Steve Stamkos?

[bustaheims]

Yep.  That's your strawman.

No, that's an assertion supported by the history of how successful teams have rebuilt. Those that evaluated their youth before bringing in big pieces have been more successful than those who haven't.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is.

 

[TBLeafer]

Yep.  That's your strawman.

No, that's an assertion supported by the history of how successful teams have rebuilt. Those that evaluated their youth before bringing in big pieces have been more successful than those who haven't.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is.

Yes I do.  As much as you like to harp on that, you don't account for what elite level pieces on teams might already be in place when the top young talent comes in.

Vinny and Marty on Tampa for example as the experienced players for Stamkos and Hedman.  I don't think Vinny and Marty hindered Tampa's rebuild and they were able to move on from those players when the time came.

How is that different than having Stamkos already signed to the Leafs core (Just the third long term contract) when Matthews, Marner and Nylander enter their rookie seasons?

I find your claim that Stamkos will hinder the rebuild to be a faulty one.  But that's just my opinion supported by subjective facts vs. your opinion supported by subjective facts.

 

[herman]

Yep.  That's your strawman.

No, that's an assertion supported by the history of how successful teams have rebuilt. Those that evaluated their youth before bringing in big pieces have been more successful than those who haven't.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is.

Yes I do.  As much as you like to harp on that, you don't account for what elite level pieces on teams might already be in place when the top young talent comes in.

Vinny and Marty on Tampa for example as the experienced players for Stamkos and Hedman.  I don't think Vinny and Marty hindered Tampa's rebuild and they were able to move on from those players when the time came.

How is that different than having Stamkos already signed to the Leafs core (Just the third long term contract) when Matthews, Marner and Nylander enter their rookie seasons?

In that example, Lecavalier and St. Louis were already sunk costs.

 

[TBLeafer]

Yep.  That's your strawman.

No, that's an assertion supported by the history of how successful teams have rebuilt. Those that evaluated their youth before bringing in big pieces have been more successful than those who haven't.

Also, I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is.

Yes I do.  As much as you like to harp on that, you don't account for what elite level pieces on teams might already be in place when the top young talent comes in.

Vinny and Marty on Tampa for example as the experienced players for Stamkos and Hedman.  I don't think Vinny and Marty hindered Tampa's rebuild and they were able to move on from those players when the time came.

How is that different than having Stamkos already signed to the Leafs core (Just the third long term contract) when Matthews, Marner and Nylander enter their rookie seasons?

In that example, Lecavalier and St. Louis were already sunk costs.

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

 

[Kin]

I find your claim that Stamkos will hinder the rebuild to be a faulty one.

A faulty claim still isn't a strawman.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes I do.

While, admitted, this is delving into a semantic argument, you don't. A strawman is when someone attacks and defeats an argument their opponent hasn't made. You have most definitely made the argument that the Leafs don't have to wait until their prospects have been properly evaluated at the NHL level before adding Stamkos. It's at the heart of your position on the matter.

And, even if you hadn't, my bringing it up doesn't make it a strawman, either, as it's an important part of my opposing position. It's not an argument I'm fabricating and defeating.

 

[herman]

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

Having fewer sunk costs would be more flexible in a time when flexibility is at a premium (stagnant cap). You believe Stamkos' contract will still leave us flexible enough, which is your right. I believe there are options available later better suited to our needs and I'd like the team to be positioned to take advantage of those opportunities should they come up and when we know what we need more of.

Stamkos is currently not a sunk cost, and I don't think we need his contributions to get to where we need to go. Sure, they would help initially, but then our hands would be tied if one of our superstar-potential prospects ends up a middling player.

You claim it would be easy to move on from Stamkos' contract when that time comes. Why is that? Do you see the Leafs moving a 10.5+M player with a modified NTC (at the least) in his early 30s without eating a portion of that salary?

 

[Kin]

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that Tampa's rebuild wasn't really successful until St. Louis/Lecavalier were gone. They missed the playoffs in 4 of Stamkos' first 5 seasons(3 of Hedman's first four) and after those five seasons they got swept out of the first round. 

That's really not much of an argument supporting the idea  of building the way they did.

 

[Redleaf]

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

Having fewer sunk costs would be more flexible in a time when flexibility is at a premium (stagnant cap). You believe Stamkos' contract will still leave us flexible enough, which is your right. I believe there are options available later better suited to our needs and I'd like the team to be positioned to take advantage of those opportunities should they come up and when we know what we need more of.

Stamkos is currently not a sunk cost, and I don't think we need his contributions to get to where we need to go. Sure, they would help initially, but then our hands would be tied if one of our superstar-potential prospects ends up a middling player.

You claim it would be easy to move on from Stamkos' contract when that time comes. Why is that? Do you see the Leafs moving a 10.5+M player with a modified NTC (at the least) in his early 30s without eating a portion of that salary?

