Steve Stamkos?

[Bill_Berg]

See CTB response.

Their locked up core players consist of a 2C, 1-2D and a 1G....

[clip]

That didn't even remotely attempt to answer my question.

Your question was why?  You just don't find the fact that they lack a suitable top six established core currently and are team building presently as a suitable answer.

You said let's see how many teams won a Cup with no big name FA signing or Trade. How is that relevant? Who around here is saying the Leafs should never sign a big name FA or trade for one?

 

[Kin]

http://www.tsn.ca/signing-with-leafs-would-mean-big-endorsement-payday-for-stamkos-marketers-say-1.517701

Hockey marketers thinking it would be great for hockey marketing is not the same thing as companies saying they'd be willing to pay a lot more.

 

[bustaheims]

the question on endorsements....

Stamkos might generate between $300,000 and $600,000 per endorsement deal, several marketing executives told TSN. Only Pittsburgh Penguins star Sidney Crosby can typically command more. Crosby, who has partnerships with the likes of Gatorade, Tim Hortons and Verizon, generates as much as $4.5 million annually from his off-ice deals, Forbes magazine estimates.

What they neglect to mention (or was omitted from the article) is that there's only a small number of companies with that kind of budget who would be interested in any hockey player for endorsements - and a number of those companies already have agreements with the player of their choice (mostly Crosby). Those dollar figures are representative of what he could get from major national brands - and, two of the biggest national brands can't touch him without there being potential cap circumvention issues.

 

[TBLeafer]

Your question was why?  You just don't find the fact that they lack a suitable top six established core currently and are team building presently as a suitable answer.

The question was why is your way of looking at the history more valid than the one Herman suggested when yours included the success of trades, the wisdom of making trades at some point not being disputed by anyone. Herman was making a specific point regarding the success of free agency, including trades in that evaluation is obfuscation, not clarity.

Okay so I remove trades from the equation and go back to how many SCC's and SCF's built their teams WITHOUT the addition of a significant UFA signing added to their core?

 

[bustaheims]

Interesting.  So his current endorsements will see him get paid more as a Toronto Maple Leaf.  Makes sense as his commercials will be airing to a much broader audience than as a Tampa Bay Lightning.

That's not what that article is saying at all. His current endorsements are already mostly for national brands, getting played on national networks and local broadcasts. They're already hitting the broadest audience they're going to get.

 

[ZBBM]

http://www.tsn.ca/signing-with-leafs-would-mean-big-endorsement-payday-for-stamkos-marketers-say-1.517701

Well, well ....

Brian Cooper, president of sports marketing company S&E Sponsorship Group, said it?s hard to overstate how important a move to a Canadian team would be for Stamkos?s endorsement potential.

?He?s a player who speaks to Canadian values,? Cooper said. ?He?s not a guy you?re going to be reading about having problems with a DUI or domestic battery. And he?s humble. He shows how good he is by playing, not by talking about how good he is.?

Bob Stellick, a sports marketer whose clients include NFL Canada, said marketers may take a wait-and-see approach on Stamkos because of his recent history of injuries.

?He?s had a real checkered two years because of all his injuries,? Stellick said. ?How many guys are playing in the NHL after losing a rib? [Stamkos had a rib removed in April during blood clot surgery.] In my opinion, he feels like a high-mileage 27 year old. I don?t think he?ll be playing at 38 or 39.?

To be sure, Stellick said playing in Toronto might help alleviate worries from marketers.

?The deals for players have just always been better with the Leafs,? Stellick said. ?When Darryl Sittler went to play with the Flyers, his deal with Sher-Wood hockey sticks was less than it was in Toronto. He said to Sher-Wood, ?I?m still Darryl Sittler.? They said, ?But you?re not playing for the Leafs anymore.??

So sounds like even among the experts there's plenty of room to disagree.

 

[bustaheims]

Okay so I remove trades from the equation and go back to how many SCC's and SCF's built their teams WITHOUT the addition of a significant UFA signing added to their core?

Well, the most recent Cup champs, for one.

 

[Kin]

Okay so I remove trades from the equation and go back to how many SCC's and SCF's built their teams WITHOUT the addition of a significant UFA signing added to their core?

Well, I suppose that would bring up the question of what exactly qualifies a player as being significant.

Who do you think was the most significant free agent acquisition on either the Penguins or the Sharks this year?

 

[Zee]

Has this been confirmed?

Yeah, more or less:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/no-sense-of-urgency-in-board-room/article957103/

  If so, then the ownership change of MLSE from Teachers to Rogers/Bell was the best thing to ever happen to the club.  The new owners are on-board for a tear-down and rebuild whereas the old owners wanted the impossible, win without building properly.

We'll see. As this thread has gone out of it's way to establish over and over again, there's a world of difference between actually being on board for a proper teardown and rebuild and saying you are and getting impatient after a year.

Unless i'm reading that article wrong, it doesn't say that Bowman had a plan to tear down and rebuild the Leafs, only that he wanted full control of hockey operations and paid like Colangelo.  We also don't know what Burke or Nonis's mandate was from the Teachers.  If Burke came in knowing that his hands would be tied and he couldn't make the moves he wanted to make in order to succeed, then it's his own fault that things went south.  I give Shanahan and the new regime full credit for laying the ground rules when they took the job, they had a plan to bottom out and rebuild through drafting and development as their key pillar.  Augmenting that with free agency and trades as needed and they have a slow progression towards becoming a competitive team. 

Granted, Shanahan came in with new owners and it seems that the new owners are willing to let the hockey operations do what's necessary to build the franchise up again.  That being said, we don't know for sure that the Pension fund owners specifically told Burke he couldn't bottom out and rebuild.  Those were Burke's own words when he came in, "I'm not interested in a traditional rebuild" or something to that effect.

