Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

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

But Stamkos isn't on the team. And regardless of what the Leafs decide this summer, he may never be. So why view him as essential to the process? Again, if we look at him as essential and he doesn't come here then what's the fallback? And, if the fallback has a chance to work, doesn't it again make signing Stamkos inessential?

I mean you can't accuse other people of a rigidity in how they want to approach building the club when you're the one arguing that one specific move is absolutely 100% essential to success.

 

[Kin]

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

In fairness, I think everyone is indisputably right if they agree with me.

 

[TBLeafer]

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

But Stamkos isn't on the team. And regardless of what the Leafs decide this summer, he may never be. So why view him as essential to the process? Again, if we look at him as essential and he doesn't come here then what's the fallback? And, if the fallback has a chance to work, doesn't it again make signing Stamkos inessential?

I mean you can't accuse other people of a rigidity in how they want to approach building the club when you're the one arguing that one specific move is absolutely 100% essential to success.

IF he hits the free market, I think he will be an essential part of naturally accelerating the process of ANY rebuilding, non-competing teams that could fit him in under cap.

He's ISN'T a final piece.  Teams looking for FINAL pieces can't afford Stamkos.  He's a cornerstone.

 

[Kin]

IF he hits the free market, I think he will be an essential part of naturally accelerating the process of ANY rebuilding, non-competing teams that could fit him in under cap.

Right accelerating the process but not the success of the process itself. Signing Stamkos doesn't dictate whether or not this team can be successful eventually and so we shouldn't discuss it in those terms.

What I think busta, Herman and I(and others) have been trying to communicate is that the acceleration of the process carries risks and that we're weighing those risks against something that still isn't necessary for success.

In a way there's a neat parallel here between this issue and the draft lottery. There's a thread here titled "Matthews or Bust" where I caution against the idea that the only way to rebuild was to win the draft lottery because we can't, and shouldn't, look at any one outcome outside of the Team's control as being crucial to what the team wants to accomplish. The Matthews thing worked out and we're happy it did because there really is no downside to drafting first as opposed to drafting fourth.

That's not so much the case here. There is a risk and there is uncertainty and all this debate is really about is the balancing of that risk.

 

[TBLeafer]

IF he hits the free market, I think he will be an essential part of naturally accelerating the process of ANY rebuilding, non-competing teams that could fit him in under cap.

Right accelerating the process but not the success of the process itself. Signing Stamkos doesn't dictate whether or not this team can be successful eventually and so we shouldn't discuss it in those terms.

What I think busta, Herman and I(and others) have been trying to communicate is that the acceleration of the process carries risks and that we're weighing those risks against something that still isn't necessary for success.

In a way there's a neat parallel here between this issue and the draft lottery. There's a thread here titled "Matthews or Bust" where I caution against the idea that the only way to rebuild was to win the draft lottery because we can't, and shouldn't, look at any one outcome outside of the Team's control as being crucial to what the team wants to accomplish. The Matthews thing worked out and we're happy it did because there really is no downside to drafting first as opposed to drafting fourth.

That's not so much the case here. There is a risk and there is uncertainty and all this debate is really about is the balancing of that risk.

You don't know if it will inevitably be successful by adding Stamkos and you don't know if it will inevitably be successful by not adding Stamkos.  So you add Stamkos.

 

[Kin]

You don't know if it will inevitably be successful by adding Stamkos and you don't know if it will inevitably be successful by not adding Stamkos.  So you add Stamkos.

That's just a restatement of your premise though. Nobody has claimed any decision inevitably leads to success and you're the only one arguing that any decision is necessary for success.

Again, signing Stamkos isn't really a unilateral decision anyone gets to make. Even Stamkos can only accept the offers made to him. So in an effort to actually get somewhere constructive I have to ask. When it comes to signing Stamkos is price absolutely no object? Are you just as gung-ho about signing Stamkos and making other pieces fit later if he's a 13.5 million per year cap hit?

 

[herman]

What I think busta, Herman and I(and others) have been trying to communicate is that the acceleration of the process carries risks and that we're weighing those risks against something that still isn't necessary for success.

I'd like to give a shoutout to SI as well for doing some yeoman's work last night trying to get the message across.

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

In fairness, I think everyone is indisputably right if they agree with me.

I find no flaw in this logic.

