Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

Prepare to moan haters. He's a-comin'.

Disagree. He's going to St Louis.

Disagree.  He's coming HOME.

 

[Kin]

Because as so obviously discussed, we live in a salary cap world and there is a point between which Stamkos becomes an asset or an anchor.

I don't think that's true. There's a point at which a great player's contract might be less efficient or sub-optimal but to me an "anchor" is paying a lot of money for someone who's not helping the team win, not a fantastic elite #1 center who's maybe getting one or two million more than you'd ideally like.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Yeah, I don't really know how to say it any plainer. It's not that I think the team doesn't have the cap room to sign Stamkos, it's that I think the room he'll take up will be better spent in the future when the team has a better idea of what they have.

Yup. He doesn't handcuff the team now, but he almost certainly will when they actually need the cap space.

We almost certainly can't know that.

 

[Kin]

I still like Detroit.

 

[sneakyray]

thats a total of 98 million dollars of overall salary over 10 years.  It would be a way for stamkos to become a leaf for the rest of his career (if thats what he wants) and still make more money than if he signed for 10 plus over 7 years.

Except ultimately he'd make about the same. If he signed for something like 80 million over 7 years then at 33 he could sign a 3 year deal and make, you'd think, at least the extra 18 million. He could structure the 80 million however he'd want too so he could still get paid 28 in the first two years.

In your situation Stamkos is a 14 million dollar cap hit for years 1 and 2  and then a 8.75 cap hit every year after that. In mine Stamkos is a 11.5 cap hit in years 1-7 and then 6 or so in years 8,9 and 10.

So he's actually a lower cap hit in his later years in mine. Also my deal is less risk for Stamkos(he guarantees the big contract right away rather than risk injury) and the Leafs(who don't risk losing him in two years if he's unhappy).

yeah but under your deal he makes 2.75 more through the meat of the deal right during the years where toronto is supposed to be competetive.  Although admittedly I basically picked my numbers out of thin air but my point is he gets paid big money when the team is still crap to give a modest discount when they're competitive.

Also, if stamkos was that worried about stability in regards to injury risk he would have signed an extension with tampa...assuming they offered him north of 8 million as has been rumoured.

If he is confident he can get 10 plus this year after his well publicized injury issues than why not again in a year or two.  I don't think its that much of a risk for him.

 

[Kin]

We almost certainly can't know that.

That projection you linked to sure seemed to say that signing Stamkos(and things like an unnamed #1 goalie for 6 million) left the team with essentially no money to make further outside additions to the club once everyone's off their ELC.

 

[TBLeafer]

Because as so obviously discussed, we live in a salary cap world and there is a point between which Stamkos becomes an asset or an anchor.

I don't think that's true. There's a point at which a great player's contract might be less efficient or sub-optimal but to me an "anchor" is paying a lot of money for someone who's not helping the team win, not a fantastic elite #1 center who's maybe getting one or two million more than you'd ideally like.

Kessel was an anchor on the Leafs.  He was overpaid for what he brought and we had to eat cap to get rid of him.

If you have to eat cap to trade a player, that player is an anchor.

We basically had to eat all of Clarkson's AAV cap hit to trade him.  Fortunately the term is shorter with Horton.

If it came time to trade Stamkos over the term of his contract if better players ended up developing and emerging on the Leafs, I wouldn't want the Leafs to have to eat cap with Stamkos, like they had to with Kessel.

 

[bustaheims]

so the leafs are getting backes?

I doubt that, too. He'll end up somewhere like Nashville, I think. I don't see the Leafs being a major player in free agency. A couple short-term depth signings - some with an eye to meeting the requirements for players exposed in the expansion draft - but, that's probably it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

We almost certainly can't know that.

That projection you linked to sure seemed to say that signing Stamkos(and things like an unnamed #1 goalie for 6 million) left the team with essentially no money to make further outside additions to the club once everyone's off their ELC.

If it is the one I am thinking I linked to (without going back and looking) it concluded:

Projecting forward the Leafs? core talent shows there should be a reasonable amount of room in the Leafs? cap space for him, while keeping roughly ~30% of their salary cap to be allocated outside the top ~10 players on the team.

