Going Forward

[rdowdall]

There is a lot of assumption in this post, but I was wondering how people would feel about this scenario.

Let's say the Leafs get the first overall pick next year and they take Matthews.  Lets also say that Stamkos goes to free agency.  Should the Leafs sign him next year in that scenario?  Would it be a mistake?

I'm just wondering if there is a scenario where signing a player like Stamkos would be a benefit.

 

[Kin]

I think it probably depends on how good Stamkos looks this year as well as what he'd actually want to sign here.

I think you'd have to start looking into trading one of Nylander/Marner though.

 

[bustaheims]

Even with Matthews, the Leafs would have too many holes in other areas to really take advantage of having Stamkos on the team. My concern is they'd end up like the Oilers - a lot of talent on the top 2 lines, and not much elsewhere. They'd still need at least 1 top pairing defenceman, and some quality depth everywhere. There are also still some question marks in net - Bernier still hasn't really solidified himself the calibre of starting goalie the team will need. While I wouldn't go as far as to say signing Stamkos would be a mistake, I don't think the team will be in a position where that kind of move should be a priority.

 

[Redleaf]

There is a lot of assumption in this post, but I was wondering how people would feel about this scenario.

Let's say the Leafs get the first overall pick next year and they take Matthews.  Lets also say that Stamkos goes to free agency.  Should the Leafs sign him next year in that scenario?  Would it be a mistake?

I'm just wondering if there is a scenario where signing a player like Stamkos would be a benefit.

You absolutely sign Stamkos , providing he doesn't want a no trade clause in his contract.

 

[rdowdall]

I got to thinking about this scenario after the talk about possible disharmony among the brain trust of the Leafs.  It was in one of the other threads.  Basically it was presented that it is easy for the Leafs management team to be on the same page right now, but in another year or so, they will have to start making some tough decisions.  Those decisions may have different members of the management team on different sides.

It got me thinking about when the Leafs should start trying to be more than a bottom feeder team.  At what point will they have amassed enough young talent that they don't have to worry about finishing in the bottom two or three anymore?  If they get a #1 pick is that going to be enough to build a franchise around given that they have some other quality pieces?  If they have a draft that is as successful as this past one was supposed to be, then would that be enough going forward to build a foundation?

 

[Kin]

I got to thinking about this scenario after the talk about possible disharmony among the brain trust of the Leafs.  It was in one of the other threads.  Basically it was presented that it is easy for the Leafs management team to be on the same page right now, but in another year or so, they will have to start making some tough decisions.  Those decisions may have different members of the management team on different sides.

It got me thinking about when the Leafs should start trying to be more than a bottom feeder team.  At what point will they have amassed enough young talent that they don't have to worry about finishing in the bottom two or three anymore?  If they get a #1 pick is that going to be enough to build a franchise around given that they have some other quality pieces?  If they have a draft that is as successful as this past one was supposed to be, then would that be enough going forward to build a foundation?

I think above all else you don't want to make the JFJ mistake of "It looks like we have 2 great prospects, so one of them can be traded!" and mistaking prospects for actual NHL talent. I think you would need to wait and see Mathews be the kind of player you want before you go all in on him, or anyone really, being that franchise talent and abandoning the patience of a proper rebuild.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I think it all depends on what happens and how things begin to transpire with the team as it would pertain to what happens at the trade deadline, what decisions are made going forward, where they will finish for next year's entry draft, plus the returns they will get by trading, etc,.etc.

Also, whether the 'veterans' will stay or be given a long-term (Kadri, JVR, Bozak, et al), etc.  There is going to be a lot that will need to be decided on before the Leafs take the great leap to sign a Stamkos.  Who wouldn't want him on their team?  That's a moot point.  What isn't is the contract and the space it'll take up on the salary cap, particularly for a team such as the Leafs, where decision-making will continue long after the season is over.

We can dream for now...

 

[skrackle]

There's been so much recent  change with Leafs management that it's hard to get a read on how it's going to function until camp opens and onward from there.

I was a little taken aback at the Lamoriello hiring. It just seemed slightly out of step with the other off-ice moves the Leafs have recently made. I feel that way because Lou seems to have been out of step himself in the way he's run the Devils the past few seasons. That said, Lamoriello brings a wealth of experience and respect and I figure his main role is going to be introducing Dubas to the old boys club of the NHL, as well as helping to establish how an NHL team should conduct itself in an organization that badly needs a new way of doing things.

As for Stamkos, if he does make it to UFA status, wants to play for the Leafs and is still obviously at the top of his game, I'd say sign him and figure out the rest from there.