 

[Kin]

I'd like to give a shoutout to SI as well for doing some yeoman's work last night trying to get the message across.

Yes, good point. I should have included SI.

 

[TBLeafer]

You don't know if it will inevitably be successful by adding Stamkos and you don't know if it will inevitably be successful by not adding Stamkos.  So you add Stamkos.

That's just a restatement of your premise though. Nobody has claimed any decision inevitably leads to success and you're the only one arguing that any decision is necessary for success.

Again, signing Stamkos isn't really a unilateral decision anyone gets to make. Even Stamkos can only accept the offers made to him. So in an effort to actually get somewhere constructive I have to ask. When it comes to signing Stamkos is price absolutely no object? Are you just as gung-ho about signing Stamkos and making other pieces fit later if he's a 13.5 million per year cap hit?

He's just essential in order to advance a naturally acquired, rebuilt team timeline, through draft or UFA.

No, I have my max.  Like management does I'm sure.  It's 3M per lower than that for me on the open market if he wants to be a Leaf.

Ideally and I bow down to Lou and Shanny because they convinced him that if its important enough for him to be a Leaf and have a chance to win a cup as a Leaf, he can do so at $9.5M per.

 

[Frank E]

You don't know if it will inevitably be successful by adding Stamkos and you don't know if it will inevitably be successful by not adding Stamkos.  So you add Stamkos.

That's just a restatement of your premise though. Nobody has claimed any decision inevitably leads to success and you're the only one arguing that any decision is necessary for success.

Again, signing Stamkos isn't really a unilateral decision anyone gets to make. Even Stamkos can only accept the offers made to him. So in an effort to actually get somewhere constructive I have to ask. When it comes to signing Stamkos is price absolutely no object? Are you just as gung-ho about signing Stamkos and making other pieces fit later if he's a 13.5 million per year cap hit?

He's just essential in order to advance a naturally acquired, rebuilt team timeline, through draft or UFA.

No, I have my max.  Like management does I'm sure.  It's 3M per lower than that for me on the open market if he wants to be a Leaf.

Ideally and I bow down to Lou and Shanny because they convinced him that if its important enough for him to be a Leaf and have a chance to win a cup as a Leaf, he can do so at $9.5M per.

Just for clarity though, $13.5 minus $3 is $10.5...Is your number $9.5?

 

[TBLeafer]

You don't know if it will inevitably be successful by adding Stamkos and you don't know if it will inevitably be successful by not adding Stamkos.  So you add Stamkos.

That's just a restatement of your premise though. Nobody has claimed any decision inevitably leads to success and you're the only one arguing that any decision is necessary for success.

Again, signing Stamkos isn't really a unilateral decision anyone gets to make. Even Stamkos can only accept the offers made to him. So in an effort to actually get somewhere constructive I have to ask. When it comes to signing Stamkos is price absolutely no object? Are you just as gung-ho about signing Stamkos and making other pieces fit later if he's a 13.5 million per year cap hit?

He's just essential in order to advance a naturally acquired, rebuilt team timeline, through draft or UFA.

No, I have my max.  Like management does I'm sure.  It's 3M per lower than that for me on the open market if he wants to be a Leaf.

Ideally and I bow down to Lou and Shanny because they convinced him that if its important enough for him to be a Leaf and have a chance to win a cup as a Leaf, he can do so at $9.5M per.

Just for clarity though, $13.5 minus $3 is $10.5...Is your number $9.5?

9.5 is my ideal.  10.5 is my walk away max.

 

[Kin]

He's just essential in order to advance a naturally acquired, rebuilt team timeline, through draft or UFA.

I have to be honest, I don't have the slightest clue what that sentence is supposed to mean. 

No, I have my max.  Like management does I'm sure.  It's 3M per lower than that for me on the open market if he wants to be a Leaf.

Ok, so to paraphrase an old joke we've established what Stamkos is, now we're just haggling over the price. To the pro-signing Stamkos crowd, Stamkos makes sense at a certain price point. To me, and some others, I'd wager it's pretty common to say Stamkos makes sense but only at a price point that's so low that it's not reasonable to assume he'd accept. But still, it's just a matter of where that dollar figure lies.

So that's all this is, is a difference of opinion of the value of adding a piece that regardless of what inexact adjective we might want to attach to it(complementary, cornerstone, franchise, etc) we agree isn't a requirement of eventual success.

