Steve Stamkos?

[princedpw]

So does Ovechkin.

Stamkos is a center. Matthews is a center. 

Clark is not.
Ovechkin is not.
Kessel is not.

Sundin was, Lindros was, Hawerchuk was. There are lots of great C's drafted high who aren't capable of lugging a team to the promised land by themselves without sufficient depth.

In addition, look at all the years Crosby and Malkin have played on the same team and didn't win cups.  In basketball, if you have the best player in the league, you almost always go pretty far.  Not so in hockey.

 

[bustaheims]

No that's just a year over year start with this year's new acquisitions and promoted prospects in place.  It is not the be all and end all to the rebuild.  It is the START of one around those existing pieces.  Stamkos helps that if he signs.

Who was the best available UFA under 30 in 2007 not locked up by his team?

No, it's not. It puts the Leafs in a position where they won't be likely to add the necessary talent to fill the holes on their roster without subtracting important pieces from elsewhere or sacrificing pieces of the future.  They still won't have a 2nd top pairing defenceman, and they still won't have the calibre of goaltending they'll need to be better than a middle of the pack team.

As for who was the best UFA under 30 in 2007 - that really doesn't matter. The impact of the contract, player, and lack of prime opportunities to add high-end talent for zero cap or asset cost (outside of the pick used to draft them - which is an expiring asset, any way) is the same. The only real difference is that the younger player helps keep them in this middling position for longer.

 

[Tigger]

We've seen enough of bad thanks AND we have our ace in the hole to show for it.

Might as well go for the longest drive too, while we're on a roll.

Right there. That's the problem. The Leafs' haven't seen enough bad. They won't have seen enough bad until they're capable of being good without having to bring in significant pieces from outside the organization.

No its not 'the problem'.

Staying bad now and continuing to go about a tank mentality now that we have 3 top 5 picks and one top 10 pick in 4 of the last five years is 'the problem'.

Wanting to STAY bad now is a greedy, fear based mentality that is safe.

Wanting the team to be something it's not is part of the problem, ignoring the knowns and the unkowns is part of the problem, impatience with a team in the transition from tear down to build up is a huge part of the problem.

Getting multiple shots at drafting and developing top talent to create a team that can, in confluence with smart/timely trades and ufa signings, sustainably compete for the cup is what's needed in the cap era. Leafs can't buy their teams anymore, and it seems like they finally figured that out, I'd like them to do it right this time, and as much as I hate to say as the lure of adding a player like Stamkos is powerful, it's the wrong time for that move.

 

[Coco-puffs]

We have not been bad enough yet to accumulate enough high end options. Even if all of Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Matthews, etc. pan out to their highest potentials, we're still looking for key pieces.

And, if they do pan out, adding Stamkos would amount to adding to the team's strength without addressing their weaknesses (and limiting their ability to do so).

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 
If one or more DON'T pan out.  Well, at least we still have two Elite Forwards in Matthews and Stamkos instead of just one.

I DO buy the argument that getting Stamkos now will make us better next year.  However, I'm already of the opinion we are going to be better anyways.  I don't see a bottom 5 finish for us next year unless our goal-tending truly stinks.  I see us finishing 8-10 without Stamkos and 10-to-Wild Card with him. 

 

[TBLeafer]

Somebody posted this link earlier in the thread (thanks to whoever posted it):

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

I think it is the most useful article on a potential Stamkos signing I have seen.  People will *definitely* quibble with the specific numbers, but that isn't where the value lies.  Unlike other articles I've seen, it lays out the Leafs potential salary structure 7 years in the future in a concrete way (and compares with the Blackhawks).  The charts on "Projected TML Salary Cap" closer to the bottom are the ones I thought were useful.  In particular, what other articles fail to do is to explain in detail what might happen in the critical 19-20 season.  In that season, Marner and (let's assume) Matthews will be in their first RFA year and the cap squeeze will hit. 

I don't actually know that I agree with the author's conclusion, but the salary framework is useful.  For instance, the author hopes that Stamkos might be signed for 10 million, and if so, that leaves 30% of the cap for the bottom half of the roster in the 19-20 season, which is similar to what the Blackhawks have now.  If you don't believe signing him for 10 million is plausible, you can see what happens if it is 11 million, for instance.  If you want to include JVR, decrease the estimate further.  If you don't think the estimates for Marner, Nylander, Matthews future salaries are accurate, you can easily up them and see how much cap space is left.  The roster given there doesn't leave room for adding another high-salary defenseman.  Anyway, you can play around a bunch to see what happens if you make different assumptions, which is why I think the chart is useful.

