Steve Stamkos?

[bustaheims]

Might have been a totally different scenario if they didn't have to trade away Clark to bring in Sundin, eh?

And, if the Leafs currently had a fully developed Clark, Gilmour, Potvin, Ellett, etc., on the roster, that might be a valid argument.

 

[TBLeafer]

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

To me it's also the counter to the idea that Stamkos being local matters that much. Chara's not from Boston, Hossa's not from Chicago, Niedermayer didn't grow up outside of Disneyland. What those teams did was they identified the player who fit their needs regardless of boyhood rooting interest and...offered them a ton of money. Those players were primarily interested in winning and signed where they did to win a cup.

If Stamkos were so into being a Leaf that he wanted to sign at some ridiculous discount, sure, but the Leafs have brought in enough local guys that we should know by now that it doesn't really mean much. If the team is good, if the players on the team are ones people want to play with...that attracts good free agents. Being from Markham is great, it's a good story if it plays out, but it doesn't really offer the Leafs an advantage.

How many one goal games would have been tilted in the Leafs favour this season with a little scoring depth?

 

[TBLeafer]

Might have been a totally different scenario if they didn't have to trade away Clark to bring in Sundin, eh?

And, if the Leafs currently had a fully develop Clark, Gilmour, Potvin, Ellett, etc., on the roster, that might be a valid argument.

Haven't you heard?  It's a young man's game now. 

Welcome to Bettman's new NHL where you have to strike before your young core hits their mid 20's. 

 

[bustaheims]

Haven't you heard?  It's a young man's game now. 

Welcome to Bettman's new NHL where you have to strike before your young core hits their mid 20's. 

It's always been a young man's game. The only difference now is that more people are actually starting to recognize that.

 

[Kin]

How many one goal games would have been tilted in the Leafs favour this season with a little scoring depth?

Almost certainly enough that the Team wouldn't be in a position to draft Matthews. Almost certainly not enough to make them a good team.

 

[rdowdall]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top.

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

Nobody knows for certain one way or another at this point, we can only speculate and do our best to project.

How many year did it take Chicago to be a contender once Toews and Kane were added to the roster?

It took the Blackhawks three years to win the cup after the added Kane and Toews.

This is the defence that the Blackhawks had assembled by that point:

Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, Byfuglien, and Sopel. 

Keith was drafted in 2002
Byfuglien was drafted in 2003
Seabrook was drafted in 2003
Hjalmarsson was drafted in 2005

Toews was drafted in 2006
Kane was drafted in 2007

So by the time Chicago decided to go out and get Hossa in 2009, they had a really good idea what they had in their system on  defence and had seen Kane and Toews play together for a year. 

The Leafs have no idea who they have in their system at this point.  The jury is still out on Reilly, and he has played in the league for 3 years.  That's the only piece that the Leafs have that has spent any significant time in the league, and people still don't have a really good idea of where he is going to slot in. 

None of the draft picks have proven to be in the Toews and Kane camp.  Are the projected to be around their level?  Sure, but projected is far from an absolute.  So why add Stamkos if you aren't going to have anything around him?  If the players that are supposed to pan out, do pan out, then the Leafs weakness is defence, which Stamkos is not going to help them on.  The offence will be covered, if the players pan out, by the likes of Marner, Nylander and Matthews. 

Adding Stamkos would be just for the sake of adding a good player.  It would not be a move towards building a team that could compete for the cup year in and year out for ten years.  Take the pain now, build a proper base, and augment as needed after the base is setup correctly.

 

[bustaheims]

Adding Stamkos would be just for the sake of adding a good player.  It would not be a move towards building a team that could compete for the cup year in and year out for ten years.  Take the pain now, build a proper base, and augment as needed after the base is setup correctly.

That's how I see it. Adding Stamkos now feel much more like something to appease fans/create a storyline/etc., than it is smart team building. It's not a full scale jump ahead in the process like Burke tried to do, but it's still skipping steps. And, as you point out, Stamkos doesn't address the more obvious potential holes in the system - defence and goaltending - and, by taking up a significant amount of cap space, could actually hinder the team's ability to fix those issues.

