Steve Stamkos?

[Tigger]

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.

I don't know if happy is how I'd describe it, the timing seems fairly wrong for the Leafs, even with Matthews, though it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at 9.5.

 

[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.

I don't know if happy is how I'd describe it, the timing seems fairly wrong for the Leafs, even with Matthews, though it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at 9.5.

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

 

[Kin]

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

As this 54 page thread can attest, opinion is divided. Signing Stamkos seems to be popular but not unanimous, especially not since winning the lottery.

 

[Tigger]

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.

I don't know if happy is how I'd describe it, the timing seems fairly wrong for the Leafs, even with Matthews, though it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at 9.5.

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

I'm kind of debated out on this one but I'll say I think he'll need parging when the Leafs are really ready to compete.

 

[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.

I don't know if happy is how I'd describe it, the timing seems fairly wrong for the Leafs, even with Matthews, though it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world at 9.5.

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

I'm kind of debated out on this one but I'll say I think he'll need parging when the Leafs are really ready to compete.

Yeah, for their 2nd Cup perhaps. 

 

[bustaheims]

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

Ideally, you want your cornerstone pieces to be around the same age. Stamkos is a good 5 years older than all of the team's other potential cornerstone pieces - most of whom are still question marks at the NHL level. You don't commit big money to bring in outside pieces when you still don't really know what you have in the organization. As Babcock alluded to a few weeks ago, the Leafs are not at the point in the process where they should be bringing in big pieces.

 

[TBLeafer]

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

Ideally, you want your cornerstone pieces to be around the same age. Stamkos is a good 5 years older than all of the team's other potential cornerstone pieces - most of whom are still question marks at the NHL level. You don't commit big money to bring in outside pieces when you still don't really know what you have in the organization. As Babcock alluded to a few weeks ago, the Leafs are not at the point in the process where they should be bringing in big pieces.

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I also think I can trump Babcock's guarded response, anyway.

 

[Frank E]

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I also think I can trump Babcock's guarded response, anyway.

I'm a fan of bringing in Stamkos within the single digits, and I too think Stamkos can be part of the building process.

But even I know that bringing in a much older Gilmour was in a different era, in a different stage of team performance, and in a different financial structure without a cap.  They don't even remotely compare. 

 

[bustaheims]

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I also think I can trump Babcock's guarded response, anyway.

It wasn't all that guarded. In fact, he added the part about not adding pieces during the growing phase when he didn't need to. It came off as a very intentional message.

As for Gilmour - 25 years ago, a completely different landscape for the league, and a widely different situation. No salary cap, getting players for nickles on the dollar because Calgary was in desperate shape, etc. Completely irrelevant to today.

As for Shanahan favouriting a tweet . . . that doesn't trump anything. For all we know, someone else got a hold of his phone, or he hit the heart by accident. I've done that dozens of times. Considering how inactive a twitter user he is, I'm gonna say it's pretty meaningless.

 

[herman]

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

Ideally, you want your cornerstone pieces to be around the same age. Stamkos is a good 5 years older than all of the team's other potential cornerstone pieces - most of whom are still question marks at the NHL level. You don't commit big money to bring in outside pieces when you still don't really know what you have in the organization. As Babcock alluded to a few weeks ago, the Leafs are not at the point in the process where they should be bringing in big pieces.

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I trust the current plan our management team seems to be executing, which is to establish foundational core players of similar age range through the draft and development processes. Teams shouldn't establish their longterm plans around potential UFAs, just as players shouldn't base their contracts on potential team celebrations. They'll do their due diligence and make the determination when the time comes. They're not the type of group to make premature proclamations and then have to either stick to a mistake, or eat their words publicly later.

I think there are valid arguments for Stamkos to be considered both a cornerstone player, as well as a complementary player, but they're based on the context of the team he will be part of.

On the Leafs, if you believe the true core is Rielly, Nylander, Marner, and Matthews, he would be a complementary veteran (whom you should not spend too much on). If you believe the true core is Kadri, JvR, Gardiner, and... Komarov? then Stamkos would be your cornerstone.

 

[TBLeafer]

Stamkos is still a cornerstone piece, not a final piece, IMO. 