 

[Mike1]

It got me thinking about when the Leafs should start trying to be more than a bottom feeder team.  At what point will they have amassed enough young talent that they don't have to worry about finishing in the bottom two or three anymore?  If they get a #1 pick is that going to be enough to build a franchise around given that they have some other quality pieces?  If they have a draft that is as successful as this past one was supposed to be, then would that be enough going forward to build a foundation?

This is a great question. It really comes down to the process & how well management adds good hockey talent to this organization moving forward.

 

[Bullfrog]

There is a lot of assumption in this post, but I was wondering how people would feel about this scenario.

Let's say the Leafs get the first overall pick next year and they take Matthews.  Lets also say that Stamkos goes to free agency.  Should the Leafs sign him next year in that scenario?  Would it be a mistake?

I'm just wondering if there is a scenario where signing a player like Stamkos would be a benefit.

You absolutely sign Stamkos , providing he doesn't want a no trade clause in his contract.

So you're suggesting they don't sign him then?

 

[rdowdall]

I got to thinking about this scenario after the talk about possible disharmony among the brain trust of the Leafs.  It was in one of the other threads.  Basically it was presented that it is easy for the Leafs management team to be on the same page right now, but in another year or so, they will have to start making some tough decisions.  Those decisions may have different members of the management team on different sides.

It got me thinking about when the Leafs should start trying to be more than a bottom feeder team.  At what point will they have amassed enough young talent that they don't have to worry about finishing in the bottom two or three anymore?  If they get a #1 pick is that going to be enough to build a franchise around given that they have some other quality pieces?  If they have a draft that is as successful as this past one was supposed to be, then would that be enough going forward to build a foundation?

I think above all else you don't want to make the JFJ mistake of "It looks like we have 2 great prospects, so one of them can be traded!" and mistaking prospects for actual NHL talent. I think you would need to wait and see Mathews be the kind of player you want before you go all in on him, or anyone really, being that franchise talent and abandoning the patience of a proper rebuild.

The current hockey era is hard for me to get a bead on.  I look at teams like Montreal and Ottawa, and I say "There isn't anyway they can win a cup.  They didn't get the right pieces at the top of the draft".  But then I look at a team like the Rangers, and they didn't do that either and they made it to a cup final.  Teams like Anahiem or Dallas also strike me as teams that aren't built to win it all.

Add in the fact that the Leafs have never really rebuilt the proper way, and I really don't know what to expect over the next couple of years or how to gauge what the Leafs should be doing or not doing when it comes to building a winner. 

 

[Kin]

The current hockey era is hard for me to get a bead on.  I look at teams like Montreal and Ottawa, and I say "There isn't anyway they can win a cup.  They didn't get the right pieces at the top of the draft".  But then I look at a team like the Rangers, and they didn't do that either and they made it to a cup final.  Teams like Anahiem or Dallas also strike me as teams that aren't built to win it all.

But the idea that you need to build a winner around pieces from the top of the draft has never been a hard and fast rule. What matters is the pieces you have. If you can find a franchise level talent at #17 the way the Senators did or at #205 the way the Rangers did then there's no reason you can't build around them.

The problem with that, with the way that pieces like that have always been used to justify the half-butted "retooling" thing, is that finding pieces like that at spots like that can't be planned for. It's not a good bet. It's essentially relying on luck. I don't think the Leafs should be too influenced by the teams that have gotten really lucky as they plan for the best course of action just like I wouldn't, you know, think that walking around my property swinging a pickaxe into the ground is a good money-making strategy because some guy across town struck oil.

 

[rdowdall]

The current hockey era is hard for me to get a bead on.  I look at teams like Montreal and Ottawa, and I say "There isn't anyway they can win a cup.  They didn't get the right pieces at the top of the draft".  But then I look at a team like the Rangers, and they didn't do that either and they made it to a cup final.  Teams like Anahiem or Dallas also strike me as teams that aren't built to win it all.

But the idea that you need to build a winner around pieces from the top of the draft has never been a hard and fast rule. What matters is the pieces you have. If you can find a franchise level talent at #17 the way the Senators did or at #205 the way the Rangers did then there's no reason you can't build around them.

The problem with that, with the way that pieces like that have always been used to justify the half-butted "retooling" thing, is that finding pieces like that at spots like that can't be planned for. It's not a good bet. It's essentially relying on luck. I don't think the Leafs should be too influenced by the teams that have gotten really lucky as they plan for the best course of action just like I wouldn't, you know, think that walking around my property swinging a pickaxe into the ground is a good money-making strategy because some guy across town struck oil.

