This is different than when Burke ran the show.  We have 4 potential elite youngsters (Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Rielly) whereas we had none when Burke ran the show.  We have so many picks this year that we can make some moves if needed as long as they are smart moves and not giving up high-end talent.  Again we stick with the plan but add a big piece that will help us compete for the Cup starting in 2yrs and be a potential powerhouse in 3-4yrs.

 

[rdowdall]

The reason I asked why you thought the Leafs didn't win a cup with Sundin, is because adding Stamkos is like adding a Sundin.  If the Leafs couldn't build a team around Sundin to reliably compete for the cup year in and year out through trades and UFA acquisitions in that era, then how is it going to be easier now?  In that era, pretty much every high profiled player ended up one of 6 teams (Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

So one time with Sundin the Leafs almost made it to the Stanley cup final.  What would you rather have, that situation, or one where for a string of 10 to 15 years, the Leafs are a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup?

Not the same at all though.  Different era and FAR different team build philosophy.  I appreciated the fact that we could compete for the cup and was saddened by the fact that we fell short like 29 other teams do each and every year.

Difference now is that we ain't trading Matthews to get Stamkos.  Our BEST internal players are just about to START their NHL careers.

This is where our difference in philosophy lies.  I don't want to cheer for a team that competes for a cup.  I want to cheer for a team that when they don't make it to the cup finals, it's considered an upset, or that the Leafs choked by not getting there.  The years that the Sundin lead teams didn't make it to the cup final, it wasn't a choke job.  Most of those years, when the Leafs got beat out, most pundits said "yeah that's about right".  I want to cheer for a truly great team, not a team that is satisfied with making it in to the playoffs and if luck holds might win a cup through an upset.  As a fan, I don't like the fact that for the best possible odds in the draft, the Leafs have to lose now, but I understand that the losing is the best possible way for the Leafs to build a powerhouse of a team.

That's fine and good but you can't expect to get there the very next year after winning the lottery. You have to start your climb up the standings though.

You missed my point.  You don't get to where I would like to see the Leafs get too without getting multiple lottery picks.  I will stomach the Leafs being bad next year because it gives them the highest percentage at getting a player like Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren.  That's one more good young player in the stable.  And if they are bad the year after that and get a high pick in 2018, then I will stomach that too, because when these players fully mature and start to reach their prime years all together, then they will more than likely be one of the most dominate teams in the NHL.  Then they will rise up the standings.  Bubble team at first, then in the playoffs, and then Stanley cup contender.  Their cap will be manageable because these players will all be close together in age so some will still be on entry level deals, some will have just signed their second contracts.  And if this is done right, then there should still be prospects on the farm that are pushing to make the Leafs, and those are the assets that you can use to turn in to those complimentary pieces that can push a team over the top.  The organisation would now be on solid footing.  It would have a pipeline of prospects, and a high quality NHL team.  That's the sustainable winning team that I would like the Leafs to become.  It takes losing right now to get to that point. 

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

Did you not just say two posts ago that it takes more than one lottery pick to start winning?  So what happens if the Leafs don't sign Stamkos?  What's the contingency plan there?  You don't answer any of the questions that the other posters are asking of you.  You make a smart remark that dismisses the holes that other posters bring up in your grand plan of:

Step 1:  Sign Stamkos
Step 2:  Maybe win a cup someday somehow 

After the Leafs get Stamkos and he magically takes us to the second round of the playoffs next year, then what?  How do the Leafs get better?  Where does the talent upgrade happen from?  You say internally, but how can it happen internally when the Leafs are picking in the mid to late stages of the first round?  Look at the teams that are in the Stanley Cup final.  Look at those rosters.  How can the Leafs, even with Stamkos, compete with those rosters.  They don't have the pieces that they need in order to beat those teams in a seven game series, and there is a high probability that they won't be able to get those pieces if the Leafs are drafting in the mid to late rounds.

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

Like I said,  if your vision of the Leafs is of a team that barely makes the playoffs and maybe, a very slight maybe, lucks in to a cup one year, then that's great for you.  After the tire fire that the Leafs have been for the last 10 years, I am willing to wait a couple more years for them to become one of the best, if not the best franchise in the league and to construct that team correctly.

