Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

In the hand are Rielly and Kadri.  The first two knowns signed to long term prospects.  I guess you could say then, yes the top prospects (Nylander, Marner and soon-to-be Matthews) would be the flop, making Stamkos the turn, sure.

Perfect.  Possible Royal Flush.  Enough to keep you in the game, but still not enough to go all-in until you see the river, so more evaluation of what you now have is needed which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

Stamkos perfectly compliments the existing hand, but he still isn't the final piece.

Going off your logic, not mine. 

Well, no. In this case, Nylander, Marner, and the other prospects are the river that you're hoping turns up in your favour. They're the unknowns. And, if they don't show, they make the fact that Stamkos came up on the turn mostly useless.

Fine.  Then they make the most out of and play with the knowns of Rielly, Kadri, a flop of JVR, Gardiner, Komarov and turn of Stamkos while they hope for that final river card to be uncovered, not fold before the turn because to some it might be too risky because royal flushes are very rare.

 

[Coco-puffs]

Defining what is meant by 'contender' is a good idea here too. One of 2-4 teams that are predicted to have the strongest chance of winning the Cup, that's a contender in my mind. Sure an 8th seed can once in a while go deep, and even win, and that may happen in 3 or 4 years (consistent playoffs I mean, not an 8th seed Cup win), but to be one of the top 2-4 teams in the league? Much tougher to say. That may take 5+ years to happen, especially since the goal is not to get to that top tier for a year or two, but to consistently be there or close to the top tier for a much longer period of time.

That's basically the definition I was going by - to me, a contender is a team that is expected to be one of the strongest challengers for the Cup before the season begins. A team that should reasonably be expected to win their division, or, at the very least, earn home-ice advantage in the opening round.

I figured your thoughts were close to mine.

But it can be very tough to judge as a fan in the moment, I mean I could see the Leafs winning their division in 3-4 years, certainly earning home ice in 3-4 years, but I still don't think that's means they're necessarily a contender, at least not the level of contention that I want and expect.

The NBA this season was really easy. The Raptors, look how far they made it. Were they ever contenders? Not in my mind. Even from the start of the season, the goal was to reach the Conf finals and lose to the only contender in the East. Don't get me wrong, great season, great stepping stone for the future, although I'm not supremely confident they'll be able to take that next step, but that's another topic. The NBA contenders this season was a very short list, Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. That's what I want to see from the Leafs, will they be there in 4 years, highly unlikely, will they be well on their way? They freaking better be.

Since we are off topic.  OKC was definitely a contender as well- although their two superstars health problems over the past few years is what made some people skeptical coming into this season.  Hard to argue they weren't, considering they took out SA and were up 3-1 on GS in the Conference Finals.

But that said, comparing the NBA and NHL in terms of "contenders" is a tough one.  In the NBA, the chances of a team outside of those 4 contenders winning was essentially zero barring a crazy amount of injuries.  In the NHL, the Sharks were like 10th in the standings at the end of the regular season and weren't given much of a chance to get out of the Pacific division (ie first two rounds). 

 

[bustaheims]

Fine.  Then they make the most out of and play with the knowns of Rielly, Kadri, a flop of JVR, Gardiner, Komarov and turn of Stamkos while they hope for that final river card to be uncovered, not fold before the turn because to some it might be too risky because royal flushes are very rare.

No one is saying fold. We're saying you check until after the river, and bet on the hand you have, not the hand you hope you get.

 

[louisstamos]

It's the 04-05 lockout all over again. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Fine.  Then they make the most out of and play with the knowns of Rielly, Kadri, a flop of JVR, Gardiner, Komarov and turn of Stamkos while they hope for that final river card to be uncovered, not fold before the turn because to some it might be too risky because royal flushes are very rare.

No one is saying fold. We're saying you check until after the river, and bet on the hand you have, not the hand you hope you get.

No.  You just said Stamkos is the turn card, which he will be come July 1st, if he doesn't sign.  He fits into your hand. he fits into your opponent's hand.  You check.  Your opponent bets.  You have to call or fold before the river card comes out, looking at a potential royal flush.

One thing I wouldn't do is raise unless I'm bluffing.  I'm not ready to bluff, but I am ready to call.

