Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

I thought that was after seven years.  hasn't he been in the league now for eight, or am I missing something?  Thought they bought up his first UFA year...

They did, but that was likely more a compromise so he could get the kind of money he wanted rather than any concerted effort on his part to become a UFA for the Leafs' centennial. I doubt the centennial even entered into his thinking. So, yeah, I'm gonna go with coincidence. His negotiations to maximize his earnings without substantially delaying him hitting UFA status is what lead to him being a UFA this summer. Nothing more.

I mean, think about it - what's more likely: he saw an opportunity to maximize his earning potential by signing a 5 year deal or that he signed a 5 year deal in the hope that the team he grew up cheering for might be interested in signing him for their centennial season, have the cap space available, and be in a position where they feel it would make sense to do so?

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

NHL'ers do have the ability to count you know. 

 

[Deebo]

I thought that was after seven years.  hasn't he been in the league now for eight, or am I missing something?  Thought they bought up his first UFA year...

They did, but that was likely more a compromise so he could get the kind of money he wanted rather than any concerted effort on his part to become a UFA for the Leafs' centennial. I doubt the centennial even entered into his thinking. So, yeah, I'm gonna go with coincidence. His negotiations to maximize his earnings without substantially delaying him hitting UFA status is what lead to him being a UFA this summer. Nothing more.

I mean, think about it - what's more likely: he saw an opportunity to maximize his earning potential by signing a 5 year deal or that he signed a 5 year deal in the hope that the team he grew up cheering for might be interested in signing him for their centennial season, have the cap space available, and be in a position where they feel it would make sense to do so?

Maybe he didn't want to commit longer than that to one team when he 21 years old, maybe it was to maximize earning potential, maybe he wanted to see if he he could sign with Toronto as a UFA, maybe it was the Lightning who didn't want to go more than 5 years.

Who knows.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe he didn't want to commit longer than that to one team when he 21 years old, maybe it was to maximize earning potential, maybe he wanted to see if he he could sign with Toronto as a UFA, maybe it was the Lightning who didn't want to go more than 5 years.

Who knows.

True. I'm still going to say the fact it coincides with the Leafs' centennial is purely coincidental, even if he was hoping to sign with the Leafs as a UFA.

 

[bustaheims]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

 

[TBLeafer]

I thought that was after seven years.  hasn't he been in the league now for eight, or am I missing something?  Thought they bought up his first UFA year...

They did, but that was likely more a compromise so he could get the kind of money he wanted rather than any concerted effort on his part to become a UFA for the Leafs' centennial. I doubt the centennial even entered into his thinking. So, yeah, I'm gonna go with coincidence. His negotiations to maximize his earnings without substantially delaying him hitting UFA status is what lead to him being a UFA this summer. Nothing more.

I mean, think about it - what's more likely: he saw an opportunity to maximize his earning potential by signing a 5 year deal or that he signed a 5 year deal in the hope that the team he grew up cheering for might be interested in signing him for their centennial season, have the cap space available, and be in a position where they feel it would make sense to do so?

Maybe he didn't want to commit longer than that to one team when he 21 years old, maybe it was to maximize earning potential, maybe he wanted to see if he he could sign with Toronto as a UFA, maybe it was the Lightning who didn't want to go more than 5 years.

Who knows.

It was Stamkos himself that didn't want to be pinned down for a really long term, according to... well... Stamkos.

He gave the pending expiration of the CBA as his primary reasoning. 

So why not lock into a 10+ year contract if you at the time are the best Canadian player not named Sidney Crosby when you have the option to do so?

Also apparently, the framework of the deal had been long agreed to before the signing.

 

[TBLeafer]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

 

[Tigger]

The more I think about it the more I think a team like Washington or maybe the Islanders makes sense as a destination if Tampa can't sign him.

I think Detroit and Anaheim could make big plays for him, too. Nashville could be an interesting fit, and I can see St Louis seeing him as a replacement for Backes. There's going to be some very intriguing destinations for him, in terms of landing with a contender.

I doubt it would happen but Florida is also positioned well with the cap and a growing team.