I definitely agree with that.  It's just that you look at those pieces that they have, and it seems like it isn't going to be possible to add to them. 

Take Ottawa for example.  Having the team that they have probably means that they aren't going to finish in the bottom five any time soon.  Yet they don't have the prototypical top six that you would think that you would need to win a cup.  And it doesn't look like they have any way to add those.  So they are stuck in a limbo situation where they are good enough to make the playoffs and maybe win a round, but not go any further than that.  The same probably goes for the Canadiens as well.

It's like if you get good, but not good enough, too soon, you have limited your ability to compete for the cup.  So it becomes this timeline question of "Do we have all the pieces in our pipeline to compete for the cup?" and if the answer is yes, then you start trying to augment using trades or free agency, but if you make that jump too soon, your going to be stuck with not having enough talent to reach the next level.

 

[Kin]

I definitely agree with that.  It's just that you look at those pieces that they have, and it seems like it isn't going to be possible to add to them. 

Take Ottawa for example.  Having the team that they have probably means that they aren't going to finish in the bottom five any time soon.  Yet they don't have the prototypical top six that you would think that you would need to win a cup.  And it doesn't look like they have any way to add those.  So they are stuck in a limbo situation where they are good enough to make the playoffs and maybe win a round, but not go any further than that.  The same probably goes for the Canadiens as well.

I agree about Ottawa but I think the situation they're in is one where they don't have the financial luxury of saying "You know what? Let's be bad for five years!" the way that the Leafs do and accumulating talent that way. They're forced to try and compete It's important to remember that a lot of the teams who did build the sorts of teams we admire were forced into the basement whether because of financial necessity(the Penguins) or because of simple incompetence(The Blackhawks).

The approach that we're advocating the Leafs take is a cynical one. It's one that subverts the point of what sports are supposed to be about. It's acknowledging that the reverse-order draft provides a disincentive for competency and tries to fake incompetence for the purpose of accumulating talent.

But, like I said, not every team has the luxury to make that choice. Most of the teams in the NHL are businesses that can't simply write off multiple seasons at a time without serious financial implications.

 

[Frank E]

I definitely agree with that.  It's just that you look at those pieces that they have, and it seems like it isn't going to be possible to add to them. 

Take Ottawa for example.  Having the team that they have probably means that they aren't going to finish in the bottom five any time soon.  Yet they don't have the prototypical top six that you would think that you would need to win a cup.  And it doesn't look like they have any way to add those.  So they are stuck in a limbo situation where they are good enough to make the playoffs and maybe win a round, but not go any further than that.  The same probably goes for the Canadiens as well.

I agree about Ottawa but I think the situation they're in is one where they don't have the financial luxury of saying "You know what? Let's be bad for five years!" the way that the Leafs do and accumulating talent that way. They're forced to try and compete It's important to remember that a lot of the teams who did build the sorts of teams we admire were forced into the basement whether because of financial necessity(the Penguins) or because of simple incompetence(The Blackhawks).

The approach that we're advocating the Leafs take is a cynical one. It's one that subverts the point of what sports are supposed to be about. It's acknowledging that the reverse-order draft provides a disincentive for competency and tries to fake incompetence for the purpose of accumulating talent.

But, like I said, not every team has the luxury to make that choice. Most of the teams in the NHL are businesses that can't simply write off multiple seasons at a time without serious financial implications.

I agree with this, and I think you can be very tempted to fast-forward the process as well even if you're in the Leafs' financial position.

Like if Stamkos came calling next summer, that would be a tough decision.

 

[Kin]

I agree with this, and I think you can be very tempted to fast-forward the process as well even if you're in the Leafs' financial position.

Like if Stamkos came calling next summer, that would be a tough decision.

Sure and there are financial implications for the Leafs too. They're not the same implications, it's not the difference between being profitable and not-profitable, but there is a reason why so many incarnations of Leafs ownership/management have favoured competent mediocrity over a full rebuild.

 

[rdowdall]

I definitely agree with that.  It's just that you look at those pieces that they have, and it seems like it isn't going to be possible to add to them. 

Take Ottawa for example.  Having the team that they have probably means that they aren't going to finish in the bottom five any time soon.  Yet they don't have the prototypical top six that you would think that you would need to win a cup.  And it doesn't look like they have any way to add those.  So they are stuck in a limbo situation where they are good enough to make the playoffs and maybe win a round, but not go any further than that.  The same probably goes for the Canadiens as well.