 

[bustaheims]

No.  You just said Stamkos is the turn card, which he will be come July 1st, if he doesn't sign.  He fits into your hand. he fits into your opponent's hand.  You check.  Your opponent bets.  You have to call or fold before the river card comes out, looking at a potential royal flush.

One thing I wouldn't do is raise unless I'm bluffing.  I'm not ready to bluff, but I am ready to call.

Well, then you have to look at your odds, and consider how much you're willing to lose if/when your card doesn't fall on the river - since Stamkos only actually fits into your hand if it does. At this point, he's just potential, since a 4 card flush is worthless. In this situation, your opponent is basically putting you all in. Are you willing to make that call? Personally, knowing the odds are set against me in this situation, I prefer to live to see a hand that's more in my favour.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Defining what is meant by 'contender' is a good idea here too. One of 2-4 teams that are predicted to have the strongest chance of winning the Cup, that's a contender in my mind. Sure an 8th seed can once in a while go deep, and even win, and that may happen in 3 or 4 years (consistent playoffs I mean, not an 8th seed Cup win), but to be one of the top 2-4 teams in the league? Much tougher to say. That may take 5+ years to happen, especially since the goal is not to get to that top tier for a year or two, but to consistently be there or close to the top tier for a much longer period of time.

That's basically the definition I was going by - to me, a contender is a team that is expected to be one of the strongest challengers for the Cup before the season begins. A team that should reasonably be expected to win their division, or, at the very least, earn home-ice advantage in the opening round.

I figured your thoughts were close to mine.

But it can be very tough to judge as a fan in the moment, I mean I could see the Leafs winning their division in 3-4 years, certainly earning home ice in 3-4 years, but I still don't think that's means they're necessarily a contender, at least not the level of contention that I want and expect.

The NBA this season was really easy. The Raptors, look how far they made it. Were they ever contenders? Not in my mind. Even from the start of the season, the goal was to reach the Conf finals and lose to the only contender in the East. Don't get me wrong, great season, great stepping stone for the future, although I'm not supremely confident they'll be able to take that next step, but that's another topic. The NBA contenders this season was a very short list, Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. That's what I want to see from the Leafs, will they be there in 4 years, highly unlikely, will they be well on their way? They freaking better be.

Since we are off topic.  OKC was definitely a contender as well- although their two superstars health problems over the past few years is what made some people skeptical coming into this season.  Hard to argue they weren't, considering they took out SA and were up 3-1 on GS in the Conference Finals.

But that said, comparing the NBA and NHL in terms of "contenders" is a tough one.  In the NBA, the chances of a team outside of those 4 contenders winning was essentially zero barring a crazy amount of injuries.  In the NHL, the Sharks were like 10th in the standings at the end of the regular season and weren't given much of a chance to get out of the Pacific division (ie first two rounds).

Ya OKC was borderline to me, I won't argue against them being in the same tier as the other three though.

And I agree the leagues are built differently, way more parity in the NHL, but the NHL's equivalent is what I want for the Leafs. What's that? Reach the final 4 times in 10 years? Something along those lines. How important is Stamkos if we think like that? We want to make the finals 4 times between 2020-2030.

 

[TBLeafer]

No.  You just said Stamkos is the turn card, which he will be come July 1st, if he doesn't sign.  He fits into your hand. he fits into your opponent's hand.  You check.  Your opponent bets.  You have to call or fold before the river card comes out, looking at a potential royal flush.

One thing I wouldn't do is raise unless I'm bluffing.  I'm not ready to bluff, but I am ready to call.

Well, then you have to look at your odds, and consider how much you're willing to lose if/when your card doesn't fall on the river - since Stamkos only actually fits into your hand if it does. At this point, he's just potential, since a 4 card flush is worthless. In this situation, your opponent is basically putting you all in. Are you willing to make that call? Personally, knowing the odds are set against me in this situation, I prefer to live to see a hand that's more in my favour.

No your opponent isn't putting you all in, because based on future cap projections, you have more chips for additional hands than your opponent.  Your opponent is going all in before the river on THIS pot which would max out the chips you've budgeted yourself to spend on this hand given the risk and it isn't a royal flush yet come the turn, just a possible one and your opponent may already be sitting on three of a kind.