Read more at: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

That is with a conservative estimate of what the cap may be (and some would say a conservative estimate of what some contracts might be, so maybe it's a wash there).

 

[sneakyray]

so the leafs are getting backes?

I doubt that, too. He'll end up somewhere like Nashville, I think. I don't see the Leafs being a major player in free agency. A couple short-term depth signings - some with an eye to meeting the requirements for players exposed in the expansion draft - but, that's probably it.

sorry I should have added a  :  I was joking.

 

[Kin]

yeah but under your deal he makes 2.75 more through the meat of the deal right during the years where toronto is supposed to be competetive.  Although admittedly I basically picked my numbers out of thin air but my point is he gets paid big money when the team is still crap to give a modest discount when they're competitive.

In my foolishly optimistic mind, the team will still be competitive in years 8, 9 and 10 too so it's really just shifting the problem rather than addressing it.

Also, if stamkos was that worried about stability in regards to injury risk he would have signed an extension with tampa...assuming they offered him north of 8 million as has been rumoured.

I didn't say worry over injury would be his primary concern, just that my scenario is less risky for him. Tampa's deal almost certainly has him leaving 15-20 million on the table.

If he is confident he can get 10 plus this year after his well publicized injury issues than why not again in a year or two.  I don't think its that much of a risk for him.

Because concern over injuries is a cumulative thing. If his blood clots re-occur or he breaks a leg and isn't the same player, things change. It's the risk inherent in any hockey player's decision-making process. That doesn't mean it'll be the only determining factor, just a factor.

 

[TBLeafer]

We almost certainly can't know that.

That projection you linked to sure seemed to say that signing Stamkos(and things like an unnamed #1 goalie for 6 million) left the team with essentially no money to make further outside additions to the club once everyone's off their ELC.

If it is the one I am thinking I linked to (without going back and looking) it concluded:

Projecting forward the Leafs? core talent shows there should be a reasonable amount of room in the Leafs? cap space for him, while keeping roughly ~30% of their salary cap to be allocated outside the top ~10 players on the team.

Read more at: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

That is with a conservative estimate of what the cap may be (and some would say a conservative estimate of what some contracts might be, so maybe it's a wash there).

That article doesn't work here.  I've tried. 

 

[Kin]

If it is the one I am thinking I linked to (without going back and looking) it concluded:

Projecting forward the Leafs? core talent shows there should be a reasonable amount of room in the Leafs? cap space for him, while keeping roughly ~30% of their salary cap to be allocated outside the top ~10 players on the team.

Read more at: https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

That is with a conservative estimate of what the cap may be (and some would say a conservative estimate of what some contracts might be, so maybe it's a wash there).

Without wanting to speak for busta I think that's his point though. It concluded there was room for him, not room for him and another significant UFA signing when the team is a little more ready down the line. That's certainly what I mean when I say it handcuffs the team. If, a few years down the road, the team discovers they still need a #1 defenseman and one's available as a UFA then you can't sign Stamkos and have room for that guy.

 

[Kin]

Kessel was an anchor on the Leafs.  He was overpaid for what he brought and we had to eat cap to get rid of him.

I'm not going to get into the semantics of what does or doesn't make someone an anchor because it's not a specific term but the issue with Kessel was his play. It wasn't "he's playing fantastically, but he's being paid too much". They "had" to eat salary because he had limited NTC control and Pittsburgh couldn't get their guys to waive their NTC's to come here, not that they didn't want Kessel at 8 million. They just couldn't fit him at that point and still do what they wanted elsewhere.

Also I really don't think you understand what went on with the Clarkson trade.

 

[sneakyray]

yeah but under your deal he makes 2.75 more through the meat of the deal right during the years where toronto is supposed to be competetive.  Although admittedly I basically picked my numbers out of thin air but my point is he gets paid big money when the team is still crap to give a modest discount when they're competitive.

In my foolishly optimistic mind, the team will still be competitive in years 8, 9 and 10 too so it's really just shifting the problem rather than addressing it.

Also, if stamkos was that worried about stability in regards to injury risk he would have signed an extension with tampa...assuming they offered him north of 8 million as has been rumoured.

I didn't say worry over injury would be his primary concern, just that my scenario is less risky for him. Tampa's deal almost certainly has him leaving 15-20 million on the table.

