Steve Stamkos?

[herman]

I was taking issue with this:

...until we are in position to strike on the free agency or trade markets because the team is already a playoff contender and needs a small push to get into Championship contention, which is pretty much in line with what Shanahan, Dubas, Babcock, and Lou have been saying since they got here

Leafs Management didn't say they would wait until the team was better to make team improving trades or free agent acquisitions.  They said they would do it when the right opportunity presents itself, including signing free agents they feel fit into the team THIS YEAR (and next year).

I wasn't referring to improvement trades/free agent signings in general. I was referring to splashes (e.g. Stamkos). The kind of signing or trades that the former management teams touted as winning moves (Lindros, Kessel, Phaneuf, the play for Richards, Bolland, Clarkson, etc.). Sorry if that wasn't clear!

 

[Kin]

Leafs Management didn't say they would wait until the team was better to make team improving trades or free agent acquisitions.  They said they would do it when the right opportunity presents itself, including signing free agents they feel fit into the team THIS YEAR (and next year).

It's a meaningless distinction because of the "when the right opportunity presents itself". If someone asked me if I was going to buy a boat this summer my answer wouldn't be "No, that's crazy I don't really like boats and I can't afford one" but rather "Sure, if the right opportunity presents itself" because it's non-committal and doesn't rule anything out. I can dismiss everything as "the wrong opportunity".

Again, when parsing public comments made by executives we have to keep in mind that the team is walking a balancing act between tempering fan and media expectations while not validating or endorsing failure because that's a very dangerous message to send to players.

Any team in any situation can say they'll do something "if the right opportunity presents itself" and not actually have a particular course in mind. A team that plans on being competitive quickly, however, has no reason to keep hammering home that the process they're looking at is likely to be a slow one. For evidence of that you can see all sorts of GM's whose teams aren't in great situations saying "We plan on being competitive next year".

 

[Bill_Berg]

Shannahan says in Coco's link that they want an era of success, not just a window. If the Leafs signed Stamkos, they may indeed end up competing for a Cup at some point, but I wonder how much it would impede on having an era of success. The injuries are a concern if Stamkos' production dwindles in 4 years and we're trying to sign the slew of young guys. Cap space could very well become an issue, especially if an opportunity to take a high profile G or D comes into play. Now suddenly we're looking at dropping young guys because we have an older Stamkos taking up significant cap space. That sounds like the path to a window at best rather than an era.

 

[TBLeafer]

I like this one:

In his own end-of-season PTS appearance, Shanahan reminded the world that it was never the organization's intent to rebuild slowly. Shanahan stressed that a team cannot build via draft alone.

"You also have to make good trades. That's how we acquired a guy like [Zach] Hyman. You also have to make good signings," said the Leafs president. "You can't just do it one way. You have to be nimble. You have to be an organization that can do it in a lot of different ways."

Sure, but that's the fundamental problem with the "If we have another top 5 pick that makes us just like Edmonton!" that keeps getting repeated. Nobody is advocating just building through the draft. That serves as a counter part to nobody. I've said many, many times on the board that they should trade JVR this summer, hopefully for either a very good defensive prospect or for another high pick in this year's draft. Likewise, every single person who's responded to you here hasn't rejected the idea of signing Stamkos simply because he's a UFA and UFA's should never be signed, every single person has said that one of the reasons they're not in favour of signing Stamkos is that he will take up cap space the Leafs could use to sign other UFA's that might be better suited to the players they've acquired via the draft when the time is right.

So the idea of a team building through all three avenues isn't something you have a claim to or is a meaningful rebuttal to anything anyone's said. You just continue to ignore every single element of context in the argument in favour of saying that paying any attention to what he says about the process being a slow one akin to advocating that the team becomes the Edmonton Oilers.

What about trading Komarov who at an all time career high an even better cap value, especially where a budget team is concerned could land us nearly as decent a piece?

 

[rdowdall]

Teams should not plan their builds around who might come up in free agency. Not only is it uncontrollable who makes it to market, it is usually the most expensive route to acquire players of an attractive caliber.

The type of patience some of us here are preaching has to do with taking the path that opens more options with acceptable risk, until we are in position to strike on the free agency or trade markets because the team is already a playoff contender and needs a small push to get into Championship contention, which is pretty much in line with what Shanahan, Dubas, Babcock, and Lou have been saying since they got here.

