Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

 

[herman]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

 

[TBLeafer]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

 

[Frank E]

Well, we've completely revamped our coaching by adding Kirk Muller as an associate.

I'm excited to see what kind of RFA deal Mark Barbiero signs, but fingers crossed!

Only one more season of PAP's buyout on the books, so thank goodness for that.

 

[herman]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

You're welcome to that opinion, but teams can't be built on feel good stories.

Yes he is great, and he's a franchise player for Tampa and deserves pretty much whatever amount he will be paid, so I'm certainly not belittling him.

For what the Leafs are currently in the process of building, his contract and fit doesn't make sense to me (and more than a few other people here) at this time, that's all I'm saying.

I want to see the Leafs do well (championship caliber well) for the long run, not just squeaking into the playoffs for the next 3 years.

 

[mr grieves]

Sure worked for Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, Eberle...

You mean the team where they didn't leave the captaincy open? Where they gave it to an established vet in the hopes he'd be the leader they need?

Are you referring to the declining complementary Cup Winner the Oilers signed? I don't think the Oilers inability to develop their core can be traced to buying a captain on the UFA market as much as bringing in Andrew freaking Ference to shore up their D and insulate young stars...

 

[LuncheonMeat]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

What you're really saying here is it makes you sad when other Leafs' fans disagree with you.

 

[Kin]

Sure worked for Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, Eberle...

You mean the team where they didn't leave the captaincy open? Where they gave it to an established vet in the hopes he'd be the leader they need?

Are you referring to the declining complementary Cup Winner the Oilers signed? I don't think the Oilers inability to develop their core can be traced to buying a captain on the UFA market as much as bringing in Andrew freaking Ference to shore up their D and insulate young stars...

Yes, you're right. It is pretty on its face ridiculous and desperate for anyone to suggest that what caused the problems in Edmonton is directly related to who they chose as Captain.

 

[Bullfrog]

All things considered (and there's lots to consider thanks to this thread), I'm firmly on team "say no to Stamkos".....for now.

An interesting -- though probably unlikely scenario -- that I don't think has been discussed is the possibility of Stamkos signing a short-term contract somewhere. Maybe he goes to a cup-contender on a one or two-year deal for $11M AAV? When that contract's up, he can then re-sign on an eight year contract (rather than the seven he's limited to now), or hit free agency again. At which time the Leafs may have a better handle on their situation and can take a shot at Stamkos or Tavares.

 

[Kin]

All things considered (and there's lots to consider thanks to this thread), I'm firmly on team "say no to Stamkos".....for now.

An interesting -- though probably unlikely scenario -- that I don't think has been discussed is the possibility of Stamkos signing a short-term contract somewhere. Maybe he goes to a cup-contender on a one or two-year deal for $11M AAV? When that contract's up, he can then re-sign on an eight year contract (rather than the seven he's limited to now), or hit free agency again. At which time the Leafs may have a better handle on their situation and can take a shot at Stamkos or Tavares.

Seems like it would be tough for most contending teams to fit an 11 million dollar salary into their existing structure without having to make some serious changes elsewhere.

Other than that though given what happened to Stamkos healthwise you have to think he'd probably be leaning towards safety/stability with his next deal. Even if his issues don't present a challenge going forward you have to think that it would at least serve as a stark reminder of how quickly a career can be curtailed. Leaving 50 million+ in guaranteed money on the table would be a hard choice if that's on your mind.

 

[TBLeafer]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

What you're really saying here is it makes you sad when other Leafs' fans disagree with you.

Not just me.  Virtually every analytical Leafs hub on which I've spent countless hours on, weighing both cases over the past year.

Calling Stamkos a complimentary player is just plain, wrong.

Here's another analytical "advanced stat embracing" pioneer site piece:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/5/12/11641046/the-case-against-the-case-against-signing-steven-stamkos

2) "This is contrary to the rebuild!," or some variation of that

One common refrain I've heard from Leaf fans opposed to signing Stamkos is that it is sacrosanct to the very nature of the rebuild. People envision this land where the Leafs, lost in the wilderness for years, accumulate high picks, and build a core consisting entirely of young players on ELCs, containing nobody of significance over the age of 25.

I'm here to tell you that's a whole lot of bunkum.

One of my fav takeaways from that piece.

 

[Bill_Berg]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

What you're really saying here is it makes you sad when other Leafs' fans disagree with you.

Not just me.  Virtually every analytical Leafs hub on which I've spent countless hours on, weighing both cases over the past year.

Calling Stamkos a complimentary player is just plain, wrong.

Here's another analytical "advanced stat embracing" pioneer site piece:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/5/12/11641046/the-case-against-the-case-against-signing-steven-stamkos

2) "This is contrary to the rebuild!," or some variation of that

One common refrain I've heard from Leaf fans opposed to signing Stamkos is that it is sacrosanct to the very nature of the rebuild. People envision this land where the Leafs, lost in the wilderness for years, accumulate high picks, and build a core consisting entirely of young players on ELCs, containing nobody of significance over the age of 25.

I'm here to tell you that's a whole lot of bunkum.

One of my fav takeaways from that piece.

