Steve Stamkos?

[bustaheims]

Oh its coming...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-shrinking-goaltending-equipment-starting-next-season/article29247009/

Possibly as early as the World Cup.

More holes are guaranteed to be created.

It still hasn't been approved by the PA, the BoG, or the competition committee. There are still a lot of hoops to be jumped through before the changes actually happen. I'm sure there's going to be some sort of change to goaltending equipment. What we don't know is the actual extent of those changes, or the impact they'll actually have.

 

[Kin]

Good to know then, that Stamkos would only have three years remaining on his contract once he turns 30. 

Yeah, I didn't say that Hull's decline started at 30 but points for effort.

 

[bustaheims]

'Thats ok this time. But no more 'gut feeling' comments please. At least without googling the reason for that feeling and sharing it with us first.  : Otherwise... just stick to Twitter.'

Being challenged on gut feelings is like being asked why you love the sport of hockey. Your homework tonight is a 1000 word dissertation on passion. Please provide facts!

And this is exactly the kind of post that elicits the nastiness that you and others have been complaining about. If you don't want to see it, don't be a hypocrite and post garbage like this.

 

[sneakyray]

'Thats ok this time. But no more 'gut feeling' comments please. At least without googling the reason for that feeling and sharing it with us first.  : Otherwise... just stick to Twitter.'

Being challenged on gut feelings is like being asked why you love the sport of hockey. Your homework tonight is a 1000 word dissertation on passion. Please provide facts!

And this is exactly the kind of post that elicits the nastiness that you and others have been complaining about. If you don't want to see it, don't be a hypocrite and post garbage like this.

The funniest part is I only follow analytics guys and journalists on twitter so it's mostly facts and fact based articles I get on there.

 

[bustaheims]

The funniest part is I only follow analytics guys and journalists on twitter so it's mostly facts and fact based articles I get on there.

Well, yeah, but that's because the average sports fan on twitter isn't worth following, because they're basically posting . . . well, useless stuff like "X Player sucks" or "The coach is a stupidhead."

 

[TBLeafer]

Oh its coming...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-shrinking-goaltending-equipment-starting-next-season/article29247009/

Possibly as early as the World Cup.

More holes are guaranteed to be created.

It still hasn't been approved by the PA, the BoG, or the competition committee. There are still a lot of hoops to be jumped through before the changes actually happen. I'm sure there's going to be some sort of change to goaltending equipment. What we don't know is the actual extent of those changes, or the impact they'll actually have.

Regardless of the change, it is shrinking, which has been approved, which will expose more net and that is fact.

You just don't want to admit the obvious of what exposing more net will mean to a player like Stamkos.

It's a pretty safe calculated guess.

 

[Redleaf]

'Thats ok this time. But no more 'gut feeling' comments please. At least without googling the reason for that feeling and sharing it with us first.  : Otherwise... just stick to Twitter.'

Being challenged on gut feelings is like being asked why you love the sport of hockey. Your homework tonight is a 1000 word dissertation on passion. Please provide facts!

And this is exactly the kind of post that elicits the nastiness that you and others have been complaining about. If you don't want to see it, don't be a hypocrite and post garbage like this.

How is this hypocritical? This post is the culmination of the nastiness, not the start of it. Its the 'better than thou' , 'take it to twitter' comments and attitude you, and a few others constantly parade on this site that 'causes' the unpleasantness.

 

[bustaheims]

Regardless of the change, it is shrinking, which has been approved, which will expose more net and that is fact.

You just don't want to admit the obvious of what exposing more net will mean to a player like Stamkos.

It's a pretty safe calculated guess.

Except for the fact that, you know, it actually hasn't been yet. None of the bodies required to approve the change have approved the change. They've agreed that there probably needs to be a change. They haven't agreed on what that change is going to be.

As for not admitting the obvious . . . there is nothing obvious. The impact of smaller goaltending equipment is still unknown. Any assumptions being made are purely speculation - no matter how likely things may be to play out in that fashion.

 

[Kin]

It's probably worth mentioning that probably the biggest reason this goaltending equipment question was ignored is that very few of the objections to signing Stamkos have anything to do with how good a player Stamkos is or is likely to be over the course of his deal.

