Steve Stamkos?

[Tigger]

It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.

I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.

But why not? You said yourself that they aren't a Stamkos away from anything, so its not like they won't still be spending time at the bottom. If it's looking like Stamkos won't figure into the long term plans they can always trade him. That's been proven.

If the plan is to sign Stamkos to trade him a couple years later, ok, I'm more interested ( but completely in awe of how that sounds ), however I have a sneaking suspicion that his NMC will get in the way of that, and, the Leafs could use that same cap flex you're espousing to much better ends over those years.

 

[Kin]

Just for reference, so was Kyle Beach, by the Hawks in 08, still hasn't played an NHL game.

Exactly. Nobody is saying ignore adding players in other ways beyond the top end of the draft and if Alex Nylander or Andrew Nielson(or whoever) establish themselves as the sort of elite talents we're talking about against the odds then, sure, you can look to alter plans accordingly.

As you point out though there's a huge a difference between "Hey, that guy we drafted at #11 is a terrific player, we can build around him" and "Oh don't worry, we can draft a terrific player at #11".

 

[TML fan]

It's a comparable to the Hawks. If you look at the LA Kings, they have a similar trajectory.

I'm hoping we have a Kane comparable with Marner, and a No. 1 center comparable with Nylander. I don't think Reilly is on the same level as a Keith, but he still can improve. We'll see.

Is a deep playoff run in 2 years too optimistic? Maybe. But you're going to want to go from (hopefully) a Calder Cup in the AHL to having some playoff success in the NHL playoffs. You want the players to keep winning after they make the jump to the NHL. That's why it's great to see the Leafs management keeping the players in the AHL when they could be helping the Leafs right now.

Ok, but even if Marner and Nylander become everything we hope they can, Rielly still isn't Keith, and the Leafs still don't have Seabrook, or even Byfuglien, and the Hawks won the cup two years after they drafted Kane, three after Toews, six after Seabrook and Byfuglien, seven after Keith.

I agree that the Leafs still don't have a Keith or a Doughty type d-man and I don't think there's one available in this years draft. Trading for one is next to impossible.

The reality is that there's only a couple Keith and Doughty types in the League. You might not ever get one. What do you do?

Draft hard and keep as much flex with the cap as you can, be ready for timely opportunities.

Isn't Stamkos a timely opportunity that the Leafs have cap flex for?

No.

But why not? You said yourself that they aren't a Stamkos away from anything, so its not like they won't still be spending time at the bottom. If it's looking like Stamkos won't figure into the long term plans they can always trade him. That's been proven.

If the plan is to sign Stamkos to trade him a couple years later, ok, I'm more interested ( but completely in awe of how that sounds ), however I have a sneaking suspicion that his NMC will get in the way of that, and, the Leafs could use that same cap flex you're espousing to much better ends over those years.

I didn't say it was the plan. I said it was an option. The plan would be to sign Stamkos in the hopes that he would figure to their long term plans, but things don't always go according to plan.

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

 

[TML fan]

Saying someone is full of crap is not an insult, and if it is to you then I'm sorry but that says something about you, not me.

You're right but we already went over how I understand basic concepts and you need to work harder at them.

I thought I was boring. Why are you still talking? Oh sorry I asked a question.

 

[Tigger]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

 

[TML fan]

I thought I was boring. Why are you still talking? Oh sorry I asked a question.

Next time you find someone who isn't well versed in your act, ask them what "Good Night" typically means.

Stiiiiiiiiiilllll talking...

 

[TML fan]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

 

[Tigger]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

 

[TML fan]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

 

[Tigger]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).

 

[TML fan]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).

Yep. They could. There are definitely benefits to not signing him.

 

[TML fan]

Stiiiiiiiiiilllll talking...

Stiiiiiiiiiilllll trolling...

I'm not trolling though. I'm not trying to get you angry. I'm just pointing out what's painfully obvious. You being offended by it is a reflection of you. I do understand some concepts, Nik. To be honest you were the one that was trolling me. I understand my character flaws and made a conscious choice not to succumb to them.

