Steve Stamkos?

[Frank E]

My position on this whole debate has shifted a bit to the point where I'm not sold either way.

1.  A problem I'm identifying here is determining what the downside to not signing Stamkos is.  I don't think this has been argued well by the pro-Stamkos-signing crowd...including me.  It's tough to just argue that 40 goal guys don't become UFA at 26 very often as being the reason to sign him.

2.  The team building template that some of the anti-Stamkos-signing group are proposing could be flawed given that there aren't any championship winning teams that have used it to the extent that it works in the post 2013 cba player contract structure.  The only thing we do know is that there are elite players on those teams that are comparable to Stamkos, but hitting the cap a lot less so than he would in the years that they've won.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I do miss the days when relying on facts and truth wasn't considered nit picking.

You still missed the spirit of my post Busta.

If a Leaf fan here watched the SCF and commented "I would like to have Crosby on the Leafs"

...which used to read "I would like to have Crosby here on our team" but that was also repeatedly shown as wrong and delusional to say but I won't go into that since it is a totally different point...

Replies usually start up declaring it would be ridiculous to think that the Leafs would have the assets to acquire him, that the Leafs are not in a position to take advantage of a player in this stage of his career, positionally/statistically he wouldn't actually benefit the Leafs, etc. 

Again, that hasn't been as prevalent recently but in the past it got excessive.  I see that type of post very different from one that might say:"Crosby is the best option for the Leafs next year and the Leafs could get him for Antropov, Coliacovo and a 1st" which is open to debate which I enjoy.  Even a scenario where after a long, hard week at work (or life) and sitting back thinking that it would nice to have Dave Scatchard as the Leafs 3rd line center and coming up with an unrealistic trade scenario that is corrected by someone here make sense.

My point is that sometimes a fan just wants to make a comment and English might not be their 1st language even.  Instead of someone observing the comment from the original poster's perspective or ignoring it because it is not even close to being something someone else here agrees with, people feel compelled (like a moth to a flame it appears) to belittle, mock, etc.  In my field I am an expert witness and have been grilled while being cross examined and I don't even break a sweat.  If I am ludicrous here because for whatever reason I haven't put much thought into something then I invite the challenging/correcting.  That isn't what I am talking about.

If you don't catch what I am talking about and how I see the 2 situations as very different creating 2 very different types of responses on a fan site than I good with that too.

Back to the topic....

I was firmly in the camp that the Leafs needed to sign Stamkos.  Now with all the debate I am thinking that he would be better suited somewhere else...except for the Potvin/Cujo factor where a better player was signed in an area that wasn't a real weakness allowing Berard to be added to an aging d-corps.  Whether Stamkos was left at center or put on the wing as a trigger man there would be a few good assets freed up that could be moved to help with some of the holes in the Leafs lineup.

 

[TBLeafer]

Question for those wishing to pass up on Stamkos.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Leafs would be in a position of contention, even without him, before he turned 30?

 

[bustaheims]

Question for those wishing to pass up on Stamkos.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Leafs would be in a position of contention, even without him, before he turned 30?

It's too early to make any reasonable assumptions about where the Leafs will be, because we don't really know what the team's top prospect will become at the NHL level. Could they be approaching contender status in that time span? Maybe. I certainly hope they do, but I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about that until I have more information on the players we're hopeful will make up the core of that Leafs' team.

So, I suppose, at this point, I'd say, no that's not a reasonable assumption, as there are too many unknowns at this time.

 

[bustaheims]

You still missed the spirit of my post Busta.

If a Leaf fan here watched the SCF and commented "I would like to have Crosby on the Leafs"

...which used to read "I would like to have Crosby here on our team" but that was also repeatedly shown as wrong and delusional to say but I won't go into that since it is a totally different point...

Replies usually start up declaring it would be ridiculous to think that the Leafs would have the assets to acquire him, that the Leafs are not in a position to take advantage of a player in this stage of his career, positionally/statistically he wouldn't actually benefit the Leafs, etc. 