A gradual decline in a player, or person's, athletic ability between the ages of 26-33 is a pretty safe assumption but it's still central to the main issue.

 

[sneakyray]

I just noticed the thread title is Steve.  Shouldn't it be steven stamkos?

 

[TBLeafer]

Regardless of the change, it is shrinking, which has been approved, which will expose more net and that is fact.

You just don't want to admit the obvious of what exposing more net will mean to a player like Stamkos.

It's a pretty safe calculated guess.

Except for the fact that, you know, it actually hasn't been yet. None of the bodies required to approve the change have approved the change. They've agreed that there probably needs to be a change. They haven't agreed on what that change is going to be.

As for not admitting the obvious . . . there is nothing obvious. The impact of smaller goaltending equipment is still unknown. Any assumptions being made are purely speculation - no matter how likely things may be to play out in that fashion.

IDK, comply with the changes that are coming or face suspension seems pretty definitive to me.

What are you, a computer?  you can't make a reasonable calculated guess because you don't have all the facts?

Even Spock did that once.

 

[louisstamos]

Well, yeah, but that's because the average sports fan on twitter isn't worth following, because they're basically posting . . . well, useless stuff like "X Player sucks" or "The coach is a stupidhead."

Also applies to a handful of sports writers too.  See Simmons, Steve.

 

[Tigger]

A little faith in Shanny selling Stamkos on the Shanaplan and a little faith in Stammer walking for the sole purpose of becoming a Leaf and not needing an inflated contract to become one.

If there's a need for that much invention to engineer a perfect score, I invite you to dial 410 915 0909... even if you have the right red ribbon, he's probably going to get his 10 mil +.

Seriously though, the faith I have in Shanahan's group involves something a lot more realistic, like building a team from the bottom up, not the top down. He has a WJC gold and two Richards, 4 and 6 seasons ago, it's just not worth it for the money he's actually going to get.

I'm sorry, I thought bottom up is what they are already doing, given that they hit ROCK BOTTOM last season.

If Stamkos signs, he will be just the THIRD long term contract handed out by Shannyco.

Based on that and his rationally projected cap, the Leafs will have +/- 20M per locked up in 3 players and with no major signings required at the moment for another TWO years minimum.  That's over 50M per to fill out the rest of the team.

They are so flush with cap it's sick beyond next season and it seems those that don't want him signed can't see beyond next season when it comes to the Leafs cap.

Or they just dismiss it over some fantasy that the Leafs need to change their rebuild plan just because the acquired him.

You may want to build from the bottom up. I want to build with the best pieces available from the bottom up.

You're suggesting he'll come in under his value because of some magic selling job by Shanahan, I think that's a naive perspective driven by desire for the player and largely ignoring the consequences, I mean, rationally projected cap hit? It's precisely the impact on the cap beyond next season, for the duration of a 7 year 10.5+ deal, that makes me question the net positive impact of signing him.

Building from the bottom up is about drafting, you're confusing being last in the league for a season ( rock bottom ) with what is required over the long haul to acquire top players through the draft. Even you don't think Stamkos is the best piece available if he signs for more than 10.5. It's utterly boggling that you can't see the same perspective for those that have a cut off a million or more less, even though I'm swinging more and more into the 'just don't' territory, 9.5 will probably hurt the Leafs not too long down the road, cramping their flexibility in an uncertain cap ceiling environment. If he was going to take 8-8.5, he would have signed with Tampa already, he's going to get paid.

I mean, why doesn't he say screw it and sign for half his value if he wants to help the Leafs so much?

Also, how many more goals will Stamkos score because of shrinking goalie equipment? How many less as he ages and his play declines?

 

[Bill_Berg]

Using a rule change as a reason to sign a player doesn't seem like a good plan in concept.

Also, my prediction is the Kings, after they trade Marleau to the Leafs.

 

[TBLeafer]

A little faith in Shanny selling Stamkos on the Shanaplan and a little faith in Stammer walking for the sole purpose of becoming a Leaf and not needing an inflated contract to become one.

If there's a need for that much invention to engineer a perfect score, I invite you to dial 410 915 0909... even if you have the right red ribbon, he's probably going to get his 10 mil +.