 

[bustaheims]

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

Those mega-term deals usually meant the players came in at a lower cap hit than their market value - meaning, they got less money over the life of the contract than they would have had they signed multiple deals. And, when he signed that contract, $7.5M wasn't low in comparison to his peers. It was more than Malkin, similar to Nash, more than Kane & Toews. It was actually one of the higher cap hits in the league at the time. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea he opted for less money. Or why you're ignoring the fact that Crosby and Malkin also signed 5 year deals at the same stage of their careers, setting a bit of a precedent for Stamkos and Tampa. In fact, at the time, 5 years was basically the norm for star players. The mega-term deals were just starting to become a thing, and a lot of teams were hesitant about signing them.

 

[Kin]

So why not lock into a 10+ year contract if you at the time are the best Canadian player not named Sidney Crosby when you have the option to do so?

Because it wouldn't necessarily mean doing better financially. You see someone like Jeff Carter who locked in at that sort of deal and doing so has probably cost him millions vs. doing what Stamkos did. If he'd signed a 10 year deal at 8.5 million per he'd obviously have made 85 million total. Doing what he's done there's an excellent chance he'll sign two deals where he'll make 110 million or so over 12 years.

 

[Frank E]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

Maybe he wanted the flexibility that he's going to enjoy this off-season?

When I was 21, 5 years felt like an eternity. 

 

[herman]

Things I would keep in mind if I were a hockey player negotiating a contract, in no particular order:
$ - how much can I make and is anything being left on the table?
Term - finding the balance between flexibility and stability
Success probability - is this team built to compete for the Cup?
Relationships - are these good people? Will my family be in a good situation here?
CBA situation - what considerations should be taken into account?

5 years was just a longer, more stable bridge contract. UFA is where the money is made.

 

[pnjunction]

5 years was just a longer, more stable bridge contract. UFA is where the money is made.

That has been the case but I've been wondering for a while if a better strategy for the teams isn't to lock these guys up early until about 30 and then do shorter deals after that or let them go.

Is Stamkos going to be much better player at 30+ than he was in his mid-20s (at 7.5M) to justify a big raise? It seems unlikely and there are so many examples of guys signing these big UFA deals and then hitting the wall hard.  I say 30+ because the Leafs window is at least that far away, maybe a team going all in sooner is a better fit but then they are unlikely to have the space.  I guess the best case is you get a good piece that ages well like Thornton/Marleau, but the worse case of Lecavelier or Gomez is just so bad.

To me the better strategy is the path that was taken with guys like Tarasenko and Subban, lock them up at 23-24 for as long as you can.  Let guys who want big cash in their late 20s walk, the value is not there long term.

I guess the flip side is that Tampa might have wanted that but Stamkos wanted the shorter team and big UFA $ that he could get now.  Personally I don't think it's a wise decision to pay it.

 

[Kin]

To me the better strategy is the path that was taken with guys like Tarasenko and Subban, lock them up at 23-24 for as long as you can.  Let guys who want big cash in their late 20s walk, the value is not there long term.

St. Louis and Montreal were only able to do that because both guys took three or so years post draft to make it to the NHL. They essentially signed UFA deals because it was either that or sign them to a 1 or 2 year bridge deal until they hit free agency. A team with a player who goes straight into the league at 18 has to sign that first post entry level deal at 21 and it's probably harder to get a 21 year old to sign a 8 or 9 year deal.

 

[TBLeafer]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

Maybe he wanted the flexibility that he's going to enjoy this off-season?

When I was 21, 5 years felt like an eternity.

LOL, sure but like I said, as any hometown boy who grew up a Leafs fan, I'm sure he knew how old they were as an organization when he picked a 5 year term over a 4 or 6 year term.

This was the guy who was admittedly scoreboard watching, praying the Leafs would keep falling in the standings the year of his draft.

 

[Kin]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

Maybe he wanted the flexibility that he's going to enjoy this off-season?

When I was 21, 5 years felt like an eternity.

LOL, sure but like I said, as any hometown boy who grew up a Leafs fan, I'm sure he knew how old they were as an organization when he picked a 5 year term over a 4 or 6 year term.

This was the guy who was admittedly scoreboard watching, praying the Leafs would keep falling in the standings the year of his draft.

Gotta say, I'm a pretty big fan of the team but before they started making all of the announcements about celebrating their centennial I don't know if I could have named it by heart.

Besides isn't it a matter of some dispute as to whether or not it really is their centennial?

 

[TBLeafer]

IDK, when you're coming off a Rocket Richard winning season, most teams tend to want to lock up those players for as long as they can and throw away the key.

Only 5 years is highly suspicious.