That's garbage. No one would dissect that statement in that way, because that's statement isn't suggesting the Leafs go out and acquire Crosby. I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiment of wanting Crosby on the team. At most, someone may point out how difficult it would to make it happen, but it wouldn't be dissected to the point you're implying.

I was firmly in the camp that the Leafs needed to sign Stamkos.  Now with all the debate I am thinking that he would be better suited somewhere else...except for the Potvin/Cujo factor where a better player was signed in an area that wasn't a real weakness allowing Berard to be added to an aging d-corps. 

As I pointed out when you brought this up earlier, goaltending was, in fact, a major weakness when Cujo was brought in. The team has been near the bottom of the league in terms of goals allowed the previous two seasons. As for an aging D-corps, the Leafs had one regular on the blueline over the age of 28 in Cujo's first season with the team.

 

[herman]

My position on this whole debate has shifted a bit to the point where I'm not sold either way.

1.  A problem I'm identifying here is determining what the downside to not signing Stamkos is.  I don't think this has been argued well by the pro-Stamkos-signing crowd...including me.  It's tough to just argue that 40 goal guys don't become UFA at 26 very often as being the reason to sign him.

2.  The team building template that some of the anti-Stamkos-signing group are proposing could be flawed given that there aren't any championship winning teams that have used it to the extent that it works in the post 2013 cba player contract structure.  The only thing we do know is that there are elite players on those teams that are comparable to Stamkos, but hitting the cap a lot less so than he would in the years that they've won.

1. I like the way you positioned this. I've been trying to think of reasons why the Leafs would need Stamkos.

2. True. Hard to see what will work dynastically under the new CBA structure that prevents some team-friendly cap hits on player-friendly terms. It's one of the reasons why I'd push hard to maintain cap flexibility where possible, as it leaves the most options open.

There is no denying that championships are built on elite players, and that elite players occupy a significant percentage of the cap. I think there is also no denying that elite players are most cost effective in their ELC/RFA years, and the least resource intensive method of acquiring those players in those age groups is through the drafting as high as possible for a good chunk of time. We have the 'benefit' of having accidentally done exactly that for Kadri, Rielly, and Nylander, prior to our deliberate rebuild. Whether they are elite enough remains to be seen.

 

[TBLeafer]

Question for those wishing to pass up on Stamkos.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Leafs would be in a position of contention, even without him, before he turned 30?

It's too early to make any reasonable assumptions about where the Leafs will be, because we don't really know what the team's top prospect will become at the NHL level. Could they be approaching contender status in that time span? Maybe. I certainly hope they do, but I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about that until I have more information on the players we're hopeful will make up the core of that Leafs' team.

So, I suppose, at this point, I'd say, no that's not a reasonable assumption, as there are too many unknowns at this time.

I see.  That's where the main opposition lies.  As CTB pointed out some time ago, "unknown" is an unfair label to attach to Matthews at the very least.  He is an "unknown" the way McDavid was and "unknown" and the way Eichel was an "unknown".

God help us if in 3 years time we haven't reached the point of contention and at the very least a team built for perennial playoff status.

I am of the full BeLeaf that we will be there in that time based on things being done the right way, therefore adding Stamkos, while continuing to evaluate and build around MATTHEWS for the future, only strengthens that potential.

You CAN plan around that potential, based on the level of that potential.

 

[rdowdall]

Question for those wishing to pass up on Stamkos.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Leafs would be in a position of contention, even without him, before he turned 30?

It's too early to make any reasonable assumptions about where the Leafs will be, because we don't really know what the team's top prospect will become at the NHL level. Could they be approaching contender status in that time span? Maybe. I certainly hope they do, but I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about that until I have more information on the players we're hopeful will make up the core of that Leafs' team.

So, I suppose, at this point, I'd say, no that's not a reasonable assumption, as there are too many unknowns at this time.

I see.  That's where the main opposition lies.  As CTB pointed out some time ago, "unknown" is an unfair label to attach to Matthews at the very least.  He is an "unknown" the way McDavid was and "unknown" and the way Eichel was an "unknown".