 

[jonlleafs]

I'm amazed how much you guys get your panties in a bunch over something you have ZERO control over.  If Stamkos signs, great!  If he doesn't, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as we still have good pieces moving forward. 

 

[TBLeafer]

He's just essential in order to advance a naturally acquired, rebuilt team timeline, through draft or UFA.

I have to be honest, I don't have the slightest clue what that sentence is supposed to mean.

It means that you are doing a rebuild (or team build) naturally, because you don't need to approach another team to acquire your players

No, I have my max.  Like management does I'm sure.  It's 3M per lower than that for me on the open market if he wants to be a Leaf.

Ok, so to paraphrase an old joke we've established what Stamkos is, now we're just haggling over the price. To the pro-signing Stamkos crowd, Stamkos makes sense at a certain price point. To me, and some others, I'd wager it's pretty common to say Stamkos makes sense but only at a price point that's so low that it's not reasonable to assume he'd accept. But still, it's just a matter of where that dollar figure lies.

So that's all this is, is a difference of opinion of the value of adding a piece that regardless of what inexact adjective we might want to attach to it(complementary, cornerstone, franchise, etc) we agree isn't a requirement of eventual success.

We are Leaf fans.  We should know by now that eventual success is never a guarantee.  One scenario IMO makes it more likely than the other.  So I am a fan of that scenario.

 

[Kin]

It means that you are doing a rebuild (or team build) naturally, because you don't need to approach another team to acquire your players

Yeah, that doesn't help so much. There's nothing unnatural about trades vs. any other method of adding players. And you said he was "essential to advance a naturally acquired timeline" but that implies that there aren't other options to do so which, yeah, you've lost me completely.

We are Leaf fans.  We should know by now that eventual success is never a guarantee.  One scenario IMO makes it more likely than the other.  So I am a fan of that scenario.

But even then I don't know that the distance is that great. I don't think Stamkos will sign at the price point at which I think he makes sense for the Leafs but I also don't think he's going to sign at the price point which you say is your upper limit. If Stamkos gets less than 11 million per year on the open market, regardless of where he signs, I'd be genuinely surprised.

So to my thinking, we're both saying that Stamkos doesn't make sense for the Leafs given what he's likely to cost.

 

[TBLeafer]

Yeah, that doesn't help so much. There's nothing unnatural about trades vs. any other method of adding players. And you said he was "essential to advance a naturally acquired timeline" but that implies that there aren't other options to do so which, yeah, you've lost me completely.

Trades are unnatural, just accepted.  You have to take out of your well, because you want to take out of another team's well.  You don't have to do that when you fill your well from the draft pool or from the UFA pool.  So it's more "natural" when you only fill your well without having to take anything out of it.

But even then I don't know that the distance is that great. I don't think Stamkos will sign at the price point at which I think he makes sense for the Leafs but I also don't think he's going to sign at the price point which you say is your upper limit. If Stamkos gets less than 11 million per year on the open market, regardless of where he signs, I'd be genuinely surprised.

So to my thinking, we're both saying that Stamkos doesn't make sense for the Leafs given what he's likely to cost.

So if he becomes at 11m per I'll be slightly disappointed but I won't lose any sleep over it if my max is 10.5.  You will probably tear your hair out, bust a nut and ready the Shanny and Lou pitchforks.

 

[Kin]

Trades are unnatural, just accepted.  You have to take out of your well, because you want to take out of another team's well.  You don't have to do that when you fill your well from the draft pool or from the UFA pool.  So it's more "natural" when you only fill your well without having to take anything out of it.

Yeah, ok, but you see three problems there:

1. This still doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the sentence that you wrote, which seemed to indicate you thought signing Stamkos was essential to the very concept of improving through free agency. I agree the Leafs should sign free agents, I just don't think Stamkos is the right one.

2. I don't think your general point here is true as Cap space is absolutely, 100% an asset equivalent to draft picks or prospects or even players. Signing any free agent does reduce the available amount of money the team has to spend or, I guess, well water.

3. I still don't see what this has to do with nature.

So if he becomes at 11m per I'll be slightly disappointed but I won't lose any sleep over it if my max is 10.5.  You will probably tear your hair out, bust a nut and ready the Shanny and Lou pitchforks.