Overall, in my opinion, the chart, and the length of the discussion on this board, reinforces what is probably blazingly obvious to most others:  signing Stamkos leaves one on the knife's edge (and I think the assumption that Stamkos signs for 10 million is optimistic --- as a rule of thumb, free agents sign for substantially more than what is "reasonable").  It's a risk.  If a Stamkos-level defenseman was available, I'd take the risk.  If it were easier to make trades these days in the NHL, I'd also take the risk and I'd simply look for ways to trade one of our high-end forwards for the equivalent defenseman.  Too bad Stamkos isnt a defenseman and trades ARE hard to make and the chances someone wants to trade their #1 defenseman to the Leafs are miniscule and the chances that a #1 defenceman becomes a UFA AND decides to sign with the Leafs are probably small and at any rate difficult to quantify. 

I think I'm mostly going to sit back and trust our management team.  If they sign him for 13 million/year, I'm going to be worried.  If they sign him for 8 million/year, I'll be happy.  (Look at me going out on a limb!)  Neither will happen so I guess I'll probably take it in stride.

Thank you and you're welcome.  ;D

 

[bustaheims]

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

Sure, but you very rarely get back equal value to what you're trading away when you're the one in the position of need. The most likely scenario there is that you dilute your talent pool a little.

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 
If one or more DON'T pan out.  Well, at least we still have two Elite Forwards in Matthews and Stamkos instead of just one.

I DO buy the argument that getting Stamkos now will make us better next year.  However, I'm already of the opinion we are going to be better anyways.  I don't see a bottom 5 finish for us next year unless our goal-tending truly stinks.  I see us finishing 8-10 without Stamkos and 10-to-Wild Card with him.

I think that's an awfully optimistic view of the potential improvements the team will achieve by replacing a number of veterans with a bunch of rookies. I don't see the prospects being good enough next season to get the team out of the bottom 5 super easily on their own. It usually takes a full season or two in the league before players develop enough to have a real impact.

 

[TBLeafer]

We have not been bad enough yet to accumulate enough high end options. Even if all of Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Matthews, etc. pan out to their highest potentials, we're still looking for key pieces.

And, if they do pan out, adding Stamkos would amount to adding to the team's strength without addressing their weaknesses (and limiting their ability to do so).

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 
If one or more DON'T pan out.  Well, at least we still have two Elite Forwards in Matthews and Stamkos instead of just one.

I DO buy the argument that getting Stamkos now will make us better next year.  However, I'm already of the opinion we are going to be better anyways.  I don't see a bottom 5 finish for us next year unless our goal-tending truly stinks.  I see us finishing 8-10 without Stamkos and 10-to-Wild Card with him.

pretty much, yeah.

We will have an unprecedented amount of top rookie prospects cracking the NHL roster.  We will be better with or without Stamkos than we were last season.

 

[TBLeafer]

No that's just a year over year start with this year's new acquisitions and promoted prospects in place.  It is not the be all and end all to the rebuild.  It is the START of one around those existing pieces.  Stamkos helps that if he signs.

Who was the best available UFA under 30 in 2007 not locked up by his team?

No, it's not. It puts the Leafs in a position where they won't be likely to add the necessary talent to fill the holes on their roster without subtracting important pieces from elsewhere or sacrificing pieces of the future.  They still won't have a 2nd top pairing defenceman, and they still won't have the calibre of goaltending they'll need to be better than a middle of the pack team.

As for who was the best UFA under 30 in 2007 - that really doesn't matter. The impact of the contract, player, and lack of prime opportunities to add high-end talent for zero cap or asset cost (outside of the pick used to draft them - which is an expiring asset, any way) is the same. The only real difference is that the younger player helps keep them in this middling position for longer.

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

 

[herman]

We have not been bad enough yet to accumulate enough high end options. Even if all of Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Matthews, etc. pan out to their highest potentials, we're still looking for key pieces.

And, if they do pan out, adding Stamkos would amount to adding to the team's strength without addressing their weaknesses (and limiting their ability to do so).

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 
If one or more DON'T pan out.  Well, at least we still have two Elite Forwards in Matthews and Stamkos instead of just one.

I DO buy the argument that getting Stamkos now will make us better next year.  However, I'm already of the opinion we are going to be better anyways.  I don't see a bottom 5 finish for us next year unless our goal-tending truly stinks.  I see us finishing 8-10 without Stamkos and 10-to-Wild Card with him.

I was going to mention that option at the time, but if we're talking about a build plan, trades can't really be considered plans as we have little control over what will be on the market. Burke promising to trade up to draft Tavares to play with Kessel, for instance, is a fun example of a plan involving many unknowns and other teams.

The plan Shanahan and Co. have demonstrated so far is to draft and develop primarily -- i.e. maximize what they can control; and then jump on opportunities if they present themselves. It's similar to the way Babcock wants the team to play on the ice: work hard to get in position to support one another, so that you will be in position to take lots of shots with the puck. Whether it goes in or not doesn't matter as much as the consistent practice of executing the process.