God help us if in 3 years time we haven't reached the point of contention and at the very least a team built for perennial playoff status.

I am of the full BeLeaf that we will be there in that time based on things being done the right way, therefore adding Stamkos, while continuing to evaluate and build around MATTHEWS for the future, only strengthens that potential.

You CAN plan around that potential, based on the level of that potential.

So when you buy a lottery ticket, you go out and buy a new house based on the potential of winning?

 

[bustaheims]

You CAN plan around that potential, based on the level of that potential.

Sure, but a plan based mainly on potential is a plan with a high level of probability to fail. What you're really advocating, whether you want to admit it or not, is that the team take the riskier approach in hope of getting to the finish line a little faster. And, no, adding Stamkos does not add to that potential. Stamkos doesn't influence the potential of the prospects currently in the system, and it's their potential we're most concerned about being fulfilled.

The "unknown" isn't just Matthews. It's Marner, Nylander, goaltending, and every other prospect in the organization that's being expected to take a major role on the next few years. I mean, really, there are two established NHL players on the roster we can have any real level of confidence in being part of this team moving forward. Other than Matthews, the rest of of that potential roster are unknowns. You're banking on an awful lot of question marks. Those of us saying the Leafs should pass on Stamkos are saying we need to wait until at least some of those questions are answered, and answered positively.

 

[Britishbulldog]

You still missed the spirit of my post Busta.

If a Leaf fan here watched the SCF and commented "I would like to have Crosby on the Leafs"

...which used to read "I would like to have Crosby here on our team" but that was also repeatedly shown as wrong and delusional to say but I won't go into that since it is a totally different point...

Replies usually start up declaring it would be ridiculous to think that the Leafs would have the assets to acquire him, that the Leafs are not in a position to take advantage of a player in this stage of his career, positionally/statistically he wouldn't actually benefit the Leafs, etc. 

That's garbage. No one would dissect that statement in that way, because that's statement isn't suggesting the Leafs go out and acquire Crosby. I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiment of wanting Crosby on the team. At most, someone may point out how difficult it would to make it happen, but it wouldn't be dissected to the point you're implying.

I will strongly disagree with you on this and leave it at that.

I was firmly in the camp that the Leafs needed to sign Stamkos.  Now with all the debate I am thinking that he would be better suited somewhere else...except for the Potvin/Cujo factor where a better player was signed in an area that wasn't a real weakness allowing Berard to be added to an aging d-corps. 

As I pointed out when you brought this up earlier, goaltending was, in fact, a major weakness when Cujo was brought in. The team has been near the bottom of the league in terms of goals allowed the previous two seasons. As for an aging D-corps, the Leafs had one regular on the blueline over the age of 28 in Cujo's first season with the team.

I actually got the point from an article that I can't find right now as I am in the middle of supervising a couple of projects right now.  The gist of what was said was that Potvin had played well coming into the league and just before Cujo was signed Potvin had set or matched a record of most shots faced.  They also stated that the Leafs were in decline because of the aging d-corps.

Challenging me on that makes sense to me BTW and is welcomed, especially if it is erroneous.  I'll assume your right compared to the article as I am unable to check it out for a few more days.

 

[Britishbulldog]

You CAN plan around that potential, based on the level of that potential.

Sure, but a plan based mainly on potential is a plan with a high level of probability to fail. What you're really advocating, whether you want to admit it or not, is that the team take the riskier approach in hope of getting to the finish line a little faster. And, no, adding Stamkos does not add to that potential. Stamkos doesn't influence the potential of the prospects currently in the system, and it's their potential we're most concerned about being fulfilled.

The "unknown" isn't just Matthews. It's Marner, Nylander, goaltending, and every other prospect in the organization that's being expected to take a major role on the next few years. I mean, really, there are two established NHL players on the roster we can have any real level of confidence in being part of this team moving forward. Other than Matthews, the rest of of that potential roster are unknowns. You're banking on an awful lot of question marks. Those of us saying the Leafs should pass on Stamkos are saying we need to wait until at least some of those questions are answered, and answered positively.