These seasons of focusing on development and the process over outright winning, of holding off on making free agent splashes or big trades, are exactly the pain that Babcock referred to in his first presser. It's how championship teams are forged.

Actually, Shanahan et al have said they want to improve this team as quickly as possible without hampering their long term vision for the team- which is to have an ERA of success, not just a window. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL9jMl6e_tM

They want to bring in the people they believe will help achieve that vision, not when they are already a good team- but when the right opportunity presents itself.  Hence signing Babcock, hence probably trying to sign Stamkos.

Good to know someone else is paying attention to EVERYTHING being said. 

This coming from the person who ignores huge swaths of peoples posts when it suits their narrative.  If you didn't like the type of person who degrades others on the older forums that you posted on, then why are you being that person?

I'm not ignoring.  Just choosing not to respond to redundant wheel spinning.

Degrading?  How?  Its just a fact that some here ignore the whole picture here and zero in on that which suits their narrative.

And if I missed something someone wanted a response to from me, forgive me.  How do you set up quote notifications here?  I haven't figured it out so I may have missed a post here and there when someone quoted me.

Your implying that Herman isn't paying attention and that he isn't on the ball, when the exact opposite is true.  And in fact, if you paid attention to EVERYTHING, then you would realise that Herman is trying to take all of the sides of this debate in and hasn't really come down on either side yet.  In fact in another thread he encouraged you to post a response in this thread because he thought it was a decent point of view. 

To say that he doesn't pay attention to EVERYTHING in big bold letters is somewhat insulting considering that he has been trying to account for both sides of the argument since this thread started.

People have asked you pointed questions about where and how the Leafs are going to flush out the defence and the goaltending on their roster based on your plan, which you just ignore.  You ignore the whole "How are the Leafs going to account for their deficiencies?" in your plan question.

No, not at all.  I stressed patience, not jettisoning picks and prospects just because we acquire Stamkos.  I said that Stammer has to agree to go along with the Shanaplan and that it doesn't all of a sudden become the Stammerplan and BTW that post got completely "ignored" too, but I don't ever hold anything against anyone for "ignoring" posts on a forum, especially ones I can't figure out how to get quote notifications on.

I just here to talk, cheer and debate about my favourite sports team and have fun.

And people then bring up the next fact about the timeline associated with that.  That the impact that Stamkos will have on the ability to acquire talent through the draft because as you draft lower, the prospects take longer to mature, and they may not be as good as the prospects at the front of the draft.  It's the trade off of if you add a talent like Stamkos to the forward ranks now, how are you now going to balance that talent on the defensive and goaltending ranks later because you may end up top heavy.  You may end up top heavy because the Leafs organisational strengths lie in the forward position right now, and there isn't a whole lot in the pipeline where defence and goaltending are considered.  And all of this assumes that the prospects that the Leafs have are going to turn out.  So how do you get around that timeline problem?  The fact that a player taken at 14th, 15th or 16th is probably 5 years out before the start making a major impact at the NHL level, while a player taken 1st, 2nd or 3rd can make a major impact in a couple of years. 

To me, your post came off as condescending to Herman.  I didn't think he deserved that so I said something.   

 

[bustaheims]

When precisely did you change your viewpoint?  Before or after we drafted Matthews?

Considering there is no "after" yet . . .

 

[Kin]

What about trading Komarov who at an all time career high an even better cap value, especially where a budget team is concerned could land us nearly as decent a piece?

I don't believe either of those things are true. Komarov's second half scoring slump pretty firmly established that his first half was something of a fluke and as a result, I don't think his value is particularly high. You could probably get something for him but nothing close to the high value you could get for JVR.

As a result while I have no problem with trading Komarov, I also don't think it's a big deal either way. He's not likely to fetch a big return or play a big role here during the length of his contract.

 

[TBLeafer]

When precisely did you change your viewpoint?  Before or after we drafted Matthews?

Considering there is no "after" yet . . .

*cough I mean "won the lottery!"  :-[

 

[herman]

When precisely did you change your viewpoint?  Before or after we drafted Matthews?

I started weighing in on the topic Dec 2015.

My concern at the time was Stamkos' longevity and whether or not he would be worthy of a Toews-like contract, which migrated rather quickly to:

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.

Then after eating some hype:

I was also iffy at first, what with our recent team history, and other highly touted players from Tampa Bay moving on and floundering, but I see that is an emotional response to generally unrelated things.