So I disagree that the timing is bad.

Ideally, you want your cornerstone pieces to be around the same age. Stamkos is a good 5 years older than all of the team's other potential cornerstone pieces - most of whom are still question marks at the NHL level. You don't commit big money to bring in outside pieces when you still don't really know what you have in the organization. As Babcock alluded to a few weeks ago, the Leafs are not at the point in the process where they should be bringing in big pieces.

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I trust the current plan our management team seems to be executing, which is to establish foundational core players of similar age range through the draft and development processes. Teams shouldn't establish their longterm plans around potential UFAs, just as players shouldn't base their contracts on potential team celebrations. They'll do their due diligence and make the determination when the time comes. They're not the type of group to make premature proclamations and then have to either stick to a mistake, or eat their words publicly later.

I think there are valid arguments for Stamkos to be considered both a cornerstone player, as well as a complementary player, but they're based on the context of the team he will be part of.

On the Leafs, if you believe the true core is Rielly, Nylander, Marner, and Matthews, he would be a complementary veteran (whom you should not spend too much on). If you believe the true core is Kadri, JvR, Gardiner, and... Komarov? then Stamkos would be your cornerstone.

See, this is Leafs fans going to the other extreme.  Management never said they were looking to exclusively draft and develop from within.  They are going to be exorcising ALL avenues of team building, including UFA and trades.

What's changed is the cluture in the approach to team building.  We will no longer be a team consisting of "primarily" traded for players and overpriced UFA's while we continually shipped out our future pieces in the cap era.

UFA players like Stammkos and Zaitsev and traded for players like Bernier and JVR are now a sprinkling of a primarily home built team.

Plus, Stammer is finally going to see what playing for Babcock is all about this summer, isn't he?

 

[TBLeafer]

Oh, you missed the word "usually" too?  It was a very guarded response.

Guess we shouldn't have traded for Gilmour, then. 

I also think I can trump Babcock's guarded response, anyway.

I'm a fan of bringing in Stamkos within the single digits, and I too think Stamkos can be part of the building process.

But even I know that bringing in a much older Gilmour was in a different era, in a different stage of team performance, and in a different financial structure without a cap.  They don't even remotely compare.

Different era or not, giving up ZERO future pieces to get a player like Stammer in his prime should be a dream come true for all Leafs fans.

Let's move forward in history.  Sundin cost us Clark, cap or no cap.  Imagine having the chance to keep Sundin AND Clark through the entire Sundin era?

That's what the prospect of signing Stammer as a free agent gives us.  He gets to be added to the team for cap space which the Leafs are very flush with and cap space alone.

 

[bustaheims]

See, this is Leafs fans going to the other extreme.  Management never said they were looking to exclusively draft and develop from within.  They are going to be exorcising ALL avenues of team building, including UFA and trades.

What's changed is the cluture in the approach to team building.  We will no longer be a team consisting of "primarily" traded for players and overpriced UFA's while we continually shipped out our future pieces in the cap era.

UFA players like Stammkos and Zaitsev and traded for players like Bernier and JVR are now a sprinkling of a primarily home built team.

Plus, Stammer is finally going to see what playing for Babcock is all about this summer, isn't he?

They've also said they're going to stick to the plan, respect the process, etc. That generally means not adding big UFA pieces until the next stage of the team's development (and, generally, using the UFA market to add secondary/support pieces rather that cornerstone/core pieces). No one is saying they should never go to the UFA market for expensive bigger pieces. What we're saying is this summer is not the time to do so - especially not before the team has really identified/addressed its biggest needs (which would be a starting goalie and a top pairing defenceman). As Nik pointed out earlier in the thread, on average, there's a prominent UFA every other summer. Stamkos is the jewel right now, but, in a few years, when the Leafs are hopefully close to being a real contender, there will be someone else - and they could be a guy who addresses the team's needs. Or, if not, there's also the very real possibility the Leafs would be in better shape if they split the ~$10M in cap it'll take to land Stamkos between two players instead of investing it all in one. With the current group of prospects and younger players, it's quite likely in the team's best interested to invest in a $6M defenceman and a $4M winger instead of a $10M centre.