The time for the Leafs to make a play for big name UFAs is next summer at the earliest, and, more than likely, 2 or 3 summers from now.

 

[TBLeafer]

How many one goal games would have been tilted in the Leafs favour this season with a little scoring depth?

Almost certainly enough that the Team wouldn't be in a position to draft Matthews. Almost certainly not enough to make them a good team.

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

 

[bustaheims]

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

Not good enough to make the playoffs, not bad enough to have strong odds to add high-end talent through the draft. Basically, where they were coming out of the 04/05 lockout - stuck in the cycle of mediocrity.

 

[Kin]

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

Don't I get an answer as to why we should think Marner will definitely be more like Kane than Drouin?

 

[TBLeafer]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top.

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

Nobody knows for certain one way or another at this point, we can only speculate and do our best to project.

How many year did it take Chicago to be a contender once Toews and Kane were added to the roster?

It took the Blackhawks three years to win the cup after the added Kane and Toews.

This is the defence that the Blackhawks had assembled by that point:

Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, Byfuglien, and Sopel. 

Keith was drafted in 2002
Byfuglien was drafted in 2003
Seabrook was drafted in 2003
Hjalmarsson was drafted in 2005

Toews was drafted in 2006
Kane was drafted in 2007

So by the time Chicago decided to go out and get Hossa in 2009, they had a really good idea what they had in their system on  defence and had seen Kane and Toews play together for a year. 

The Leafs have no idea who they have in their system at this point.  The jury is still out on Reilly, and he has played in the league for 3 years.  That's the only piece that the Leafs have that has spent any significant time in the league, and people still don't have a really good idea of where he is going to slot in. 

None of the draft picks have proven to be in the Toews and Kane camp.  Are the projected to be around their level?  Sure, but projected is far from an absolute.  So why add Stamkos if you aren't going to have anything around him?  If the players that are supposed to pan out, do pan out, then the Leafs weakness is defence, which Stamkos is not going to help them on.  The offence will be covered, if the players pan out, by the likes of Marner, Nylander and Matthews. 

Adding Stamkos would be just for the sake of adding a good player.  It would not be a move towards building a team that could compete for the cup year in and year out for ten years.  Take the pain now, build a proper base, and augment as needed after the base is setup correctly.

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

 

[TBLeafer]

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

Don't I get an answer as to why we should think Marner will definitely be more like Kane than Drouin?

I'm optimistic.  I BeLeaf. 

 

[TBLeafer]

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

Not good enough to make the playoffs, not bad enough to have strong odds to add high-end talent through the draft. Basically, where they were coming out of the 04/05 lockout - stuck in the cycle of mediocrity.

They didn't have a prospect pool, then.  Times are much different now and history will not be repeated, Shannyco has ALREADY structured things far different from then.

A Leafs fan's worst fear will not be realized, but I understand your fear.

 

[rdowdall]

I look at a rebuild starting back to when current core pieces were drafted, regardless of what management drafted them.  New management simply got to "take over" the rebuild with those pieces already acquired and continue from there.

That should have been 2009, but Blowhard botched it because it should generally start based on how many years in a row, or say "x" number in a five year span you are a lottery team.

Based on that, once we started keeping picks, the rebuild actually started with Rielly, with Kadri being a nice little cherry on top.

Going from Rielly though, our first actual top 5 pick acquired, the Leafs have been a lottery team in all but 1 year since acquiring Rielly, have they not?

We're going in circles here. There is no real current core because this was a 30th place team last year. Right now the Leafs are a team without a real core on their NHL roster but promising futures. Their best player that figures to be around long term is either a 36 point defenseman or a 45 point center or a player who had 13 points in 22 games. Once we have the sort of core who are actually playing like top tier NHLers it makes sense to build and plan around those guys. Until then, the only thing you're doing by having immediate expectations is putting pressure on the process. 