It's a crazy opportunity to get a superstar from 26 to 33.

I can see us moving some above-average spare parts (they still like Panik, right?) and picks prior to the Draft to get dibs on signing him (freeing up some contract slots).

and

Just here to feed the hype: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2015/12/10/9886594/can-the-leafs-afford-steven-stamkos

After a great deal of speculation and theoretical GMing:

The Leafs probably have the available capacity to sign Stamkos to a huge contract but doing so is going to mean competing for the cup with a very young team as there won't be much available cap space for free agents.

If Nylander and Marner both earn big dollars in their first RFA period, there could be $25M committed to them plus Stamkos meaning depth players will need to be on entry level contracts or near league minimum (assuming some other prospects like Brown, Johnson, Bracco, Timashov turn into decent players). We'll be into Chicago Blackhawks territory cap-wise so hopefully three Stanley Cups come with it.

It will be tough to keep Kadri and Gardiner long term and moving Phaneuf could be the saving grace. It's also interesting though that the cap crunch probably won't come for several years down the road, giving the Leafs plenty of time to figure out how to navigate the waters.

If we move 2 of Kadri/Gardiner/JvR at this upcoming deadline, then Stamkos is even more of a no-brainer acquisition. I think JvR goes for sure, what with his NMC kicking in next year, and his peak years lining up against our rebuild years. I think Gardiner has the highest chance of staying as he plays a position we don't have much beyond Rielly and potentially Dermott. Kadri will have a crazy thread devoted to his contract conversation near the deadline and draft if he makes it that far.

Moving Bozak/Lupul/Phaneuf would be coups even with very modest returns coming back. We can eat shorter term higher cap hits this year easily.

I think Pridham can make it work. I don't think Stamkos will even be allowed to entertain a hometown discount possibility, as like David Price, the Players Association will be pressuring him to set the market.

Then there was a quiet period where we were just watching Stamkos. July was still so far away, so the hype faded into the background and I focused on the Tank, and then the Matthews vs Laine debate. At this time, I thought Stamkos was basically a shoo-in and started planning to see where he would fit.

More recently (off-season thoughts), I drifted back to my initial assessment, but now they were firmer based on where the team would be drafting and taking into account the effect and affect on the rest of the line up and player acquisition requirements.

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"

I'm not entirely anti-Stamkos, but that is pretty much where I stand on this.

I'd love to have Stamkos in the right context: 8M AAV (or less!), Matthews, Marner, Nylander already in their primes; #1D and #1G already firmly established; Since the timelines don't really match up, and the rest of the cast isn't quite there, I'm okay holding off on blowing significant cap space on 1 really good player. If this thread was about McDavid, then please throw him all the moneys. Sadly it isn't.

Getting Stamkos or any single premier UFA too soon only hurts the team (esp. rebuilding phase draft position). The UFA market is the most cost-inefficient route to building a team core.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I wasn't aware of this clip before, thanks! Definitely illuminating.
I can understand why people would interpret that to mean 'Stamkos is Coming'.

Here are some ways the Leafs have been building the team as fast as possible:
- shrewd short-term UFA signings (with good character) to generate draft picks and insulate developing players
- trading off Cap-heavy contracts (Kessel, Phaneuf, etc.) and always trying to get close-to-NHL prospects out of their returns (Kapanen, Lindberg, and in other trades: Leipsic, C. Carrick)
- trading down picks for more picks

This has led to layers of skilled/high potential prospects in staggered tiers. It's the engine of a team's development program.

Yes, Shanahan said if there's a good player out there, they'll pursue him, but always with the caveat of 'fitting the long term plan'.

I don't even interpret it as "Stamkos is coming".  What I interpret it as is they will not avoid signing him because the team isn't ready to contend yet.  They want to improve this team as fast as possible without mortgaging the future.  If they feel he fits in as a player (who knows, maybe they don't think that he would fit) then they speak to his agent and see if they can agree on a contract.  His demands may be too high for them and they move on.  At the same time, its entirely possible he signs here at a decent price- taking a "hometown discount" because he wants to be a Leaf.  Pipe-dreams, I know.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that Stamkos fits the long term plan. It has so far always been the Leafs adjusting their plan to fit Stamkos.

1.  He provides veteran leadership and insulates our young potential stars in one of the toughest hockey markets on the planet.