 

[Kin]

That being said, we don't know for sure that the Pension fund owners specifically told Burke he couldn't bottom out and rebuild.  Those were Burke's own words when he came in, "I'm not interested in a traditional rebuild" or something to that effect.

We're probably not ever going to know with absolute certainty what went on between Bowman and MLSE but one of the reasons that Burke was asked that question as blatantly as he was is because that specific rift was reported quite a bit as being the issue of the "control" between Bowman and the team.

And I don't necessarily disagree that Burke still carries blame for trying to fulfill a foolhardy plan, I just don't think it rises to the level of stupidity. Anybody would have failed at that.

 

[TBLeafer]

Interesting.  So his current endorsements will see him get paid more as a Toronto Maple Leaf.  Makes sense as his commercials will be airing to a much broader audience than as a Tampa Bay Lightning.

That's not what that article is saying at all. His current endorsements are already mostly for national brands, getting played on national networks and local broadcasts. They're already hitting the broadest audience they're going to get.

See Sittler reference.

 

[Kin]

See Sittler reference.

Yes, that certainly seems like a very relevant piece of information in the digital age.

 

[bustaheims]

See Sittler reference.

See relevance. 40 years ago. Things have changed, dramatically.

 

[Zee]

That being said, we don't know for sure that the Pension fund owners specifically told Burke he couldn't bottom out and rebuild.  Those were Burke's own words when he came in, "I'm not interested in a traditional rebuild" or something to that effect.

We're probably not ever going to know with absolute certainty what went on between Bowman and MLSE but one of the reasons that Burke was asked that question as blatantly as he was is because that specific rift was reported quite a bit as being the issue of the "control" between Bowman and the team.

And I don't necessarily disagree that Burke still carries blame for trying to fulfill a foolhardy plan, I just don't think it rises to the level of stupidity. Anybody would have failed at that.

Stupidity for who?  Burke?  I think it does actually.  If he's as astute of a hockey mind as he thinks, he should have been able to see that the Leafs required an overall in order to become a successful franchise.

I think there's 2 scenarios here that I can see when Burke came in:
1. Burke's hands were tied and he really wanted to do a traditional rebuild all along
2. Burke's hands weren't tied and he decided to proceed as he saw fit.

If if was scenario 1, Burke is stupid for taking the job and believing he could succeed despite being handcuffed at what he REALLY wanted to do.

If it was scenario 2, Burke is stupid for not identifying the lack of talent on the Leafs all along.

 

[ZBBM]

Just getting back to my initial point that his extra endorsement income in TO could more than make up for the differences between CDN/ONT and FLA taxes:

Stamkos might generate between $300,000 and $600,000 per endorsement deal, several marketing executives told TSN.

** * ***

While Stamkos?s endorsement draw might peak with the Leafs, his tax bill would also be significant in Toronto.

If he was paid $10 million (U.S.) a season by the Maple Leafs, he?d only take home about $3.8 million annually, according to estimates provided to TSN by the Gavin Management Group, a Toronto firm founded by former NHL player Stewart Gavin that specializes in financial management, insurance and tax planning. That?s assuming 18 per cent escrow, 3 per cent agent fees, and federal and provincial tax.

By contrast, based on a $10-million salary, Stamkos would take home about $5 million if he re-signed with Tampa Bay.

So: he'd have to make up $1.2M in endorsement money, over and above what he's making in endorsements in TB, to make up the difference.  If you take the low estimate of $300k per endorsement deal, that's a minimum of 5 such deals, over and above what he's doing now, to more than make up the difference.

Seems quite possible to me.

 

[Kin]

If if was scenario 1, Burke is stupid for taking the job and believing he could succeed despite being handcuffed at what he REALLY wanted to do.

We might just have very different definitions of stupid. Burke had already achieved the ultimate success in his field and was offered a butt-ton of money to come to Toronto. He didn't succeed here, sure, but it's not like his failure jeopardized his ability to find another job or anything. If agreeing to do that makes someone stupid, I'd have to include myself on that.

 

[bustaheims]

So: he'd have to make up $1.2M in endorsement money, over and above what he's making in endorsements in TB, to make up the difference.  If you take the low estimate of $300k per endorsement deal, that's a minimum of 5 such deals, over and above what he's doing now, to more than make up the difference.

Seems quite possible to me.

That's 5 more national campaigns. That means finding 5 additional national advertisers that aren't Bell or Rogers that A) want to have/see value in having a hockey players as the face of their brand and B) don't already have a hockey player as the face of their brand. That's going to be a lot more difficult than you think.

 

[ZBBM]

So: he'd have to make up $1.2M in endorsement money, over and above what he's making in endorsements in TB, to make up the difference.  If you take the low estimate of $300k per endorsement deal, that's a minimum of 5 such deals, over and above what he's doing now, to more than make up the difference.

Seems quite possible to me.

That's 5 more national campaigns. That means finding 5 additional national advertisers that aren't Bell or Rogers that A) want to have/see value in having a hockey players as the face of their brand and B) don't already have a hockey player as the face of their brand. That's going to be a lot more difficult than you think.

The experts they interview don't seem to think so.  Read the lede again.

 

[Kin]

This is like going to a bunch of shoe salesmen and asking them if it's a good time to buy shoes. Interestingly, most of them will say yes.

 

[bustaheims]

The experts they interview don't seem to think so.  Read the lede again.

The experts they quote don't say anything about his ability to land those deals, just what he should expect to earn from them and why he might be appealing. That's a very important distinction.

You can be sure that, if one of the experts they interviewed said anything that remotely indicated those endorsement deals were actually available, that person would have been quoted as saying so.