Anyhow, this is still coming off a conversation about building depth. Right now, outside of Rielly, it looks pretty unlikely that the Leafs are going to get a ton from the 2011, 2012 or 2013 drafts. The 2014 draft, again outside of their top pick, seems questionable at this point too.

Building the sort of depth that Chicago and LA did really requires a team start hitting on their picks outside of the lottery and the Leafs haven't done that yet and that's another area where you don't need to jump the gun. Remember, Chicago didn't go out and sign Hossa until all of their young guns were firing and they just needed that small push over the top.

That too me is the counter argument of "You don't pass on guys of Stamkos stature because they don't come along".  LA and Chicago were able to add the pieces that they needed.  Why won't the Leafs in the future?  If Chicago and LA were able to win cups without Stamkos, why won't the Leafs?  Why does it need to be this year that they add a high priced UFA?  Why can't they wait, draft in the top 5 again next year, and then maybe the year after that, and see where they are at.  Does adding Stamkos to this team make them a cup contender next year or the year after?

Nobody knows for certain one way or another at this point, we can only speculate and do our best to project.

How many year did it take Chicago to be a contender once Toews and Kane were added to the roster?

It took the Blackhawks three years to win the cup after the added Kane and Toews.

This is the defence that the Blackhawks had assembled by that point:

Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, Byfuglien, and Sopel. 

Keith was drafted in 2002
Byfuglien was drafted in 2003
Seabrook was drafted in 2003
Hjalmarsson was drafted in 2005

Toews was drafted in 2006
Kane was drafted in 2007

So by the time Chicago decided to go out and get Hossa in 2009, they had a really good idea what they had in their system on  defence and had seen Kane and Toews play together for a year. 

The Leafs have no idea who they have in their system at this point.  The jury is still out on Reilly, and he has played in the league for 3 years.  That's the only piece that the Leafs have that has spent any significant time in the league, and people still don't have a really good idea of where he is going to slot in. 

None of the draft picks have proven to be in the Toews and Kane camp.  Are the projected to be around their level?  Sure, but projected is far from an absolute.  So why add Stamkos if you aren't going to have anything around him?  If the players that are supposed to pan out, do pan out, then the Leafs weakness is defence, which Stamkos is not going to help them on.  The offence will be covered, if the players pan out, by the likes of Marner, Nylander and Matthews. 

Adding Stamkos would be just for the sake of adding a good player.  It would not be a move towards building a team that could compete for the cup year in and year out for ten years.  Take the pain now, build a proper base, and augment as needed after the base is setup correctly.

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

When Chicago Added Hossa, Kane and Toews had been in the league for two years.  They made the playoffs once and had a good showing but realized they needed a little more.  They had been able to evaluate Kane and Toews at the NHL level.

Stamkos is the type of player that can jeopardize finishing in the bottom 5, which is where you need to finish to be able to get elite talent, like Stamkos.  If the Leafs sign Stamkos, and ice a team with him and their current group of prospects, and the prospects are good but not great, then Stamkos will seriously hinder the Leafs ability to add core pieces to the roster because they won't be drafting low enough to get those elite pieces. 

Here's the way I look at things playing out:

1.  Add Stamkos and the prospects the leafs have pan out and they have a great roster.  This is fine, but there is no certainty  here but a possibility.
2.  Adding Stamkos and the prospects don't pan out, and the Leafs have a mediocre roster that can barely make the playoffs, if that.  This is really not good and we have seen this before far too often ( Kessel ).  Again, not a certainty, but a possibility.
3.  Don't add Stamkos, draft some more high end prospects.  Develop those prospects and see where you are at in a couple of years.  This is great, because if the prospects you already have are bad your team is still bad enough to have the highest chances of drafting first overall which gives you the highest chance of getting a players that are going to dominate.

There is no risk is doing nothing.  By not adding Stamkos you continue on with your plan of adding elite talent through the draft.

There is risk in signing Stamkos because you don't know for certain the types of players you have in your system.