2.  He will sign here for 7 years minimum.  He will still be an elite player for that amount of time (its been proven Elite players don't drop off into their early 30's).  Even if it takes 3-4 years to be a good team- he's still here for 3-4 more leading the team on many playoff runs.

3.  I don't see how management needs to adjust their plan around Stamkos.  Either way, they still need to address needs on Defense and in Goal.  Signing Stamkos doesn't change that, nor does it mean they need to mortgage the future to do so! 

4.  The best thing for the Leafs is to accumulate as many ELITE or potentially ELITE assets as possible.  Right now, that list includes Matthews, Marner, Reilly, and Nylander.  Everyone else in the system or on the team aren't in that conversation.  Stamkos would add another name to it. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Then there was a quiet period where we were just watching Stamkos. July was still so far away, so the hype faded into the background and I focused on the Tank, and then the Matthews vs Laine debate. At this time, I thought Stamkos was basically a shoo-in and started planning to see where he would fit.

More recently (off-season thoughts), I drifted back to my initial assessment, but now they were firmer based on where the team would be drafting and taking into account the effect and affect on the rest of the line up and player acquisition requirements.

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"

I'm not entirely anti-Stamkos, but that is pretty much where I stand on this.

I'd love to have Stamkos in the right context: 8M AAV (or less!), Matthews, Marner, Nylander already in their primes; #1D and #1G already firmly established; Since the timelines don't really match up, and the rest of the cast isn't quite there, I'm okay holding off on blowing significant cap space on 1 really good player. If this thread was about McDavid, then please throw him all the moneys. Sadly it isn't.

Getting Stamkos or any single premier UFA too soon only hurts the team (esp. rebuilding phase draft position). The UFA market is the most cost-inefficient route to building a team core.

I see. I guess I just will never share the viewpoint of "hurt the team" or "ruin the rebuild" or "cap strap the team" in any way shape or form.

As for my position on Stamkos potentially continuing to decline, I will go back to my post that was never commented on.

How does a player with one of the hardest, most accurate shots in the known hockey world continue to decline with shrinking goalie equipment?

I don't think signing Stamkos does anything but move the same rebuild along the same path, potentially reach the same end goal a little quicker.

This is a bad thing, why?

I don't think Pittsburgh is too worried about the holes in their D anymore ATM.

 

[Kin]

I don't think signing Stamkos does anything but move the same rebuild along the same path, potentially reach the same end goal a little quicker.

This is a bad thing, why?

See, this is what is meant when people say you're being disingenuous or just ignoring what other people are saying. Nobody thinks that's a bad thing, people fundamentally disagree with the premise that that would be the result of signing Stamkos.

Yours is a position, as we've gone over, that relies on everyone the Leafs having already drafted becoming everything we could possibly want them to be without any even consideration of what happens if that doesn't come to that precise conclusion.

You can think everything is going to work out fantastically in every possible case and that's great, there's no fundamental problem with optimism, but don't confuse it for a rational argument.

I don't think Pittsburgh is too worried about the holes in their D anymore ATM.

The problem with using Pittsburgh as a comparable is that their level of forward talent is so much higher than anyone else's that it's not a realistic model to follow no matter what happens in the draft. We don't have Sid Crosby on the team and aren't likely to have anyone who resembles that.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think signing Stamkos does anything but move the same rebuild along the same path, potentially reach the same end goal a little quicker.

This is a bad thing, why?

See, this is what is meant when people say you're being disingenuous or just ignoring what other people are saying. Nobody thinks that's a bad thing, people fundamentally disagree with the premise that that would be the result of signing Stamkos.

Yours is a position, as we've gone over, that relies on everyone the Leafs having already drafted becoming everything we could possibly want them to be without any even consideration of what happens if that doesn't come to that precise conclusion.

You can think everything is going to work out fantastically in every possible case and that's great, there's no fundamental problem with optimism, but don't confuse it for a rational argument.

I don't think Pittsburgh is too worried about the holes in their D anymore ATM.

The problem with using Pittsburgh as a comparable is that their level of forward talent is so much higher than anyone else's that it's not a realistic model to follow no matter what happens in the draft. We don't have Sid Crosby on the team and aren't likely to have anyone who resembles that.

It just isn't rational to people who believe it won't go down that way.