Seriously though, the faith I have in Shanahan's group involves something a lot more realistic, like building a team from the bottom up, not the top down. He has a WJC gold and two Richards, 4 and 6 seasons ago, it's just not worth it for the money he's actually going to get.

I'm sorry, I thought bottom up is what they are already doing, given that they hit ROCK BOTTOM last season.

If Stamkos signs, he will be just the THIRD long term contract handed out by Shannyco.

Based on that and his rationally projected cap, the Leafs will have +/- 20M per locked up in 3 players and with no major signings required at the moment for another TWO years minimum.  That's over 50M per to fill out the rest of the team.

They are so flush with cap it's sick beyond next season and it seems those that don't want him signed can't see beyond next season when it comes to the Leafs cap.

Or they just dismiss it over some fantasy that the Leafs need to change their rebuild plan just because the acquired him.

You may want to build from the bottom up. I want to build with the best pieces available from the bottom up.

You're suggesting he'll come in under his value because of some magic selling job by Shanahan, I think that's a naive perspective driven by desire for the player and largely ignoring the consequences, I mean, rationally projected cap hit? It's precisely the impact on the cap beyond next season, for the duration of a 7 year 10.5+ deal, that makes me question the net positive impact of signing him.

Building from the bottom up is about drafting, you're confusing being last in the league for a season ( rock bottom ) with what is required over the long haul to acquire top players through the draft. Even you don't think Stamkos is the best piece available if he signs for more than 10.5. It's utterly boggling that you can't see the same perspective for those that have a cut off a million or more less, even though I'm swinging more and more into the 'just don't' territory, 9.5 will probably hurt the Leafs not too long down the road, cramping their flexibility in an uncertain cap ceiling environment. If he was going to take 8-8.5, he would have signed with Tampa already, he's going to get paid.

I mean, why doesn't he say screw it and sign for half his value if he wants to help the Leafs so much?

Also, how many more goals will Stamkos score because of shrinking goalie equipment? How many less as he ages and his play declines?

I answer the second question first, as he hasn't reached his declining years, he's reached his prime, so that answers that.  For all we know right now he could have the shelf life of an Iginla or Jagr.

We have enough high picks and prospect already in the system, thanks.

The team has sucked long enough, whether they are now officially rebuilding or not to have enough good pieces to build the bulk of their next team though the draft.

Time to get better and make the most out of those picks.

 

[Tigger]

For all we know he'll start declining hard at 30, for all we know the changes to goalie equipment will amount to a goal or two.

The Leafs have enough high end talent in the system? Yikes.

Edit to add, so you'll just ignore the cap issues there, eh?

 

[bustaheims]

The Leafs have enough high end talent in the system? Yikes.

Yeah. That's just incredibly untrue. There's no such thing as having too much high-end talent in the system, so, can you ever truly say that you have enough? Enough for what? Even teams that are in the middle of a dynasty are looking to add high-end prospects to their organization.

 

[TBLeafer]

For all we know he'll start declining hard at 30, for all we know the changes to goalie equipment will amount to a goal or two.

The Leafs have enough high end talent in the system? Yikes.

Edit to add, so you'll just ignore the cap issues there, eh?

What cap issues?  How many pending premium UFA's that we want to keep, are we going to need to sign two season's from now, with only two long term contracts signed?

Its a non-issue as I've said all along.

 

[Kin]

Also when a player's prime is isn't a hard and fast rule. In terms of scoring a player's prime years are almost always pre-the age of 25(relative to the league). An argument can be made that as the scoring declines into the mid and late 20's that their game rounds out and becomes more complete to compensate but, again, that's not something to state with certainty for each player. 

 

[Tigger]

For all we know he'll start declining hard at 30, for all we know the changes to goalie equipment will amount to a goal or two.

The Leafs have enough high end talent in the system? Yikes.

Edit to add, so you'll just ignore the cap issues there, eh?

What cap issues?  How many pending premium UFA's that we want to keep, are we going to need to sign two season's from now, with only two long term contracts signed?

Its a non-issue as I've said all along.

No, you said it was an issue over 10.5. 2 seasons out isn't what I'm talking about either.