I agree about Ottawa but I think the situation they're in is one where they don't have the financial luxury of saying "You know what? Let's be bad for five years!" the way that the Leafs do and accumulating talent that way. They're forced to try and compete It's important to remember that a lot of the teams who did build the sorts of teams we admire were forced into the basement whether because of financial necessity(the Penguins) or because of simple incompetence(The Blackhawks).

The approach that we're advocating the Leafs take is a cynical one. It's one that subverts the point of what sports are supposed to be about. It's acknowledging that the reverse-order draft provides a disincentive for competency and tries to fake incompetence for the purpose of accumulating talent.

But, like I said, not every team has the luxury to make that choice. Most of the teams in the NHL are businesses that can't simply write off multiple seasons at a time without serious financial implications.

It is very cynical, and rewarding failure just seems wrong.  At the end of the day though, there just isn't another option to add prime talent.  Every player that is available is usually available for a reason, and that reason usually isn't because "they are a cornerstone player".  Even Stamkos as you mention should be looked upon with some trepidation.  At first glance everyone thinks about the goal scoring prowess, but if he walks away from Tampa, there are probably reasons why it is happening. 

 

[Kin]

It is very cynical, and rewarding failure just seems wrong.  At the end of the day though, there just isn't another option to add prime talent.  Every player that is available is usually available for a reason, and that reason usually isn't because "they are a cornerstone player".  Even Stamkos as you mention should be looked upon with some trepidation.  At first glance everyone thinks about the goal scoring prowess, but if he walks away from Tampa, there are probably reasons why it is happening.

I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. Players who you can build around aren't commonly available outside of the draft, no, but we do see it happen and with the shifting economics of the salary cap it might become slightly more common in the future. If Stamkos is available it'll be in large part because of Tampa's depth and the reality of what the end of back-diving deals does to stars and their cap hits.

I'm thinking about players like Nash, Thornton, Seguin, Kovalchuk, Chara, Niedermayer...about one every two years or so. Spread out over the league and, yeah, that's rare enough that it can't be part of a team's plans for the future but it does happen and the team might genuinely be faced with that scenario.

But I don't think you can entirely discount that possibility if the Leafs come face to face with one of those situations and while you're right that Stamkos being available should raise an eyebrow...I mean, you can't argue too much with what Steven Stamkos has established in the league. That's not to say the Leafs should definitely sign him but the idea that great players can be acquired through other means can't be dismissed.

 

[rdowdall]

It is very cynical, and rewarding failure just seems wrong.  At the end of the day though, there just isn't another option to add prime talent.  Every player that is available is usually available for a reason, and that reason usually isn't because "they are a cornerstone player".  Even Stamkos as you mention should be looked upon with some trepidation.  At first glance everyone thinks about the goal scoring prowess, but if he walks away from Tampa, there are probably reasons why it is happening.

I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration. Players who you can build around aren't commonly available outside of the draft, no, but we do see it happen and with the shifting economics of the salary cap it might become slightly more common in the future. If Stamkos is available it'll be in large part because of Tampa's depth and the reality of what the end of back-diving deals does to stars and their cap hits.

I'm thinking about players like Nash, Thornton, Seguin, Kovalchuk, Chara, Niedermayer...about one every two years or so. Spread out over the league and, yeah, that's rare enough that it can't be part of a team's plans for the future but it does happen and the team might genuinely be faced with that scenario.

But I don't think you can entirely discount that possibility if the Leafs come face to face with one of those situations and while you're right that Stamkos being available should raise an eyebrow...I mean, you can't argue too much with what Steven Stamkos has established in the league. That's not to say the Leafs should definitely sign him but the idea that great players can be acquired through other means can't be dismissed.

It is a bit of an exaggeration.  The chances do present themselves to pick up a cornerstone player.  I guess the feeling I have was that it was easier pre-cap to turn your team around through trades.  It felt like you could fill multiple spots by picking up players from other teams through a trade.  So even though you can pick up that one player that could be a game changer, you need to have the other spots on your roster flushed out nowadays.

 

[Kin]

It is a bit of an exaggeration.  The chances do present themselves to pick up a cornerstone player.  I guess the feeling I have was that it was easier pre-cap to turn your team around through trades.  It felt like you could fill multiple spots by picking up players from other teams through a trade.  So even though you can pick up that one player that could be a game changer, you need to have the other spots on your roster flushed out nowadays.

I don't know that there's any real difference. You're probably right that it was easier to add quality pieces via trade pre-cap becaue you had more teams who would suddenly need ot cut salary but the flipside to that is that free agency was so restrictive that it would be harder to add players that way. It was never a smart plan to think you could build without high draft picks but I don't think there's an appreciable change pre or post cap.