If he is confident he can get 10 plus this year after his well publicized injury issues than why not again in a year or two.  I don't think its that much of a risk for him.

Because concern over injuries is a cumulative thing. If his blood clots re-occur or he breaks a leg and isn't the same player, things change. It's the risk inherent in any hockey player's decision-making process. That doesn't mean it'll be the only determining factor, just a factor.

a few things:

#1 be careful nik...I'm not sure you are allowed to be optimistic on this board, you're too mean remember? 

#2 my contract proposal was meant to be attractive for stamkos in that he makes more money when the team is still bad and less when they're good.  It would be the same in my eyes if he wanted to go to anaheim for 2 years and then come to toronto for a more cap friendly deal then but it was just meant to be an answer to the question of why would stamkos come to toronto now?

#3  When you mentioned the risk for stamkos you specifically said  risk of injury so thats what I was responding to.

 

[TBLeafer]

Kessel was an anchor on the Leafs.  He was overpaid for what he brought and we had to eat cap to get rid of him.

I'm not going to get into the semantics of what does or doesn't make someone an anchor because it's not a specific term but the issue with Kessel was his play. It wasn't "he's playing fantastically, but he's being paid too much". They "had" to eat salary because he had limited NTC control and Pittsburgh couldn't get their guys to waive their NTC's to come here, not that they didn't want Kessel at 8 million. They just couldn't fit him at that point and still do what they wanted elsewhere.

Also I really don't think you understand what went on with the Clarkson trade.

Oh, I think I do.  Stop pretending your word is God.  It is an opinion like any other.

CBJ initiated the Clarkson trade, because they are too much of a budget team to eat that salary on a player not playing.

 

[bustaheims]

Without wanting to speak for busta I think that's his point though. It concluded there was room for him, not room for him and another significant UFA signing when the team is a little more ready down the line. That's certainly what I mean when I say it handcuffs the team. If, a few years down the road, the team discovers they still need a #1 defenseman and one's available as a UFA then you can't sign Stamkos and have room for that guy.

Basically, yeah. It doesn't put the Leafs into the kind of cap quandary the Hawks have found themselves in, but it definitely limits their ability to add top flight pieces in areas of need without having to subtract core pieces elsewhere simply to make the cap work. I'd also add that those projections are based on the cap increasing at a rate that far from guaranteed - and, let's not forget, that assuming Las Vegas is getting a team (which looks probable), the league's share of revenue will now have to divided into 31 pieces to determine the cap range, not 30. In order to simply maintain the cap at the level it is now, the Vegas team would to bring in ~$125M in revenue - a number more than half the teams in the league fall below or just barely meet.

 

[Kin]

#3  When you mentioned the risk for stamkos you specifically said  risk of injury so thats what I was responding to.

Right, and what I'm saying is that taking a shorter term deal is risky for all players, to say nothing of someone with an injury history. It's a factor in why signing a long term deal(which, again, can be structured however) would be more attractive, it wasn't meant to be the be all and end all in my point.

 

[Kin]

Oh, I think I do.  Stop pretending your word is God.  It is an opinion like any other.

CBJ initiated the Clarkson trade, because they are too much of a budget team to eat that salary on a player not playing.

You said:

We basically had to eat all of Clarkson's AAV cap hit to trade him.  Fortunately the term is shorter with Horton.

But the Leafs don't have to eat any cap hit. The whole point of the deal was that with Horton on LTIR they can still spend to the cap on actual players and just absorb Horton's salary.

Also, the terms on their deals are identical. I don't speak for god, my bible is NHLnumbers.

 

[TBLeafer]

Oh, I think I do.  Stop pretending your word is God.  It is an opinion like any other.

CBJ initiated the Clarkson trade, because they are too much of a budget team to eat that salary on a player not playing.

You said:

We basically had to eat all of Clarkson's AAV cap hit to trade him.  Fortunately the term is shorter with Horton.

But the Leafs don't have to eat any cap hit. The whole point of the deal was that with Horton on LTIR they can still spend to the cap on actual players and just absorb Horton's salary.

Also, the terms on their deals are identical. I don't speak for god, my bible is NHLnumbers.

In the offseason, Horton counts against the cap.  We are in the offseason.