I'm sure they would have liked to, and I'm equally sure Stamkos felt he could make more money by signing a shorter deal and getting some extra negotiating leverage as a UFA for his next deal.

Also, not that long before Stamkos signed his deal, Crosby and Malkin signed 5 year deals with the Pens for their 2nd contracts, so it's not like it was without precedent.

Actually, its buying up the prime UFA years that come at a premium and the Lightning only bought one, which kept his contract relatively low compared to his peers.  It would have been more expensive for the Lightning to keep him longer, IMO.  So why opt for less money?

Maybe he wanted the flexibility that he's going to enjoy this off-season?

When I was 21, 5 years felt like an eternity.

LOL, sure but like I said, as any hometown boy who grew up a Leafs fan, I'm sure he knew how old they were as an organization when he picked a 5 year term over a 4 or 6 year term.

This was the guy who was admittedly scoreboard watching, praying the Leafs would keep falling in the standings the year of his draft.

Gotta say, I'm a pretty big fan of the team but before they started making all of the announcements about celebrating their centennial I don't know if I could have named it by heart.

Besides isn't it a matter of some dispute as to whether or not it really is their centennial?

In terms of organization, but I think in terms of name, they became the Maple Leafs the years the NHL was formed.  Which will also be the 100 year Anniversary in 2017.

So both the NHL and the MAPLE LEAFS as per their current name are turning 100.

I think the St. Pats and before that, the Arenas were both pre 1917.

 

[Kin]

In terms of organization, but I think in terms of name, they became the Maple Leafs the years the NHL was formed.  Which will also be the 100 year Anniversary in 2017.

So both the NHL and the MAPLE LEAFS as per their current name are turning 100.

I think the St. Pats and before that, the Arenas were both pre 1917.

No, the Leafs name is definitely not 100 years old. They became the Leafs in '27 after Conn Smythe bought the team.

What I'm referring to regarding their disputed centennial is this:

The National Hockey League was formed in 1917 in Montreal by teams formerly belonging to the National Hockey Association (NHA) that had a dispute with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts. The owners of the other four clubs ? the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Quebec Bulldogs and Ottawa Senators ? wanted to get rid of Livingstone, but discovered that the NHA constitution did not allow them to simply vote him out of the league. Instead, they opted to create a new league, the NHL, and did not invite Livingstone to join them. They also remained voting members of the NHA, and thus had enough votes to suspend the other league's operations, effectively leaving Livingstone's squad in a one-team league.[5][6][7]

However, the other clubs felt it would be unthinkable not to have a team from Toronto (Canada's second largest city at the time) in the new league. They also needed another team to balance the schedule after the Bulldogs suspended operations (and as it turned out, would not ice a team until 1920). Accordingly, the NHL granted a "temporary" Toronto franchise to the Arena Company, owners of the Arena Gardens.[8] The Arena Company leased the Blueshirts' players and was given until the end of the season to resolve the dispute with Livingstone. The franchise did not have an official name, but was informally called "the Blueshirts" or "the Torontos" by the fans and press.[9] Under Manager Charlie Querrie and Head Coach Dick Carroll, the Toronto team won the Stanley Cup in the NHL's inaugural season.[7] Although the roster was composed almost entirely of former Blueshirts, the Maple Leafs do not claim the Blueshirts' history.

For the next season, rather than return the Blueshirts' players to Livingstone as originally promised, the Arena Company formed its own team, the Toronto Arena Hockey Club, which was readily granted membership in the NHL. Also that year, the Arena Company decided that only NHL teams would be allowed to play at the Arena Gardens?a move which effectively killed the NHA.[5] Livingstone sued to get his players back. Mounting legal bills from the dispute forced the Arenas to sell most of their stars, resulting in a horrendous five-win season in 1918?19. When it was obvious that the Arenas would not be able to finish the season, the NHL agreed to let the team halt operations on February 20, 1919 and proceed directly to the playoffs. The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season is still the worst in franchise history. However, the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals ended without a winner due to the worldwide flu epidemic.

The question being whether the "temporary" team in 1917-18 was the same franchise as the permanent Toronto team that existed the next year.

So you see it's a pretty convoluted history. That's why I think most people are leaning on the side of Stamkos making his decision out of self-interest rather than a nod to it.

 

[TBLeafer]

In terms of organization, but I think in terms of name, they became the Maple Leafs the years the NHL was formed.  Which will also be the 100 year Anniversary in 2017.