The issue though isn't about our reactions to the deal, it's at what price Stamkos being signed goes from being a good decision to a not good decision in our respective eyes. If 10.5 is your upper limit, as you said, then I assumed that's the point between good decision/bad decision for you. If it's higher then, your limit is higher because if signing Stamkos at 11 or 12 million is still fundamentally a good decision that helps the team, why not do it?

 

[TBLeafer]

Yeah, ok, but you see three problems there:

1. This still doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the sentence that you wrote, which seemed to indicate you thought signing Stamkos was essential to the very concept of improving through free agency. I agree the Leafs should sign free agents, I just don't think Stamkos is the right one.

2. I don't think your general point here is true as Cap space is absolutely, 100% an asset equivalent to draft picks or prospects or even players. Signing any free agent does reduce the available amount of money the team has to spend or, I guess, well water.

3. I still don't see what this has to do with nature.

Okay then change the word from naturally to ideally and it can all make sense.   

If an team wants to improve through free agency, isn't it essential to go after the best players available to have the best chance of doing so successfully?

We are one of the few teams with the highest future cap projections, so it is ideal in that situation as well.

The issue though isn't about our reactions to the deal, it's at what price Stamkos being signed goes from being a good decision to a not good decision in our respective eyes. If 10.5 is your upper limit, as you said, then I assumed that's the point between good decision/bad decision for you. If it's higher then, your limit is higher because if signing Stamkos at 11 or 12 million is still fundamentally a good decision that helps the team, why not do it?

 

There comes a point where that much future cap compared to his projected peak performance years is more risk than reward, IMO.  I want to see a tradeable asset not another Clarkson.

 

[Tigger]

Yeah, ok, but you see three problems there:

1. This still doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the sentence that you wrote, which seemed to indicate you thought signing Stamkos was essential to the very concept of improving through free agency. I agree the Leafs should sign free agents, I just don't think Stamkos is the right one.

2. I don't think your general point here is true as Cap space is absolutely, 100% an asset equivalent to draft picks or prospects or even players. Signing any free agent does reduce the available amount of money the team has to spend or, I guess, well water.

3. I still don't see what this has to do with nature.

Okay then change the word from naturally to ideally and it can all make sense.   

If an team wants to improve through free agency, isn't it essential to go after the best players available to have the best chance of doing so successfully?

We are one of the few teams with the highest future cap projections, so it is ideal in that situation as well.

The issue though isn't about our reactions to the deal, it's at what price Stamkos being signed goes from being a good decision to a not good decision in our respective eyes. If 10.5 is your upper limit, as you said, then I assumed that's the point between good decision/bad decision for you. If it's higher then, your limit is higher because if signing Stamkos at 11 or 12 million is still fundamentally a good decision that helps the team, why not do it?

 

There comes a point where that much future cap compared to his projected peak performance years is more risk than reward, IMO.  I want to see a tradeable asset not another Clarkson.

He's likely going to get a NMC, Clarkson may not have been an asset but he was traded ( and Horton's deal provides a bit of a cap valve in times of need ), and, you're saying that if the price is right sign Stamkos, ok, your limit is higher than mine and others.

 

[Kin]

Okay then change the word from naturally to ideally and it can all make sense.   

Well, no, because I still don't see how Stamkos in particular is required for the team to improve themselves via free agency.

If an team wants to improve through free agency, isn't it essential to go after the best players available to have the best chance of doing so successfully?

Not necessarily because all improvement is context based. If there's a 13 million UFA forward on the market and a 8 million dollar defenseman and a 6 million dollar goaltender then which of those players will improve a team the most obviously has just as much to do with the needs of a particular team as it does with the skills of the player. Especially when, as in the above example, a team could conceivably sign both the goaltender and the defenseman as opposed the forward.

We are one of the few teams with the highest future cap projections, so it is ideal in that situation as well.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the Leafs don't have much in the way of long term contracts? That we rank relatively highly in uncommitted cap space for any particular year? Because that doesn't seem to be overly relevant to the point here. Nobody is arguing that the Leafs shouldn't spend to the cap at some point, the difference of opinion is in how the team gets there and who the team spends the available cap space on.

There comes a point where that much future cap compared to his projected peak performance years is more risk than reward, IMO.

Right, we all agree on that. The difference is just in what that point is. Like I said though, I think you're largely at the same place I am if you think that point is 11 million or so.