 

[bustaheims]

Different era or not, giving up ZERO future pieces to get a player like Stammer in his prime should be a dream come true for all Leafs fans.

That's not really true. It doesn't cost any current assets, but there's a significant opportunity cost attached to Stamkos. It's tying up ~$10M in cap that will cost the Leafs opportunities to add future pieces they may need. In the short-term, that's not a big deal, but 3 years from now, when Marner, Matthews, and Nylander all need new contracts, and there are other deals on the books taking up space . . . it could be a very real problem. There's no sense in creating a future problem when you're not going reap enough reward from the present.

 

[TBLeafer]

Different era or not, giving up ZERO future pieces to get a player like Stammer in his prime should be a dream come true for all Leafs fans.

That's not really true. It doesn't cost any current assets, but there's a significant opportunity cost attached to Stamkos. It's tying up ~$10M in cap that will cost the Leafs opportunities to add future pieces they may need. In the short-term, that's not a big deal, but 3 years from now, when Marner, Matthews, and Nylander all need new contracts, and there are other deals on the books taking up space . . . it could be a very real problem. There's no sense in creating a future problem when you're not going reap enough reward from the present.

This is my best attempt to help you understand how the long term situation really isn't the problem if we sign Stamkos that some make it out to be.

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2016/05/10/steven-stamkos-toronto-maple-leafs-salary-cap/

 

[rdowdall]

See, this is Leafs fans going to the other extreme.  Management never said they were looking to exclusively draft and develop from within.  They are going to be exorcising ALL avenues of team building, including UFA and trades.

For the most part, I think that the fans of the Leafs are looking at how Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh were able to obtain success and the fans as saying, we aren't at the point where Stamkos should be the target.  They haven't finished building the team yet.  The part some fans have a problem with is that there isn't a timeline.  There isn't a project manager schedule associated with this.  It's a constant evaluation and decision process.  They look at what they have in their system, make a prediction on what they think is going to happen, and make decisions based on what they are going to have and what they currently have.  Then in 2 months in to the season, they'll do it again, then 4 months in to the season they'll do it another time, and over and over again.

This isn't about whether or not Stamkos is good or great, or a foundation piece, or not.  It's about whether or not he is the right piece for the Leafs given their current situation.  Some argue that he is the type of player that is always right for a team. 

Personally I think we saw the problem with that line of thinking with Kessel.  Trusses are always a good part for a house, but they shouldn't get put on before the walls, and the walls shouldn't go up until the foundation is made.

If you sign Stamkos in July, then come next July you may look at this team and say "Man what a great group of forwards.  Too bad they don't have that #1 d-man that can play 30 minutes a game and control the pace of play" because getting that type of dman is not going to be easy to accomplish outside of the draft. 

 

[Kin]

I think one of the problems with looking backwards at how earlier Leafs teams were built needs to be done within the context of separating the excitement of watching those teams from the actual team-building that was done.

All four of the Leafs' conference finals teams from 93-02 were underpowered teams that got where they did through heroic performances before either being knocked out by teams they were outgunned by or by teams who eventually got flattened by the eventual cup champions. Watching Gilmour almost single-handedly drag a group to the Conference finals was exciting but that's not something to look to replicate. We want to build the overpowered champions, not the scrappy also-rans. Typically that involves excellence in all areas, not overloading at one position and making big moves in a hurry.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

 

[rdowdall]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

Then why are we here?  What does this all mean?  Where are my pants?

 

[Kin]

I'm going to make a really bold claim and say that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here.

Yeah, the cap thing doesn't bother me so much albeit with two restrictions. One, as busta points out, is that it's not so much about the Leafs having room for Stamkos it's about whether they have room for Stamkos and whatever else they might need in the future and two that just about every pro-signing Stamkos argument tends to revolve around Stamkos signing for what Toews/Kane got or lower.

So to me I think it's a pretty simple equation. It's Stamkos' value as a player subtracted by the potential value of other free agents the Leafs could add in the future vs. the necessity of Stamkos subtracted by the potential necessity of the same potential free agents.

As I said before where I think the anti-Stamkos signing people come down isn't even on one side or the other of that question, it's more on "the Leafs don't have to sign Stamkos, so why risk it?"