Buying Stamkos as an insulator is an overspend, especially when we have Kadri locked up for cheap, who also won't accidentally push a bottom 5 finish into middling 9-10th.

 

[herman]

Somebody posted this link earlier in the thread (thanks to whoever posted it):

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

Thank you and you're welcome.  ;D

Y'all should thank Potvin29 actually, as he posted it back in page 48.

 

[rdowdall]

No that's just a year over year start with this year's new acquisitions and promoted prospects in place.  It is not the be all and end all to the rebuild.  It is the START of one around those existing pieces.  Stamkos helps that if he signs.

Who was the best available UFA under 30 in 2007 not locked up by his team?

No, it's not. It puts the Leafs in a position where they won't be likely to add the necessary talent to fill the holes on their roster without subtracting important pieces from elsewhere or sacrificing pieces of the future.  They still won't have a 2nd top pairing defenceman, and they still won't have the calibre of goaltending they'll need to be better than a middle of the pack team.

As for who was the best UFA under 30 in 2007 - that really doesn't matter. The impact of the contract, player, and lack of prime opportunities to add high-end talent for zero cap or asset cost (outside of the pick used to draft them - which is an expiring asset, any way) is the same. The only real difference is that the younger player helps keep them in this middling position for longer.

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Hossa was available in 2008 though.  Why didn't they sign him that year? Why wait one more year?

 

[rdowdall]

No that's just a year over year start with this year's new acquisitions and promoted prospects in place.  It is not the be all and end all to the rebuild.  It is the START of one around those existing pieces.  Stamkos helps that if he signs.

Who was the best available UFA under 30 in 2007 not locked up by his team?

No, it's not. It puts the Leafs in a position where they won't be likely to add the necessary talent to fill the holes on their roster without subtracting important pieces from elsewhere or sacrificing pieces of the future.  They still won't have a 2nd top pairing defenceman, and they still won't have the calibre of goaltending they'll need to be better than a middle of the pack team.

As for who was the best UFA under 30 in 2007 - that really doesn't matter. The impact of the contract, player, and lack of prime opportunities to add high-end talent for zero cap or asset cost (outside of the pick used to draft them - which is an expiring asset, any way) is the same. The only real difference is that the younger player helps keep them in this middling position for longer.

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Hossa was available in 2008 though.  Why didn't they sign him that year? Why wait one more year?

Also, in 2007, the only free agents of note that Chicago decided to sign were Robert Lang and Yanic Perrault.  Perrault was at the end of his career and retired after the 2007-2008 season.  They moved Lang to Montreal for a 2nd rounder.  Sounds like a plan I've seen executed some where, just not sure where at the moment....

Also they stayed away from any of the high priced UFA's that year, like Jason Blake, Scott Gomez, and Chris Drury.

 

[Kin]

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 

Last year, 22 defensemen received Norris trophy votes. Of the voting, you have to get to #11 before you find someone who was traded. That's Ryan McDonagh, who was traded before he'd ever signed a pro contract. Here are the other guys on the list who were traded:

Byfuglien
Stralman
Shattenkirk
Leddy
Wideman
Burns
Campbell

So you have two guys who weren't defensemen when they were traded, three guys who weren't established as top pairing defensemen, two guys moved in salary dumps...and Dennis Wideman.

So, no, the idea that you can just choose to trade for a top pairing defenseman whenever you want doesn't really hold water. If one of these guys is available it's likely to be in a situation where a team can't take money back and, even then, may not be a team that wants what you can offer. Even then, you're almost certainly looking at the bottom end of what constitutes a "top pairing" defenseman.

The chances of a player coming up, establishing themselves as a top pairing defenseman and then being deemed expendable by their team is extremely low. It's certainly not something you can plan around.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes it does matter.  Hossa wasn't available to be had as a UFA in 2007.  If he was, do you not think Chicago would have had just as much interest in him as they did 2 years later?

Considering the types of moves the Hawks did make that summer, I don't think they would have shown that much interest in him then. They understood they were still in the growth phase at that point, and added veteran stopgaps and role players. Two years later, when they recognized that their biggest deficiency was scoring depth, they went all in on addressing that. It's also a really poor parallel, because the massive back-diving contract Hossa did eventually sign is not an option for the Leafs and Stamkos. If the Leafs could lock Stamkos up for 12 years at $5.3M on the cap, we'd be having a very different discussion.

And, since you have to look at things in the context on the contract Stamkos is capable and likely to sign, the specifics of who was available does not matter. All that matters is the impact of signing an equivalent contract would have on a team.