I don't think the term sacrosanct is used appropriately here. You might say "the rebuild is sacrosanct, so we can't sign Stamkos", but you can't say "signing Stamkos is sacrosanct", unless you mean it's too important to sign Stamkos to let anything mess it up, like a rebuild plan.

 

[TBLeafer]

You know what kind of problem not being able to keep all your good players is under cap, because you have too many good players is?

It's a good one and it likely means that you have a perennial contender.

It's even better when you can keep all your good players because you managed the cap well instead of splurging it on superfluous purchases.

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

I know he's an integral part of your rebuild plan; he's a nice-to-have complementary piece in a position of organizational strength in mine and an expensive one to boot.

I find it sad personally when Leafs fans reduce a franchise player to complimentary player to suit the needs of their debate.

Remember when Ovechkin declined to the point where people and media thought it was time for him to jettison the league in favour of the KHL?

Good times.

What you're really saying here is it makes you sad when other Leafs' fans disagree with you.

Not just me.  Virtually every analytical Leafs hub on which I've spent countless hours on, weighing both cases over the past year.

Calling Stamkos a complimentary player is just plain, wrong.

Here's another analytical "advanced stat embracing" pioneer site piece:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/5/12/11641046/the-case-against-the-case-against-signing-steven-stamkos

2) "This is contrary to the rebuild!," or some variation of that

One common refrain I've heard from Leaf fans opposed to signing Stamkos is that it is sacrosanct to the very nature of the rebuild. People envision this land where the Leafs, lost in the wilderness for years, accumulate high picks, and build a core consisting entirely of young players on ELCs, containing nobody of significance over the age of 25.

I'm here to tell you that's a whole lot of bunkum.

One of my fav takeaways from that piece.

I don't think the term sacrosanct is used appropriately here. You might say "the rebuild is sacrosanct, so we can't sign Stamkos", but you can't say "signing Stamkos is sacrosanct", unless you mean it's too important to sign Stamkos to let anything mess it up, like a rebuild plan.

I didn't bold that line and we don't need to get hung up on semantics I think.

A successful rebuild though, means that you rebuilt it with all the best possible pieces available and achieved your end goal, yes?

 

[Kin]

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

See, here's where I think you're beginning to lose the plot a bit. By saying Stamkos isn't superfluous, you're saying he's necessary. That whatever the Leafs want to do, wherever they want the team to go, signing Stamkos is an essential and required piece of that plan.

But there's a problem with that in that regardless of whether or not we feel the Leafs should sign Stamkos we all have to acknowledge that whether or not the Leafs sign Stamkos isn't ultimately up to the Leafs. At best they can make Stamkos an offer but it's up to Stamkos to choose to accept it or not.

So if you think signing Stamkos is a requirement of this team's success then what do you do if he signs elsewhere? Give up? Start from scratch? Desperately try to land a Stamkos equivalent some other way?

I mean if your answer is that if Stamkos signs somewhere else it'd be a bummer but that this Leafs team can still be built into a contender through the draft and future free agents...then you're agreeing that Stamkos, while a nice piece and maybe someone who gets them there quicker, isn't a requirement and is superfluous.

So for someone like me who thinks signing Stamkos is probably a bad move long term and, at best, is superfluous then signing him doesn't terrify me even if I think it's the wrong move but if you think it's necessary they do then you better have a plan B in mind.

 

[TBLeafer]

Except Stamkos isn't superfluous, so there goes that theory.

See, here's where I think you're beginning to lose the plot a bit. By saying Stamkos isn't superfluous, you're saying he's necessary. That whatever the Leafs want to do, wherever they want the team to go, signing Stamkos is an essential and required piece of that plan.

But there's a problem with that in that regardless of whether or not we feel the Leafs should sign Stamkos we all have to acknowledge that whether or not the Leafs sign Stamkos isn't ultimately up to the Leafs. At best they can make Stamkos an offer but it's up to Stamkos to choose to accept it or not.

So if you think signing Stamkos is a requirement of this team's success then what do you do if he signs elsewhere? Give up? Start from scratch? Desperately try to land a Stamkos equivalent some other way?

I mean if your answer is that if Stamkos signs somewhere else it'd be a bummer but that this Leafs team can still be built into a contender through the draft and future free agents...then you're agreeing that Stamkos, while a nice piece and maybe someone who gets them there quicker, isn't a requirement and is superfluous.

So for someone like me who thinks signing Stamkos is probably a bad move long term and, at best, is superfluous then signing him doesn't terrify me even if I think it's the wrong move but if you think it's necessary they do then you better have a plan B in mind.

Its very hard to win a cup without franchise level talent.  So a player "like" Stamkos is definitely a need for a successful Leafs rebuild as it is for any other team.

So some other team drafted and developed him and he was of the youngest captains playing on another team for a while and commands a big money contract.

Cold feet.  That's all it is.

 

[herman]

Not just me.  Virtually every analytical Leafs hub on which I've spent countless hours on, weighing both cases over the past year.

I read those publications as well, and link to them frequently. Note that these web places stand to benefit greatly if Stamkos ever graced our roster with his esteemed presence.

Calling Stamkos a complimentary player is just plain, wrong.