 

[Tigger]

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

It's already been said, but again, Stamkos does nothing to improve team defense or goaltending, like ninja dust poof nothing. I think the points been lost here, but those future core players are really unknown at this point, debating cap implications is wrong headed when you have no idea what kind of team you have. You can beleaf all you want, but that system is sorely lacking evidence.

That non playoff lottery team Chicago had, yeah, that was real insignificant, it's also a team that the Leafs don't even remotely resemble.

 

[TBLeafer]

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

It's already been said, but again, Stamkos does nothing to improve team defense or goaltending, like ninja dust poof nothing. I think the points been lost here, but those future core players are really unknown at this point, debating cap implications is wrong headed when you have no idea what kind of team you have. You can beleaf all you want, but that system is sorely lacking evidence.

That non playoff lottery team Chicago had, yeah, that was real insignificant, it's also a team that the Leafs don't even remotely resemble.

And the Penguins are a team Chicago doesn't even remotely resemble.

Maybe the Leafs final UFA piece once Stamkos has been here a couple seasons and we know what the kids are isn't a forward like Hossa.

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

 

[jonlleafs]

Then at least we know for certain that we have someone that isn't a flop and go from there, especially if he was happy to sign and be a Leaf.  That by virtue of itself means it wasn't a waste of a signing for him.  Cup or no cup, he's realizing his childhood dream.

That's the exact scenario the Leafs found themselves in through the back half of the 90s, when they wasted the prime years of Sundin's career with mediocre teams. The difference is that, now, they can't buy their way out of trouble.

Also, I don't think too many people are arguing whether or not it would be a waste of a signing for Stamkos. Quite frankly, I don't care whether or not it would be. What I care about is whether or not it's a waste for the Leafs - and, without having the right talent around him, it absolutely would be.

I think things can turn around quite quickly with the right leader and players.  Look at how crappy the Leafs were in 1992 and then they traded for Gilmour (granted they got some nice pieces on top of him as well) and the franchise turned around really quickly after adding Pat Burns as well.  Stamkos could be that catalyst guy that can help turn us around quickly.  It's not a waste if we start to compete hard in 2yrs.

 

[Frank E]

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

Then we all become habs fans.

 

[Tigger]

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

It's already been said, but again, Stamkos does nothing to improve team defense or goaltending, like ninja dust poof nothing. I think the points been lost here, but those future core players are really unknown at this point, debating cap implications is wrong headed when you have no idea what kind of team you have. You can beleaf all you want, but that system is sorely lacking evidence.

That non playoff lottery team Chicago had, yeah, that was real insignificant, it's also a team that the Leafs don't even remotely resemble.

And the Penguins are a team Chicago doesn't even remotely resemble.

Maybe the Leafs final UFA piece once Stamkos has been here a couple seasons and we know what the kids are isn't a forward like Hossa.

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

What do the Penguins have to do with it?

It might be a defenceman, like a UFA Hedman, but I don't know.

Draft high, draft well, develop them like hell.

 

[Tigger]

Then at least we know for certain that we have someone that isn't a flop and go from there, especially if he was happy to sign and be a Leaf.  That by virtue of itself means it wasn't a waste of a signing for him.  Cup or no cup, he's realizing his childhood dream.

That's the exact scenario the Leafs found themselves in through the back half of the 90s, when they wasted the prime years of Sundin's career with mediocre teams. The difference is that, now, they can't buy their way out of trouble.

Also, I don't think too many people are arguing whether or not it would be a waste of a signing for Stamkos. Quite frankly, I don't care whether or not it would be. What I care about is whether or not it's a waste for the Leafs - and, without having the right talent around him, it absolutely would be.

I think things can turn around quite quickly with the right leader and players.  Look at how crappy the Leafs were in 1992 and then they traded for Gilmour (granted they got some nice pieces on top of him as well) and the franchise turned around really quickly after adding Pat Burns as well.  Stamkos could be that catalyst guy that can help turn us around quickly.  It's not a waste if we start to compete hard in 2yrs.

Pretty sure this was already addressed earlier in the thread.