 

[rdowdall]

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

So, all the Leafs have to do is hope for another draft that as deep as 2003 - widely regarded as the deepest draft in NHL history - and, maybe, if they can also somehow get their hands on a pair of Hall of Fame defencemen and a Hall of Fame sniper, they might be able to win one Cup, if everything falls into place just right. Great plan.

Point is, I think the leafs have drafted some high end talent already.  Even if we're a bubble team next year, we'll still get a good player.  And who's to say Rielly won't be our HOF defenseman and if we sign Stamkos, that's our HOF sniper.  So I think we're ok.  We're not stopping the rebuild as soon as we sign Stamkos.  We continue to stockpile talent as we continue.  This is different than when Burke ran the show.  We have 4 potential elite youngsters (Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Rielly) whereas we had none when Burke ran the show.  We have so many picks this year that we can make some moves if needed as long as they are smart moves and not giving up high-end talent.  Again we stick with the plan but add a big piece that will help us compete for the Cup starting in 2yrs and be a potential powerhouse in 3-4yrs.

The issue I have with that line of thinking is that it requires Matthews, Marner, Nylander, and Rielly to all become elite players.  As I said before, the jury is still out on Reilly and he has played 3 years.  Marner and Matthews have never suited up for an NHL team.  Nylander looked like he will be a good NHL player.  There is a difference between good and elite though.  I could see Nylander being a Jordan Eberle type, and I am not sure that is really an elite level player.  So all it takes is one of those players not reaching the level that you have in your head to throw the plan off.  Why take the risk that one of those players doesn't work out just for the sake of making the playoffs sooner?  Why not take a more patient approach that has a higher chance of yielding a favourable outcome?

 

[Kin]

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.

You don't but what I was doing was making a point about the rarity of established top 2 defensemen being dealt. It doesn't happen often and it's not a good thing to require for the team to be built properly. Especially when, if we're using the Jones trade as an example, the price is so high.

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?

Except that's pretending that there are only two possible outcomes for prospects like Marner or Nylander. Either they become as valuable as Johansen, who is a big #1 center the likes of which we'll be lucky if Matthews turns out to be like, or they "don't pan out". There are middle tier outcomes where they become valuable players but not valuable enough to swap for the kind of defensemen the team needs if one is even available.

But to answer your question, if Nylander and Marner don't pan out then no I don't want Stamkos because I'll want the team to still be drafting high until they draft elite talents that do pan out. This isn't like a battle where we need to get all of our troops in the field by a certain time or we lose. The Leafs have the time to build correctly even if they do hit a few false starts.

 

[Kin]

Last time I checked, Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf were mid to late round picks and from what I can tell, they won the Cup with these lower tier players.  : They didn't even have a #1 draft pick or the MVP of CHL MVPs.  Soooooo... I think we could be ok with adding Stamkos.  We'd have 2 lottery picks (if you include Stamkos).  Happy?

Detroit built a Cup winning team around guys drafted in the 6th and 7th round. Does that make it a good strategy? Does that mean we should be fine with only 6th and 7th round picks because it worked once before?

Successful enterprises are built around the best possible strategies, not "Hey it worked once, for all we know it could work again".

 

[herman]

Summary of Pros and Cons (per this thread) from the Leafs' perspective for signing Steven Stamkos.
Pipe up if I've missed anything.

Pros:
- Established #1C with first overall pick pedigree
- Mature and vaunted work ethic, as well as captaincy experience
- Playoff and Cup finals experience
- Over the past 5 seasons (incl. lockout shortened and significant injuries): Pro-rated: 1.03 points per game, 49.26 goals per season
- Shelters Nylander, Marner, 2016-1stOA, etc.
- Still young at 26, albeit putting him in the upper tier of Leafs' 'core' by age

Cons:
- Expensive: ~ $10+M AAV, which will limit opportunities for Toronto to flesh out the team and represents significant risk for a player who recently battled blood clots
- Occupies a playing niche that is already projected to become a strength in Toronto over the next couple of years
- Accelerates the rebuild by injecting a significant number of goals into the team, likely pushing it out of a top-5 pick immediately and into the mediocre middle
- Age of Stamkos and timing of his peak is misaligned with the projected winning 'core' of the team
- Nylander, Marner, 2016-1stOA, and to a lesser extent Rielly, are still unknowns
- UFAs of great to excellent calibre periodically come to market
- Stamkos himself does not address our greatest positional weaknesses (D, G)

 

[TBLeafer]

The reason I asked why you thought the Leafs didn't win a cup with Sundin, is because adding Stamkos is like adding a Sundin.  If the Leafs couldn't build a team around Sundin to reliably compete for the cup year in and year out through trades and UFA acquisitions in that era, then how is it going to be easier now?  In that era, pretty much every high profiled player ended up one of 6 teams (Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

So one time with Sundin the Leafs almost made it to the Stanley cup final.  What would you rather have, that situation, or one where for a string of 10 to 15 years, the Leafs are a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup?