 

[Tigger]

To me, the only way Stamkos wouldn't fit into the long term plans is if the team was that bad, at which point I don't think an NMC would be a factor.

The team is that bad with a couple huge question marks going forward, c'mon.

Which is a reason to not sign him, sure. But the plan is for the team to get better, and Stamkos could realistically be a part of that.

When you say 'realistically', what do you mean?

That it might not take the Leafs as long as some think to become a highly competitive team, and that having a player of Stamkos' calibre might help the younger players along.

I'm thinking of Rumsfeld, the 'known unknowns' and of course, the piece de resistance, 'unknown unknowns'. If you're current Leafs brass promulgating 'patience' and 'build through the draft', uh, what? You can find a leader for cheaper, you can put 10 or 11 mil of capspace to fantastic use over those years, rolling the roster and letting Hunter work his magic ( if he is indeed a magician ).

Yep. They could. There are definitely benefits to not signing him.

...and I think those benefits are much more realistic in terms of success to the ultimate goal of all this without signing Stamkos.

Say Rielly is Keith, on an even parallel, that's 4 years to a cup. Stamkos isn't worth it by then and I don't think there are any 'knowns' that can change that at this point.

Oh, and Rielly won't be paid like Keith, if he turns out to be something like him, and the Leafs won't have a Hossa circumventing the cap either.

 

[TML fan]

I'm not trying to get you angry.

I get wordy when I'm angry. I get dismissive with trolls.

In that case, I'm sorry that you're angry.

 

[TML fan]

In that case, I'm sorry that you're angry.

I'm sorry you're a troll.

Found the mirror did ya?

 

[Tigger]

C'mon, enough, talk hockey.

 

[TML fan]

Tigger you make good points but the one I don't agree with is Stamkos not being worth it in 4 years. Lots of players continue to play at a high level into their 30s.

 

[Tigger]

Tigger you make good points but the one I don't agree with is Stamkos not being worth it in 4 years. Lots of players continue to play at a high level into their 30s.

I don't know what his level of play will be in 4 years, granted, but I do have an inkling of how players decline, a 30 year old Stamkos on a 10.5 mil per deal ( say ) with 3 years to go is close to the definition of not worth it, for the cap impact at the time and the 4 years worth of roster rolling with the same money.

 

[Kin]

Through all the sound and fury in this argument, I still feel it hasn't been fully discussed whether Stamkos is, in fact, among the most elite players worthy of the contract he appears likely to get.

In short: has his game regressed since the leg injury? 

I don't watch him enough to say, but others have expressed doubts.  Wondering what people here say.

I think there's too much going on in Tampa to really say definitively. From being played out of position to not getting on with his coach, there's probably real reason to think that whatever "decline" he might be experiencing being less about ability and more about situation.

Which of course feeds into the larger issue of there being an inherent catch-22 with the pro-signing Stamkos argument. There is a problem connecting "He's a terrific, no questions asked first line center who is worth the sort of 8 figure AAV contract he'll almost certainly be asking for" with "But don't worry, he won't help the team be good or anything".

As much as the gap between the middle and the top is shrinking, so is the bottom and the middle. Right now the difference between where the Leafs are and where Ottawa is, tied for 7th worst in the league, is 7 points. I think it would be a pretty conservative estimate to say that one of the best players in the league, which Stamkos may or may not be, can't be responsible for a team improving 7-10 points in a season just by himself.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm on the fence. I've read all the polite, captivating arguments in this thread and still can't make my mind.

I think the safe bet is to just continue the course and not sign Stamkos. However, the safe bet is often a loser's bet. Marner or Nylander may not pan out. The Leafs might select 5th and get a player of no consequence.

When Kessel came in, it was at a great cost and the team didn't have a strong commitment to rebuilding. Stamkos will come at no cost -- other than a big chunk of cap space gone -- and the team can still keep their commitment to the rebuild.

Will Stamkos improve the team to such a level that they start drafting in the middle of the pack? I really don't know. Will his cap hit of $10M provide a huge impediment to future growth of the team? I really don't know.

I think I'm leaning toward skipping Stamkos. The main reason is simply that I think the team is just too early in the rebuild. The defense, in particular, is too far behind.