That is my biggest concern of signing Stamkos for me is it would be before seeing what the Leaf prospect's NHL abilities are.  I remember when Chicago thought they were going to turn it around and most of their players didn't pan out (Mark Bell, Steve McCarthy, etc).

I wish it was 2 years from now and Stamkos came up as a UFA.

 

[herman]

I wish it was 2 years from now and Stamkos came up as a UFA.

Me too. S'ok though. I hear there might be another good ol' T'ranna boy that could hit UFA by then.

 

[bustaheims]

I actually got the point from an article that I can't find right now as I am in the middle of supervising a couple of projects right now.  The gist of what was said was that Potvin had played well coming into the league and just before Cujo was signed Potvin had set or matched a record of most shots faced.  They also stated that the Leafs were in decline because of the aging d-corps.

Challenging me on that makes sense to me BTW and is welcomed, especially if it is erroneous.  I'll assume your right compared to the article as I am unable to check it out for a few more days.

Even the season before Cujo joined the Leafs, the blueline wasn't particularly old. They weren't particularly good, but their age wasn't the issue - only 1 regular over the age of 29 (though, they really only had 5 regular defencemen that season, and rotated a number of players into the 6th spot - but the oldest of those was 31). A major factor of the team's defensive problems was coaching, but, Potvin was struggling, too - he was performing admirably, considering the circumstances, but he was declining. I wouldn't say it was a coincidence that he struggled for the next few seasons, before a brief renaissance in LA.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Stamkos>Nylander

They play similarly without the puck, but Stamkos quite frankly has more offensive ability than Nylander ever will.

How many full games have you watched both of those players play?

 

[TBLeafer]

Question for those wishing to pass up on Stamkos.

Is it reasonable to assume that the Leafs would be in a position of contention, even without him, before he turned 30?

It's too early to make any reasonable assumptions about where the Leafs will be, because we don't really know what the team's top prospect will become at the NHL level. Could they be approaching contender status in that time span? Maybe. I certainly hope they do, but I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about that until I have more information on the players we're hopeful will make up the core of that Leafs' team.

So, I suppose, at this point, I'd say, no that's not a reasonable assumption, as there are too many unknowns at this time.

I see.  That's where the main opposition lies.  As CTB pointed out some time ago, "unknown" is an unfair label to attach to Matthews at the very least.  He is an "unknown" the way McDavid was and "unknown" and the way Eichel was an "unknown".

God help us if in 3 years time we haven't reached the point of contention and at the very least a team built for perennial playoff status.

I am of the full BeLeaf that we will be there in that time based on things being done the right way, therefore adding Stamkos, while continuing to evaluate and build around MATTHEWS for the future, only strengthens that potential.

You CAN plan around that potential, based on the level of that potential.

So when you buy a lottery ticket, you go out and buy a new house based on the potential of winning?

In case you missed it, the Leafs already won the lottery and before they did most thought it was even MORE important to sign Stamkos so not at all the same.

Plus Stamkos isn't a lottery ticket, nor is Matthews.  Not even close.

Bad argument.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I do miss the days when relying on facts and truth wasn't considered nit picking.

You still missed the spirit of my post Busta.

If a Leaf fan here watched the SCF and commented "I would like to have Crosby on the Leafs"

...which used to read "I would like to have Crosby here on our team" but that was also repeatedly shown as wrong and delusional to say but I won't go into that since it is a totally different point...

Replies usually start up declaring it would be ridiculous to think that the Leafs would have the assets to acquire him, that the Leafs are not in a position to take advantage of a player in this stage of his career, positionally/statistically he wouldn't actually benefit the Leafs, etc. 

Again, that hasn't been as prevalent recently but in the past it got excessive.  I see that type of post very different from one that might say:"Crosby is the best option for the Leafs next year and the Leafs could get him for Antropov, Coliacovo and a 1st" which is open to debate which I enjoy.  Even a scenario where after a long, hard week at work (or life) and sitting back thinking that it would nice to have Dave Scatchard as the Leafs 3rd line center and coming up with an unrealistic trade scenario that is corrected by someone here make sense.