Doesn't having Stamkos in the fold sort of provide insurance for such an event?

 

[herman]

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

Having fewer sunk costs would be more flexible in a time when flexibility is at a premium (stagnant cap). You believe Stamkos' contract will still leave us flexible enough, which is your right. I believe there are options available later better suited to our needs and I'd like the team to be positioned to take advantage of those opportunities should they come up and when we know what we need more of.

Stamkos is currently not a sunk cost, and I don't think we need his contributions to get to where we need to go. Sure, they would help initially, but then our hands would be tied if one of our superstar-potential prospects ends up a middling player.

You claim it would be easy to move on from Stamkos' contract when that time comes. Why is that? Do you see the Leafs moving a 10.5+M player with a modified NTC (at the least) in his early 30s without eating a portion of that salary?

Doesn't having Stamkos in the fold sort of provide insurance for such an event?

Is that where we need insurance coverage? Judging by the plethora of forwards we have: 2016-1st, Nylander, Marner, Kadri, JvR, Bracco, Brown, backed up by Hyman, Soshnikov, Timashov, Johnson... Is there not some natural insulation there?

Where we really need some help is probably the back end: Rielly, Gardiner, Carrick, Zaitsev (should be at least a 5-6), Marincin, and then what? Loov, Valiev, Harrington, Corrado are all 5-6 at most. Dermott has promise, but D-men take longer to develop.

Can Stamkos help our defense?

 

[TBLeafer]

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

Having fewer sunk costs would be more flexible in a time when flexibility is at a premium (stagnant cap). You believe Stamkos' contract will still leave us flexible enough, which is your right. I believe there are options available later better suited to our needs and I'd like the team to be positioned to take advantage of those opportunities should they come up and when we know what we need more of.

Stamkos is currently not a sunk cost, and I don't think we need his contributions to get to where we need to go. Sure, they would help initially, but then our hands would be tied if one of our superstar-potential prospects ends up a middling player.

You claim it would be easy to move on from Stamkos' contract when that time comes. Why is that? Do you see the Leafs moving a 10.5+M player with a modified NTC (at the least) in his early 30s without eating a portion of that salary?

Doesn't having Stamkos in the fold sort of provide insurance for such an event?

That's basically the idea, yeah.

 

[Kin]

In fact, if you think about it, Tampa is really a perfect example of an advocate for building the team the way busta, Herman and I are suggesting. They were essentially stalled as a lousy team with "established stars" but, once they got rid of St. Louis and Lecavalier's cap hits they were able to take that money and use it on more affordable free agents who were targeted more for their specific needs like Filppula, Boyle and Stralman. It's only after their cap space was re-allocated from established stars to those guys that they became a contender. 

 

[Redleaf]

And we would have just 3 sunk costs long term when our top prospect young trio enter their rookie season.  Problem?

Having fewer sunk costs would be more flexible in a time when flexibility is at a premium (stagnant cap). You believe Stamkos' contract will still leave us flexible enough, which is your right. I believe there are options available later better suited to our needs and I'd like the team to be positioned to take advantage of those opportunities should they come up and when we know what we need more of.

Stamkos is currently not a sunk cost, and I don't think we need his contributions to get to where we need to go. Sure, they would help initially, but then our hands would be tied if one of our superstar-potential prospects ends up a middling player.

You claim it would be easy to move on from Stamkos' contract when that time comes. Why is that? Do you see the Leafs moving a 10.5+M player with a modified NTC (at the least) in his early 30s without eating a portion of that salary?

Doesn't having Stamkos in the fold sort of provide insurance for such an event?

Is that where we need insurance coverage? Judging by the plethora of forwards we have: 2016-1st, Nylander, Marner, Kadri, JvR, Bracco, Brown, backed up by Hyman, Soshnikov, Timashov, Johnson... Is there not some natural insulation there?

Where we really need some help is probably the back end: Rielly, Gardiner, Carrick, Zaitsev (should be at least a 5-6), Marincin, and then what? Loov, Valiev, Harrington, Corrado are all 5-6 at most. Dermott has promise, but D-men take longer to develop.

Can Stamkos help our defense?

Part of my premise to bring him in was to free up another forward or two to help faciliate a trade for a D-man.

EDIT: You upgrade at both positions that way.

 

[herman]

Part of my premise to bring him in was to free up another forward or two to help faciliate a trade for a D-man.

EDIT: You upgrade at both positions that way.

I think that's a valid option; I also don't think it's the right time to push for something like that yet. We're not in a hurry to compete this year, are we? We can afford to spend the time to get to know our players and assess them more accurately and determine who to keep and who grows into healthy trade bait.

I brought this up earlier, but which would you prefer the Jays have? Dickey or Syndergaard?