Not the same at all though.  Different era and FAR different team build philosophy.  I appreciated the fact that we could compete for the cup and was saddened by the fact that we fell short like 29 other teams do each and every year.

Difference now is that we ain't trading Matthews to get Stamkos.  Our BEST internal players are just about to START their NHL careers.

This is where our difference in philosophy lies.  I don't want to cheer for a team that competes for a cup.  I want to cheer for a team that when they don't make it to the cup finals, it's considered an upset, or that the Leafs choked by not getting there.  The years that the Sundin lead teams didn't make it to the cup final, it wasn't a choke job.  Most of those years, when the Leafs got beat out, most pundits said "yeah that's about right".  I want to cheer for a truly great team, not a team that is satisfied with making it in to the playoffs and if luck holds might win a cup through an upset.  As a fan, I don't like the fact that for the best possible odds in the draft, the Leafs have to lose now, but I understand that the losing is the best possible way for the Leafs to build a powerhouse of a team.

That's fine and good but you can't expect to get there the very next year after winning the lottery. You have to start your climb up the standings though.

You missed my point.  You don't get to where I would like to see the Leafs get too without getting multiple lottery picks.  I will stomach the Leafs being bad next year because it gives them the highest percentage at getting a player like Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren.  That's one more good young player in the stable.  And if they are bad the year after that and get a high pick in 2018, then I will stomach that too, because when these players fully mature and start to reach their prime years all together, then they will more than likely be one of the most dominate teams in the NHL.  Then they will rise up the standings.  Bubble team at first, then in the playoffs, and then Stanley cup contender.  Their cap will be manageable because these players will all be close together in age so some will still be on entry level deals, some will have just signed their second contracts.  And if this is done right, then there should still be prospects on the farm that are pushing to make the Leafs, and those are the assets that you can use to turn in to those complimentary pieces that can push a team over the top.  The organisation would now be on solid footing.  It would have a pipeline of prospects, and a high quality NHL team.  That's the sustainable winning team that I would like the Leafs to become.  It takes losing right now to get to that point. 

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

Did you not just say two posts ago that it takes more than one lottery pick to start winning?  So what happens if the Leafs don't sign Stamkos?  What's the contingency plan there?  You don't answer any of the questions that the other posters are asking of you.  You make a smart remark that dismisses the holes that other posters bring up in your grand plan of:

Step 1:  Sign Stamkos
Step 2:  Maybe win a cup someday somehow 

After the Leafs get Stamkos and he magically takes us to the second round of the playoffs next year, then what?  How do the Leafs get better?  Where does the talent upgrade happen from?  You say internally, but how can it happen internally when the Leafs are picking in the mid to late stages of the first round?  Look at the teams that are in the Stanley Cup final.  Look at those rosters.  How can the Leafs, even with Stamkos, compete with those rosters.  They don't have the pieces that they need in order to beat those teams in a seven game series, and there is a high probability that they won't be able to get those pieces if the Leafs are drafting in the mid to late rounds.

To clarify, I view a "lottery pick" to be a top 5 OA pick and the Leafs have 3 in the last 5 years, including 2 straight top five picks.

So if we don't get Stamkos and just roll with Matthews and Marner, we will be a carbon copy of Chicago's model as it stands after last season.

We get Stamkos too, with a little sprinkle of Nylander and perhaps Brown entering into their rookie season, we would be building much BETTER than the Chicago model.

I like better.

 

[TBLeafer]

Summary of Pros and Cons (per this thread) from the Leafs' perspective for signing Steven Stamkos.
Pipe up if I've missed anything.