My point is that sometimes a fan just wants to make a comment and English might not be their 1st language even.  Instead of someone observing the comment from the original poster's perspective or ignoring it because it is not even close to being something someone else here agrees with, people feel compelled (like a moth to a flame it appears) to belittle, mock, etc.  In my field I am an expert witness and have been grilled while being cross examined and I don't even break a sweat.  If I am ludicrous here because for whatever reason I haven't put much thought into something then I invite the challenging/correcting.  That isn't what I am talking about.

If you don't catch what I am talking about and how I see the 2 situations as very different creating 2 very different types of responses on a fan site than I good with that too.

Back to the topic....

I was firmly in the camp that the Leafs needed to sign Stamkos.  Now with all the debate I am thinking that he would be better suited somewhere else...except for the Potvin/Cujo factor where a better player was signed in an area that wasn't a real weakness allowing Berard to be added to an aging d-corps.  Whether Stamkos was left at center or put on the wing as a trigger man there would be a few good assets freed up that could be moved to help with some of the holes in the Leafs lineup.

This is a good post.

What you describe is something that has become more common on the site, I've been guilty of it myself too.

I think part of the issue might be that the site has been really quiet these last few years by comparison to when the Leafs actually were making some noise. We've all grown to know most of the posters and their "schtick" so we are pretty comfortable tossing fastballs at each other every now and then.

We could all stand to be a little more civil when talking to each other.

I miss the days when the guys taking the heat were outsiders, fans of other teams who came here with nonsense arguments and the really sharp posters on this site gave them both barrells.

 

[TBLeafer]

Stamkos>Nylander

They play similarly without the puck, but Stamkos quite frankly has more offensive ability than Nylander ever will.

How many full games have you watched both of those players play?

I've seen more of Stamkos, but enough of Nylander.

You know, there is a reason Nylander was available in the 8th OA spot and Stamkos went 1st OA. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

My position on this whole debate has shifted a bit to the point where I'm not sold either way.

1.  A problem I'm identifying here is determining what the downside to not signing Stamkos is.  I don't think this has been argued well by the pro-Stamkos-signing crowd...including me.  It's tough to just argue that 40 goal guys don't become UFA at 26 very often as being the reason to sign him.

2.  The team building template that some of the anti-Stamkos-signing group are proposing could be flawed given that there aren't any championship winning teams that have used it to the extent that it works in the post 2013 cba player contract structure.  The only thing we do know is that there are elite players on those teams that are comparable to Stamkos, but hitting the cap a lot less so than he would in the years that they've won.

1. I like the way you positioned this. I've been trying to think of reasons why the Leafs would need Stamkos.

I would think for the same reason they need Matthews.  They are in need of as many skilled players as they can fit onto the roster.  If you really want to get down to it, I'm sure you could make an argument for every player that they are not absolutely, without question needed (well maybe not McDavid) but I feel like the people saying nobody has shown why Stamkos is needed are just conveniently trying to be difficult about it.  If any other of the top 15 or so players in the league were UFA and Stamkos' age I'd think the Leafs need them too.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Stamkos>Nylander

They play similarly without the puck, but Stamkos quite frankly has more offensive ability than Nylander ever will.

How many full games have you watched both of those players play?

I've seen more of Stamkos, but enough of Nylander.

You know, there is a reason Nylander was available in the 8th OA spot and Stamkos went 1st OA.

Sure you have.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I would think for the same reason they need Matthews.  They are in need of as many skilled players as they can fit onto the roster.  If you really want to get down to it, I'm sure you could make an argument for every player that they are not absolutely, without question needed (well maybe not McDavid) but I feel like the people saying nobody has shown why Stamkos is needed are just conveniently trying to be difficult about it.  If any other of the top 15 or so players in the league were UFA and Stamkos' age I'd think the Leafs need them too.

Agreed.