A complimentary player is one that gives compliments to others.

As I've said before, whether a player is deemed complementary or core is entirely context dependent.

Stamkos will be looking to sign a contract that is befitting a core player (and he has the performance history of a core player). The Leafs signing Stamkos immediately changes our projected window of championship contention and basically ties it to the performance of Stamkos during his contract. The problem is the team is currently not ready to fully contribute for a Cup run, which means we have to go out and further spend on a legit goalie, and top end defensemen. Even if we do not spend any futures on Stamkos himself, to make him a worthwhile investment, we would have to dump futures for now players.

Alternatively, you could say we sign Stamkos now to guide our burgeoning young stars to the promised land without buying any more improvements. Then we'd be wasting Stamkos' prime years as well as burdening our cap with his 10+M hit all the while pushing our draft position into the mediocre middle.

What many of us here propose is that we continue to draft and develop and move out expiring contracts as we did this season. We get to see Nylander, Marner, et al. in full NHL season stints and then make decisions accordingly. Eventually, we'll draft better defensive prospects (or existing ones step up), and better goaltending (or a shrewd trade). When the table is fully set, then we take a look at what minor gaps remain and go out and get an impact complementary player on the UFA or trade deadline market to push us over the top.

 

[Kin]

Its very hard to win a cup without franchise level talent.  So a player "like" Stamkos is definitely a need for a successful Leafs rebuild as it is for any other team.

Sure but you've also said that you think there's literally no chance, and thus no reason to be cautious about the chances, of Matthews and Marner not being the equivalent of Kane and Toews who are Franchise level talent I would assume by the standard you're using. So if the Leafs already have franchise level talent than more of it is, again, by definition superfluous.

Either way, since there are more ways of adding franchise level talent than simply sign Steven Stamkos in the summer of 2016 this particular signing is not a requirement and, again, superfluous.

So Herman is indisputably right when he categorizes it as such and I think that is the context we have to frame it in. The Leafs do have more options to address the need for players of a certain caliber on the club so they don't have to get married to any one avenue of doing so especially when that opportunity might already have arrived via the draft lottery.

So it's not so much cold feet as it is our hearts have been stolen by a sexy young thing from Scottsdale and we're just not ready to settle down.

 

[TBLeafer]

Not just me.  Virtually every analytical Leafs hub on which I've spent countless hours on, weighing both cases over the past year.

I read those publications as well, and link to them frequently. Note that these web places stand to benefit greatly if Stamkos ever graced our roster with his esteemed presence.

Calling Stamkos a complimentary player is just plain, wrong.

A complimentary player is one that gives compliments to others.

As I've said before, whether a player is deemed complementary or core is entirely context dependent.

Stamkos will be looking to sign a contract that is befitting a core player (and he has the performance history of a core player). The Leafs signing Stamkos immediately changes our projected window of championship contention and basically ties it to the performance of Stamkos during his contract. The problem is the team is currently not ready to fully contribute for a Cup run, which means we have to go out and further spend on a legit goalie, and top end defensemen. Even if we do not spend any futures on Stamkos himself, to make him a worthwhile investment, we would have to dump futures for now players.

Alternatively, you could say we sign Stamkos now to guide our burgeoning young stars to the promised land without buying any more improvements. Then we'd be wasting Stamkos' prime years as well as burdening our cap with his 10+M hit all the while pushing our draft position into the mediocre middle.

What many of us here propose is that we continue to draft and develop and move out expiring contracts as we did this season. We get to see Nylander, Marner, et al. in full NHL season stints and then make decisions accordingly. Eventually, we'll draft better defensive prospects (or existing ones step up), and better goaltending (or a shrewd trade). When the table is fully set, then we take a look at what minor gaps remain and go out and get an impact complementary player on the UFA or trade deadline market to push us over the top.

Yes, because you've become rigid about there being only 1 right way to rebuild and it means we must suck longer while our our drafted top prospects develop and we know in two more seasons what we have, just like Chicago did.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[TBLeafer]

Its very hard to win a cup without franchise level talent.  So a player "like" Stamkos is definitely a need for a successful Leafs rebuild as it is for any other team.

Sure but you've also said that you think there's literally no chance, and thus no reason to be cautious about the chances, of Matthews and Marner not being the equivalent of Kane and Toews who are Franchise level talent I would assume by the standard you're using. So if the Leafs already have franchise level talent than more of it is, again, by definition superfluous.

Either way, since there are more ways of adding franchise level talent than simply sign Steven Stamkos in the summer of 2016 this particular signing is not a requirement and, again, superfluous.

So Herman is indisputably right when he categorizes it as such and I think that is the context we have to frame it in. The Leafs do have more options to address the need for players of a certain caliber on the club so they don't have to get married to any one avenue of doing so especially when that opportunity might already have arrived via the draft lottery.

So it's not so much cold feet as it is our hearts have been stolen by a sexy young thing from Scottsdale and we're just not ready to settle down.

That or rookies that develop into franchise talent become superfluous to what already is franchise talent on your team.

 

[herman]

So Herman is indisputably right

I think you'll all agree that this has to be my new signature.  ;D