Pros:
- Established #1C with first overall pick pedigree
- Mature and vaunted work ethic, as well as captaincy experience
- Playoff and Cup finals experience
- Over the past 5 seasons (incl. lockout shortened and significant injuries): Pro-rated: 1.03 points per game, 49.26 goals per season
- Shelters Nylander, Marner, 2016-1stOA, etc.
- Still young at 26, albeit putting him in the upper tier of Leafs' 'core' by age

Cons:
- Expensive: ~ $10+M AAV, which will limit opportunities for Toronto to flesh out the team and represents significant risk for a player who recently battled blood clots
- Occupies a playing niche that is already projected to become a strength in Toronto over the next couple of years
- Accelerates the rebuild by injecting a significant number of goals into the team, likely pushing it out of a top-5 pick immediately and into the mediocre middle
- Age of Stamkos and timing of his peak is misaligned with the projected winning 'core' of the team
- Nylander, Marner, 2016-1stOA, and to a lesser extent Rielly, are still unknowns
- UFAs of great to excellent calibre periodically come to market
- Stamkos himself does not address our greatest positional weaknesses (D, G)

These are the "cons" I take the most issue with believing are actually cons.

 

[rdowdall]

The reason I asked why you thought the Leafs didn't win a cup with Sundin, is because adding Stamkos is like adding a Sundin.  If the Leafs couldn't build a team around Sundin to reliably compete for the cup year in and year out through trades and UFA acquisitions in that era, then how is it going to be easier now?  In that era, pretty much every high profiled player ended up one of 6 teams (Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

So one time with Sundin the Leafs almost made it to the Stanley cup final.  What would you rather have, that situation, or one where for a string of 10 to 15 years, the Leafs are a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup?

Not the same at all though.  Different era and FAR different team build philosophy.  I appreciated the fact that we could compete for the cup and was saddened by the fact that we fell short like 29 other teams do each and every year.

Difference now is that we ain't trading Matthews to get Stamkos.  Our BEST internal players are just about to START their NHL careers.

This is where our difference in philosophy lies.  I don't want to cheer for a team that competes for a cup.  I want to cheer for a team that when they don't make it to the cup finals, it's considered an upset, or that the Leafs choked by not getting there.  The years that the Sundin lead teams didn't make it to the cup final, it wasn't a choke job.  Most of those years, when the Leafs got beat out, most pundits said "yeah that's about right".  I want to cheer for a truly great team, not a team that is satisfied with making it in to the playoffs and if luck holds might win a cup through an upset.  As a fan, I don't like the fact that for the best possible odds in the draft, the Leafs have to lose now, but I understand that the losing is the best possible way for the Leafs to build a powerhouse of a team.

That's fine and good but you can't expect to get there the very next year after winning the lottery. You have to start your climb up the standings though.

You missed my point.  You don't get to where I would like to see the Leafs get too without getting multiple lottery picks.  I will stomach the Leafs being bad next year because it gives them the highest percentage at getting a player like Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren.  That's one more good young player in the stable.  And if they are bad the year after that and get a high pick in 2018, then I will stomach that too, because when these players fully mature and start to reach their prime years all together, then they will more than likely be one of the most dominate teams in the NHL.  Then they will rise up the standings.  Bubble team at first, then in the playoffs, and then Stanley cup contender.  Their cap will be manageable because these players will all be close together in age so some will still be on entry level deals, some will have just signed their second contracts.  And if this is done right, then there should still be prospects on the farm that are pushing to make the Leafs, and those are the assets that you can use to turn in to those complimentary pieces that can push a team over the top.  The organisation would now be on solid footing.  It would have a pipeline of prospects, and a high quality NHL team.  That's the sustainable winning team that I would like the Leafs to become.  It takes losing right now to get to that point. 

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

Did you not just say two posts ago that it takes more than one lottery pick to start winning?  So what happens if the Leafs don't sign Stamkos?  What's the contingency plan there?  You don't answer any of the questions that the other posters are asking of you.  You make a smart remark that dismisses the holes that other posters bring up in your grand plan of:

Step 1:  Sign Stamkos
Step 2:  Maybe win a cup someday somehow 

After the Leafs get Stamkos and he magically takes us to the second round of the playoffs next year, then what?  How do the Leafs get better?  Where does the talent upgrade happen from?  You say internally, but how can it happen internally when the Leafs are picking in the mid to late stages of the first round?  Look at the teams that are in the Stanley Cup final.  Look at those rosters.  How can the Leafs, even with Stamkos, compete with those rosters.  They don't have the pieces that they need in order to beat those teams in a seven game series, and there is a high probability that they won't be able to get those pieces if the Leafs are drafting in the mid to late rounds.