 

[rdowdall]

Considering the types of moves the Hawks did make that summer, I don't think they would have shown that much interest in him then. They understood they were still in the growth phase at that point, and added veteran stopgaps and role players. Two years later, when they recognized that their biggest deficiency was scoring depth, they went all in on addressing that. It's also a really poor parallel, because the massive back-diving contract Hossa did eventually sign is not an option for the Leafs and Stamkos. If the Leafs could lock Stamkos up for 12 years at $5.3M on the cap, we'd be having a very different discussion.

I'm not sure that the discussion would be different for me.  I think I would still have a problem with adding a player of Stamkos's stature at this stage in the rebuild.  It would still feel like a stop gap solution to a problem that isn't a problem yet.  For me it isn't the cap.  It's just not time to be adding players like Stamkos through free agency.  I think you said it best before, you need to win on your own with the pieces you have developed internally before you start adding.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure that the discussion would be different for me.  I think I would still have a problem with adding a player of Stamkos's stature at this stage in the rebuild.  It would still feel like a stop gap solution to a problem that isn't a problem yet.  For me it isn't the cap.  It's just not time to be adding players like Stamkos through free agency.  I think you said it best before, you need to win on your own with the pieces you have developed internally before you start adding.

Well, it would different in that we wouldn't be talking about opportunity costs in terms of having cap space for future needs, or cap constraints in term re-signing Matthews/Marner/Nylander, etc., nor would we be as concerned about the first 3 or 4 years of the contract being used up while the team was still building to the get to contention. It wouldn't change things for everyone - or, at least, it wouldn't have the same impact in terms of change - but it would frame the discussion differently. I'd likely still think it was a premature move, and not one that I'd think the team should make, but, I'd certainly be more open to the idea of signing Stamkos for 12 years at $6M per, than I am to signing him to what could very easily be in the range of 7 years and $12M per.

 

[Frank E]

Would anyone feel the same way if it was Roman Josi coming into free agency?

 

[Coco-puffs]

If they do pan out, you could always trade from a position of strength to address that weakness?

Sure, but you very rarely get back equal value to what you're trading away when you're the one in the position of need. The most likely scenario there is that you dilute your talent pool a little.

The way I see it:

We add Stamkos and they all pan out.  Trade one of them for a defenseman.  Marner or Nylander, if they pan out as Top Line forwards, can fetch a Top 2 dman to play with Reilly. 
If one or more DON'T pan out.  Well, at least we still have two Elite Forwards in Matthews and Stamkos instead of just one.

I DO buy the argument that getting Stamkos now will make us better next year.  However, I'm already of the opinion we are going to be better anyways.  I don't see a bottom 5 finish for us next year unless our goal-tending truly stinks.  I see us finishing 8-10 without Stamkos and 10-to-Wild Card with him.

I think that's an awfully optimistic view of the potential improvements the team will achieve by replacing a number of veterans with a bunch of rookies. I don't see the prospects being good enough next season to get the team out of the bottom 5 super easily on their own. It usually takes a full season or two in the league before players develop enough to have a real impact.

The same bunch of rookies who almost climbed the standings post-deadline?  If it weren't for playing Sparks half of the games post-deadline I'm not sure we would have finished last when it looked guaranteed prior to the deadline. 

I'm thinking the Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones type of trade.  I don't think either team diluted their talent pool.  Columbus needed a top defenseman so they traded a top centerman.  Nashville had a glut of top defensemen and traded one to address a need up front.

 

[bustaheims]

The same bunch of rookies who almost climbed the standings post-deadline?  If it weren't for playing Sparks half of the games post-deadline I'm not sure we would have finished last when it looked guaranteed prior to the deadline. 

You mean that group of rookies that had a good initial run and then came down to earth once teams had a better scouting report on them. Goaltending played a part in it, but the team you're talking about improving has that same goaltending.

I'm thinking the Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones type of trade.  I don't think either team diluted their talent pool.  Columbus needed a top defenseman so they traded a top centerman.  Nashville had a glut of top defensemen and traded one to address a need up front.

Trades like that don't happen often. There would have to be another team with 3 top pairing options, and a need at forward. Considering how many teams struggle to find 2 top pairing defencemen, what are the odds that situation presents itself again in a reasonable timeframe?

 

[Kin]

I'm thinking the Ryan Johansen for Seth Jones type of trade.  I don't think either team diluted their talent pool.  Columbus needed a top defenseman so they traded a top centerman.  Nashville had a glut of top defensemen and traded one to address a need up front.

How often does a trade like that get made? I mean, leaving aside the fact that Columbus was more motivated by the fact that Tortorella and Johansen didn't mesh and Columbus now looks terrible and is searching for the thing they just traded away...do you really want to make the Leafs' future contingent on something like that happening again? And Marner/Nylander being exactly what the other team is looking for?