[tweet]743403661125001216[/tweet]

We made a big trade that had big name pieces and it pushed us into the contending conversation. We had to augment that trade with another (Dickey) to put us over the top and in doing so, spend from our pool of extra arms. We had the big 3 prospects in Sanchez, Nicolino, and Syndergaard. Now we only have Sanchez, and a Stroman that emerged. Can you imagine what our rotation would be like if we had Stroman, Sanchez, Syndergaard peaking at the same time, still early in their growth curve and while they're all really cheap? And this is in a sport that does not have the hard cap the NHL does.

Patient development eventually pays off, and if we time it right, it can pay off for a long time. When we're ready to contend, I think that'd be the time to make a big trade or UFA splash of this caliber.

 

[herman]

In fact, if you think about it, Tampa is really a perfect example of an advocate for building the team the way busta, Herman and I are suggesting. They were essentially stalled as a lousy team with "established stars" but, once they got rid of St. Louis and Lecavalier's cap hits they were able to take that money and use it on more affordable free agents who were targeted more for their specific needs like Filppula, Boyle and Stralman. It's only after their cap space was re-allocated from established stars to those guys that they became a contender.

That's basically the idea, yeah.

 

[Redleaf]

Part of my premise to bring him in was to free up another forward or two to help faciliate a trade for a D-man.

EDIT: You upgrade at both positions that way.

I think that's a valid option; I also don't think it's the right time to push for something like that yet. We're not in a hurry to compete this year, are we? We can afford to spend the time to get to know our players and assess them more accurately and determine who to keep and who grows into healthy trade bait.

I brought this up earlier, but which would you prefer the Jays have? Dickey or Syndergaard?

We made a big trade that had big name pieces and it pushed us into the contending conversation. We had to augment that trade with another (Dickey) to put us over the top and in doing so, spend from our pool of extra arms. We had the big 3 prospects in Sanchez, Nicolino, and Syndergaard. Now we only have Sanchez, and a Stroman that emerged. Can you imagine what our rotation would be like if we had Stroman, Sanchez, Syndergaard peaking at the same time, still early in their growth curve and while they're all really cheap? And this is in a sport that does not have the hard cap the NHL does.

Patient development eventually pays off, and if we time it right, it can pay off for a long time. When we're ready to contend, I think that'd be the time to make a big trade or UFA splash of this caliber.

Thats sort of the X factor in my mind. How much authority does Shanny really have here? We really don't know. We can't say the board has given him carte blanche and that time isn't really an issue moving forward. For all we know he's being told to go out and get Stamkos no matter what and be done with this rebuild already.

 

[bustaheims]

Thats sort of the X factor in my mind. How much authority does Shanny really have here? We don't know that. We can't say the board has given him carte blanche and that time isn't really an issue moving forward. For all we know he's being told to go out and get Stamkos no matter what and be done with this rebuild already.

It was made pretty clear when he was brought in that ownership was taking a major step back and letting hockey people take charge of the hockey decisions - and with Lieweke being replaced, I think there's even less influence from ownership and such than before. The impression I got was that the Leafs are essentially a separate entity.

 

[Kin]

It was made pretty clear when he was brought in that ownership was taking a major step back and letting hockey people take charge of the hockey decisions - and with Lieweke being replaced, I think there's even less influence from ownership and such than before. The impression I got was that the Leafs are essentially a separate entity.

Also, you'd have to think that at the very least the board is realistic enough not to pin anything on any one player. Shanahan and company can make a big offer but if Stamkos signs elsewhere they still need to have a plan going forward.

If this group doesn't have the independence to do things the way they see fit, it really doesn't matter who they sign or don't sign this summer.

 

[Redleaf]

It was made pretty clear when he was brought in that ownership was taking a major step back and letting hockey people take charge of the hockey decisions - and with Lieweke being replaced, I think there's even less influence from ownership and such than before. The impression I got was that the Leafs are essentially a separate entity.

Also, you'd have to think that at the very least the board is realistic enough not to pin anything on any one player. Shanahan and company can make a big offer but if Stamkos signs elsewhere they still need to have a plan going forward.

If this group doesn't have the independence to do things the way they see fit, it really doesn't matter who they sign or don't sign this summer.

We ARE talking about 2 large media powers here in Bell & Rogers. If anyone values star power and what it can do for ratings, I'm sure it is this group.

Edit: I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced they will do things the absolute and proper way.

 

[Kin]

It doesn't really matter what they value. They can tell Shanahan to offer Stamkos the max for 7 years and Stamkos can still say no if he wants to sign with a team that he thinks is closer to contending.

And Rogers/Bell are both well run enough businesses that someone will know that the best thing for ratings is a team that's good in the long-term. Especially when, like we talked about when we were talking about endorsements, Stamkos isn't really a "star" in any sort of way that resonates with casual fans or the semi-interested.