To clarify, I view a "lottery pick" to be a top 5 OA pick and the Leafs have 3 in the last 5 years, including 2 straight top five picks.

So if we don't get Stamkos and just roll with Matthews and Marner, we will be a carbon copy of Chicago's model as it stands after last season.

We get Stamkos too, with a little sprinkle of Nylander and perhaps Brown entering into their rookie season, we would be building much BETTER than the Chicago model.

I like better.

You know that Chicago didn't just draft Toews and Kane and suddenly they were good right?  You know that they also had high picks, some that didn't work out, along the way.  Sometimes picks don't work out.  You act as if Marner has already had a hall of fame career and the player hasn't even stepped on the ice in a regular season game yet.  You act as if Nylander is the second coming of Selanne and he has played 22 games at the NHL level.  Mark Bell was an 8th overall pick, like Nylander, and he didn't amount to much.  Nylander, Matthews, Marner and REilly could all be middling NHLers.  You don't have the Chicago model because none of these players have proven to be as good as Toews and Kane.

It's fine to believe that they are going to be good, that's okay.  It's something else entirely to plan as if there is no other possible option.

 

[bustaheims]

It's fine to believe that they are going to be good, that's okay.  It's something else entirely to plan as if there is no other possible option.

Exactly. The Leafs have a really nice collection of eggs, but some people are running around counting chickens when there could be all sorts of lizards in those eggs.

 

[TBLeafer]

The reason I asked why you thought the Leafs didn't win a cup with Sundin, is because adding Stamkos is like adding a Sundin.  If the Leafs couldn't build a team around Sundin to reliably compete for the cup year in and year out through trades and UFA acquisitions in that era, then how is it going to be easier now?  In that era, pretty much every high profiled player ended up one of 6 teams (Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas).

So one time with Sundin the Leafs almost made it to the Stanley cup final.  What would you rather have, that situation, or one where for a string of 10 to 15 years, the Leafs are a team that has a legitimate shot at winning the cup?

Not the same at all though.  Different era and FAR different team build philosophy.  I appreciated the fact that we could compete for the cup and was saddened by the fact that we fell short like 29 other teams do each and every year.

Difference now is that we ain't trading Matthews to get Stamkos.  Our BEST internal players are just about to START their NHL careers.

This is where our difference in philosophy lies.  I don't want to cheer for a team that competes for a cup.  I want to cheer for a team that when they don't make it to the cup finals, it's considered an upset, or that the Leafs choked by not getting there.  The years that the Sundin lead teams didn't make it to the cup final, it wasn't a choke job.  Most of those years, when the Leafs got beat out, most pundits said "yeah that's about right".  I want to cheer for a truly great team, not a team that is satisfied with making it in to the playoffs and if luck holds might win a cup through an upset.  As a fan, I don't like the fact that for the best possible odds in the draft, the Leafs have to lose now, but I understand that the losing is the best possible way for the Leafs to build a powerhouse of a team.

That's fine and good but you can't expect to get there the very next year after winning the lottery. You have to start your climb up the standings though.

You missed my point.  You don't get to where I would like to see the Leafs get too without getting multiple lottery picks.  I will stomach the Leafs being bad next year because it gives them the highest percentage at getting a player like Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren.  That's one more good young player in the stable.  And if they are bad the year after that and get a high pick in 2018, then I will stomach that too, because when these players fully mature and start to reach their prime years all together, then they will more than likely be one of the most dominate teams in the NHL.  Then they will rise up the standings.  Bubble team at first, then in the playoffs, and then Stanley cup contender.  Their cap will be manageable because these players will all be close together in age so some will still be on entry level deals, some will have just signed their second contracts.  And if this is done right, then there should still be prospects on the farm that are pushing to make the Leafs, and those are the assets that you can use to turn in to those complimentary pieces that can push a team over the top.  The organisation would now be on solid footing.  It would have a pipeline of prospects, and a high quality NHL team.  That's the sustainable winning team that I would like the Leafs to become.  It takes losing right now to get to that point. 

Say no to drugs. Lottery picks have become your drug and we now have enough.