So both the NHL and the MAPLE LEAFS as per their current name are turning 100.

I think the St. Pats and before that, the Arenas were both pre 1917.

No, the Leafs name is definitely not 100 years old. They became the Leafs in '27 after Conn Smythe bought the team.

What I'm referring to regarding their disputed centennial is this:

The National Hockey League was formed in 1917 in Montreal by teams formerly belonging to the National Hockey Association (NHA) that had a dispute with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts. The owners of the other four clubs ? the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Quebec Bulldogs and Ottawa Senators ? wanted to get rid of Livingstone, but discovered that the NHA constitution did not allow them to simply vote him out of the league. Instead, they opted to create a new league, the NHL, and did not invite Livingstone to join them. They also remained voting members of the NHA, and thus had enough votes to suspend the other league's operations, effectively leaving Livingstone's squad in a one-team league.[5][6][7]

However, the other clubs felt it would be unthinkable not to have a team from Toronto (Canada's second largest city at the time) in the new league. They also needed another team to balance the schedule after the Bulldogs suspended operations (and as it turned out, would not ice a team until 1920). Accordingly, the NHL granted a "temporary" Toronto franchise to the Arena Company, owners of the Arena Gardens.[8] The Arena Company leased the Blueshirts' players and was given until the end of the season to resolve the dispute with Livingstone. The franchise did not have an official name, but was informally called "the Blueshirts" or "the Torontos" by the fans and press.[9] Under Manager Charlie Querrie and Head Coach Dick Carroll, the Toronto team won the Stanley Cup in the NHL's inaugural season.[7] Although the roster was composed almost entirely of former Blueshirts, the Maple Leafs do not claim the Blueshirts' history.

For the next season, rather than return the Blueshirts' players to Livingstone as originally promised, the Arena Company formed its own team, the Toronto Arena Hockey Club, which was readily granted membership in the NHL. Also that year, the Arena Company decided that only NHL teams would be allowed to play at the Arena Gardens?a move which effectively killed the NHA.[5] Livingstone sued to get his players back. Mounting legal bills from the dispute forced the Arenas to sell most of their stars, resulting in a horrendous five-win season in 1918?19. When it was obvious that the Arenas would not be able to finish the season, the NHL agreed to let the team halt operations on February 20, 1919 and proceed directly to the playoffs. The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season is still the worst in franchise history. However, the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals ended without a winner due to the worldwide flu epidemic.

The question being whether the "temporary" team in 1917-18 was the same franchise as the permanent Toronto team that existed the next year.

So you see it's a pretty convoluted history. That's why I think most people are leaning on the side of Stamkos making his decision out of self-interest rather than a nod to it.

Thanks for the refresher.  1927, not 1917 they became the Maple Leafs then?

Okay so it comes down to Toronto being an original six team when the NHL was first formed then, I guess.

Google is my friend.

I'm not saying it was something Stamkos considered necessarily either in his contract with Tampa either, but you have to admit that it is a CRAZY coincidence.

One of the best Toronto born players in the game today has his contract come due when the Leafs and the NHL are about to hit their centennial season is a pretty juicy angle.  8)

 

[bustaheims]

Okay so it comes down to Toronto being an original six team when the NHL was first formed then, I guess.

Well . . . the Original Six wasn't a thing until the 40s.

Google is my friend.

I'm not saying it was something Stamkos considered necessarily either in his contract with Tampa either, but you have to admit that it is a CRAZY coincidence.

It's not that crazy. There will be dozens of potential UFAs from the Toronto area this summer. Stamkos just happens to be the most high profile of them.

It's a fun storyline, but that's all it really is.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay so it comes down to Toronto being an original six team when the NHL was first formed then, I guess.

Well . . . the Original Six wasn't a thing until the 40s.

Google is my friend.

I'm not saying it was something Stamkos considered necessarily either in his contract with Tampa either, but you have to admit that it is a CRAZY coincidence.

It's not that crazy. There will be dozens of potential UFAs from the Toronto area this summer. Stamkos just happens to be the most high profile of them.

It's a fun storyline, but that's all it really is.

I hear ya.  Main thing is we'd all be happy with Stammer as the first captain to bear the new Leafs logo, yes?

I've maintained since last season started that I'd be happy with a 7 year in the range of $9.5M per to 10.5M per.  Even with Matthews.