Stamkos
Matthews
Marner

Crosby
Malkin
Kessel

The Penguins of today can be the Leafs of tomorrow.

Nothing wrong with projecting rationally based on talent.

 

[Kin]

It just isn't rational to people who believe it won't go down that way.

Rationality is not countered by belief.

Source: The Enlightenment

Stamkos
Matthews
Marner

Crosby
Malkin
Kessel

The Penguins of today can be the Leafs of tomorrow.

Stamkos is not as good as Crosby. Not now, not ever. Then, with the other two, again it's a position based on two draft picks who've never played a single game in the league succeeding beyond reasonable expectations with no consideration for what happens if they don't.

Again, it is about possibilities and probabilities and making sure that whatever the plan is it accounts for the likelihood that things aren't going to go exactly the way you want.

 

[ZBBM]

Rationality is not countered by belief.

Source: The Enlightenment

Well done, Diderot.  ;D

 

[TBLeafer]

It just isn't rational to people who believe it won't go down that way.

Rationality is not countered by belief.

Source: The Enlightenment

Stamkos
Matthews
Marner

Crosby
Malkin
Kessel

The Penguins of today can be the Leafs of tomorrow.

Stamkos is not as good as Crosby. Not now, not ever. Then, with the other two, again it's a position based on two draft picks who've never played a single game in the league succeeding beyond reasonable expectations with no consideration for what happens if they don't.

Again, it is about possibilities and probabilities and making sure that whatever the plan is it accounts for the likelihood that things aren't going to go exactly the way you want.

Except your arguments are rationalized any more or less to one truly objective. They are rationalized based on your belief. Funny how that works.

Either build with or without Stamkos is being built around unproven NHL'ers just the same.

Might as well be with.

 

[Tigger]

It just isn't rational to people who believe it won't go down that way.

Rationality is not countered by belief.

Source: The Enlightenment

Stamkos
Matthews
Marner

Crosby
Malkin
Kessel

The Penguins of today can be the Leafs of tomorrow.

Stamkos is not as good as Crosby. Not now, not ever. Then, with the other two, again it's a position based on two draft picks who've never played a single game in the league succeeding beyond reasonable expectations with no consideration for what happens if they don't.

Again, it is about possibilities and probabilities and making sure that whatever the plan is it accounts for the likelihood that things aren't going to go exactly the way you want.

Except your arguments are rationalized any more or less to one truly objective. They are rationalized based on your belief. Funny how that works.

Either build with or without Stamkos is being built around unproven NHL'ers just the same.

Might as well be with.

Acknowledging unknowns is not a rationalization of belief.

 

[TBLeafer]

It just isn't rational to people who believe it won't go down that way.

Rationality is not countered by belief.

Source: The Enlightenment

Stamkos
Matthews
Marner

Crosby
Malkin
Kessel

The Penguins of today can be the Leafs of tomorrow.

Stamkos is not as good as Crosby. Not now, not ever. Then, with the other two, again it's a position based on two draft picks who've never played a single game in the league succeeding beyond reasonable expectations with no consideration for what happens if they don't.

Again, it is about possibilities and probabilities and making sure that whatever the plan is it accounts for the likelihood that things aren't going to go exactly the way you want.

Except your arguments are rationalized any more or less to one truly objective. They are rationalized based on your belief. Funny how that works.

Either build with or without Stamkos is being built around unproven NHL'ers just the same.

Might as well be with.

Acknowledging unknowns is not a rationalization of belief.

No? Just building around them before adding someone proven if they come available is?

 

[Kin]

Except your arguments are rationalized any more or less to one truly objective.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense.

They are rationalized based on your belief. Funny how that works.

What belief? That we don't know how Marner or Matthew or Zaitsev or Carrick will eventually develop? That's not a belief, that's a fact. We don't know with certainty.

Either build with or without Stamkos is being built around unproven NHL'ers just the same.

No, because what I've said consistently throughout this whole thing is that you don't really start building the team until the "unproven" NHL'ers prove themselves. I'm not committing the team to building around anyone in particular. You're the one who's said that Rielly-Nylander-Marner-Matthews are definitely going to be the core of a championship team. I'm saying that we don't know and shouldn't assume. Those aren't two sides of one coin.

 

[Tigger]

No? Just building around them before adding someone proven if they come available is?

I don't think anyone is suggesting building anything of significance around unknowns.