Did you not just say two posts ago that it takes more than one lottery pick to start winning?  So what happens if the Leafs don't sign Stamkos?  What's the contingency plan there?  You don't answer any of the questions that the other posters are asking of you.  You make a smart remark that dismisses the holes that other posters bring up in your grand plan of:

Step 1:  Sign Stamkos
Step 2:  Maybe win a cup someday somehow 

After the Leafs get Stamkos and he magically takes us to the second round of the playoffs next year, then what?  How do the Leafs get better?  Where does the talent upgrade happen from?  You say internally, but how can it happen internally when the Leafs are picking in the mid to late stages of the first round?  Look at the teams that are in the Stanley Cup final.  Look at those rosters.  How can the Leafs, even with Stamkos, compete with those rosters.  They don't have the pieces that they need in order to beat those teams in a seven game series, and there is a high probability that they won't be able to get those pieces if the Leafs are drafting in the mid to late rounds.

To clarify, I view a "lottery pick" to be a top 5 OA pick and the Leafs have 3 in the last 5 years, including 2 straight top five picks.

So if we don't get Stamkos and just roll with Matthews and Marner, we will be a carbon copy of Chicago's model as it stands after last season.

We get Stamkos too, with a little sprinkle of Nylander and perhaps Brown entering into their rookie season, we would be building much BETTER than the Chicago model.

I like better.

You know that Chicago didn't just draft Toews and Kane and suddenly they were good right?  You know that they also had high picks, some that didn't work out, along the way.  Sometimes picks don't work out.  You act as if Marner has already had a hall of fame career and the player hasn't even stepped on the ice in a regular season game yet.  You act as if Nylander is the second coming of Selanne and he has played 22 games at the NHL level.  Mark Bell was an 8th overall pick, like Nylander, and he didn't amount to much.  Nylander, Matthews, Marner and REilly could all be middling NHLers.  You don't have the Chicago model because none of these players have proven to be as good as Toews and Kane.

It's fine to believe that they are going to be good, that's okay.  It's something else entirely to plan as if there is no other possible option.

Its still the Chicago "model" without Stamkos, including where we picked in the last half decade (and more).

Toews and Kane's rookie seasons shot the team up the standings from 71 points (just 2 better than Toronto last season)  to 88 points in a single season.

 

[Frank E]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

 

[rdowdall]

Its still the Chicago "model" without Stamkos, including where we picked in the last half decade (and more).

Toews and Kane's rookie seasons shot the team up the standings from 71 points (just 2 better than Toronto last season)  to 88 points in a single season.

The problem is that the Leafs drafted Marner, and have a 1st overall this year.  The Leafs have not actually drafted Toews and Kane.  You seem to think that they have. 

 

[rdowdall]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

When the Chicago model is being used, it's the template of being bad until you are good and then adding pieces at that point and not before.  The Leafs aren't good yet.  The Leafs will be good, when they are actually good.

 

[bustaheims]

Toews and Kane's rookie seasons shot the team up the standings from 71 points (just 2 better than Toronto last season)  to 88 points in a single season.

And, if/when Matthews, Marner, and Nylander show that they can have that kind of impact, then we can start talking about them being a group of players the team can build around, and start adding pieces like Stamkos.

I mean, this really isn't that difficult a concept to understand. You can't say the Leafs prospects will have the same impact as Toews and Kane. We simply don't know whether they will or not. And, you can't build your plan around them doing so, until they show they can do so at the NHL level.

What the Leafs have is a bunch of eggs. You're planning around a bunch of chickens. For all we know, those eggs could hatch lizards.

 

[bustaheims]

Can we stop using the Chicago model as a template please...the Hossa and Keith contracts are obviously not going to happen again.

Same goes for Pittsburgh. 

Perhaps we start talking about San Jose or St. Louis?  The Rangers?

No model should be used as an exact template. You can't just swap in player X for player Y and say that it works. The template to follow is by stage rather than by player. What steps they took, and what signs they waited to see until they took their next steps - and, the way the Hawks did it is similar to how successful teams have been doing it for years. 1) Draft well, 2) have the prospects develop and show they're capable of being successful NHLers that look like they can be the core of a contending team, 3) identify what weaknesses need to be addressed to help them, and 4) take action. Some teams did it quickly - like Chicago - some, took a little longer - LA and St Louis - and some, took 10+ years for things to really come together -- San Jose. But, in all cases, the basic blueprint was still the same.

Some people are advocating the Leafs skip step 2 and largely ignore step 3.