 

[bustaheims]

No your opponent isn't putting you all in, because based on future cap projections, you have more chips for additional hands than your opponent.  Your opponent is going all in before the river on THIS pot which would max out the chips you've budgeted yourself to spend on this hand given the risk and it isn't a royal flush yet come the turn, just a possible one and your opponent may already be sitting on three of a kind.

Exactly. Your opponent already has a hand, and is going to bet hard, no matter what. You don't, and you might never. The odds are heavily in his favour. You don't chase the royal flush. That's not how you made it to the final table, and that's not how you win tournaments.

 

[TBLeafer]

No your opponent isn't putting you all in, because based on future cap projections, you have more chips for additional hands than your opponent.  Your opponent is going all in before the river on THIS pot which would max out the chips you've budgeted yourself to spend on this hand given the risk and it isn't a royal flush yet come the turn, just a possible one and your opponent may already be sitting on three of a kind.

Exactly. Your opponent already has a hand, and is going to bet hard, no matter what. You don't, and you might never. The odds are heavily in his favour. You don't chase the royal flush. That's not how you made it to the final table, and that's not how you win tournaments.

I beg to differ.  Luck and risk are involved at every turn on your way to making the final table to begin with.

 

[bustaheims]

I beg to differ.  Luck and risk are involved at every turn on your way to making the final table to begin with.

Luck and calculated risk. Not calling an opponent who's betting heavily when you have the worst possible odds in the game.

And, you can stop with that Maverick gif. He made the call on that hand because he knew that the card he needed was at the bottom of the deck. It does not apply here in the slightest.

 

[Kin]

The concept of metaphors needs to file a restraining order against this thread.

 

[Frank E]

It seems as though the arguments are coming down to 2 camps:

1. Camp that wants Stamkos to be a part of the core group of talent to build with. 
2. Camp that believes Stamkos will impede the organic progress of the build, and is an unnecessary luxury at this point given uncertainty of bona fide elite talent drafted (or about to draft).

Is that about right?

 

[TBLeafer]

I beg to differ.  Luck and risk are involved at every turn on your way to making the final table to begin with.

Luck and calculated risk. Not calling an opponent who's betting heavily when you have the worst possible odds in the game.

And, you can stop with that Maverick gif. He made the call on that hand because he knew that the card he needed was at the bottom of the deck. It does not apply here in the slightest.

No.  It was magic.  A new deck and a new shuffle, by a new dealer.

We already have a magician. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

It seems as though the arguments are coming down to 2 camps:

1. Camp that wants Stamkos to be a part of the core group of talent to build with. 
2. Camp that believes Stamkos will impede the organic progress of the build, and is an unnecessary luxury at this point given uncertainty of bona fide elite talent drafted (or about to draft).

Is that about right?

I figure its right if it is NOT based on potential salary.

Once the salary is introduced then I think that there is a splintering in the 1st camp as well.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Fine.  Then they make the most out of and play with the knowns of Rielly, Kadri, a flop of JVR, Gardiner, Komarov and turn of Stamkos while they hope for that final river card to be uncovered, not fold before the turn because to some it might be too risky because royal flushes are very rare.

No one is saying fold. We're saying you check until after the river, and bet on the hand you have, not the hand you hope you get.

Think how much more damage you could do in the game if you had another $10-11 million dollars to play with...

And I agree with Nik, this is one of the worst analogies ever (no offense).

 

[bustaheims]

And I agree with Nik, this is one of the worst analogies ever (no offense).

It's not my metaphor, I just played it out to its logical conclusion.

 

[bustaheims]

We already have a magician. 

There's no magician in the Leafs' head office. There's a bunch of guys who know how to take advantage of other team's mistakes instead of making their own.

 

[TBLeafer]

It seems as though the arguments are coming down to 2 camps:

1. Camp that wants Stamkos to be a part of the core group of talent to build with. 
2. Camp that believes Stamkos will impede the organic progress of the build, and is an unnecessary luxury at this point given uncertainty of bona fide elite talent drafted (or about to draft).

Is that about right?

I figure its right if it is NOT based on potential salary.

Once the salary is introduced then I think that there is a splintering in the 1st camp as well.

Only those that are scared that Shannyco won't be reasonable with their money.

 

[TBLeafer]

We already have a magician. 

There's no magician in the Leafs' head office. There's a bunch of guys who know how to take advantage of other team's mistakes instead of making their own.

You mean like Tampa failing to get a deal done for Stamkos?