Steve Stamkos?

[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.

Sure you have.

I've followed him all year and watched his game on the Leafs AND Marlies and last year in the WJC and Marlies.

That's also draft +2.  Stamkos never played in the minors after his draft year.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I've followed him all year and watched his game on the Leafs AND Marlies and last year in the WJC and Marlies.

That's also draft +2.  Stamkos never played in the minors after his draft year.

How many Marlies games did you watch this past season, not including highlights or box scores?

As to your second point, Nylander was not in the NHL last year because the Leafs tried to tank, it had zero to do with his ability.

 

[TBLeafer]

I've followed him all year and watched his game on the Leafs AND Marlies and last year in the WJC and Marlies.

That's also draft +2.  Stamkos never played in the minors after his draft year.

How many Marlies games did you watch this past season, not including highlights or box scores?

As to your second point, Nylander was not in the NHL last year because the Leafs tried to tank, it had zero to do with his ability.

I fully believe Nylander would have been called up when JVR went down, had he not been concussed.  He was the only minor league player capable of filling a top six role for the Leafs to potentially stay competitive.  Seeing as neither JVR or Nylander were and option anymore, they went full on tank.

I didn't count.  All LeafsTV live broadcasts, when not conflicting with a Leafs game.  Some replays on LeafsTV later at night if I was still up and all Marlies playoffs both seasons.

I don't live in the Toronto area anymore, so RogersTV Toronto isn't an option for me anymore.

Stamkos went STRAIGHT to the NHL, Nylander wasn't ready the year he was drafted as he was more risk/reward status than Stamkos.  Don't get me wrong, Nylander is going to be a really good NHL'er, probably better overall than Kadri, but he won't be Stamkos good.

 

[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?

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.

Okay, you are in the poker world championships, with a $25 million pot.  It's just you and one other person left.  Your hand is pretty decent.  Looks to be almost a surefire win.  Before you are crowned the official winner, do you call up a bunch of places and buy a yacht, a mansion and 3 new Jags?

You can say things as much as you want, but it doesn't make them true.  Lets look at Mr. Hammer (M.C. to his friends) as an example.  For a while he proclaimed that he was "2 Legit".  He proclaimed, in fact, that he was so "Legit" that it made him unable "2 Quit".  Years have passed by now, and history has shown, that in fact Mr. Hammer (again, M.C. to his friends) was not in fact "2 Legit".  In fact, he was left lacking in "Legit", so much so, that he did in fact have "2 Quit".

 

[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.

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.

I definitely agree we have a need for a 1C and that we should try to cram in as many skilled players into our roster as possible. In light of drafting first overall in a fortnight, is it worth paying UFA prices to fulfill that particular need?

My argument has been that the Leafs don't need a Stamkos-caliber 1C for the next handful of years as he would be counter productive to the acquisition of high picks that can help build the 1D or 1G needs.

Stamkos also doesn't make the threshold of must-have in my opinion. I asked this pretty early on in the thread (page 5), but if every player became UFA all of a sudden, which 5 players would you be willing to throw max term and 10M at? Stamkos doesn't make top 5 for most people. Have you changed your mind on that, Potvin29? Why make that push when the worst that could happen if we skipped him is that we would be in the same early but promising stage of the rebuild?

 

[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.

Okay, you are in the poker world championships, with a $25 million pot.  It's just you and one other person left.  Your hand is pretty decent.  Looks to be almost a surefire win.  Before you are crowned the official winner, do you call up a bunch of places and buy a yacht, a mansion and 3 new Jags?

You can say things as much as you want, but it doesn't make them true.  Lets look at Mr. Hammer (M.C. to his friends) as an example.  For a while he proclaimed that he was "2 Legit".  He proclaimed, in fact, that he was so "Legit" that it made him unable "2 Quit".  Years have passed by now, and history has shown, that in fact Mr. Hammer (again, M.C. to his friends) was not in fact "2 Legit".  In fact, he was left lacking in "Legit", so much so, that he did in fact have "2 Quit".

No of course not.  Stamkos is the straight flush river card that hasn't turned up yet.  But I know its out there so I hope that the odds shine upon me and I stay in the game.

 

[Bill_Berg]

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.

Defining what is meant by 'contender' is a good idea here too. One of 2-4 teams that are predicted to have the strongest chance of winning the Cup, that's a contender in my mind. Sure an 8th seed can once in a while go deep, and even win, and that may happen in 3 or 4 years (consistent playoffs I mean, not an 8th seed Cup win), but to be one of the top 2-4 teams in the league? Much tougher to say. That may take 5+ years to happen, especially since the goal is not to get to that top tier for a year or two, but to consistently be there or close to the top tier for a much longer period of time.

 

[bustaheims]

You can say things as much as you want, but it doesn't make them true.  Lets look at Mr. Hammer (M.C. to his friends) as an example.  For a while he proclaimed that he was "2 Legit".  He proclaimed, in fact, that he was so "Legit" that it made him unable "2 Quit".  Years have passed by now, and history has shown, that in fact Mr. Hammer (again, M.C. to his friends) was not in fact "2 Legit".  In fact, he was left lacking in "Legit", so much so, that he did in fact have "2 Quit".

This might be the best metaphor posted on this site.

 

[bustaheims]

Defining what is meant by 'contender' is a good idea here too. One of 2-4 teams that are predicted to have the strongest chance of winning the Cup, that's a contender in my mind. Sure an 8th seed can once in a while go deep, and even win, and that may happen in 3 or 4 years (consistent playoffs I mean, not an 8th seed Cup win), but to be one of the top 2-4 teams in the league? Much tougher to say. That may take 5+ years to happen, especially since the goal is not to get to that top tier for a year or two, but to consistently be there or close to the top tier for a much longer period of time.

That's basically the definition I was going by - to me, a contender is a team that is expected to be one of the strongest challengers for the Cup before the season begins. A team that should reasonably be expected to win their division, or, at the very least, earn home-ice advantage in the opening round.

 

[herman]

You can say things as much as you want, but it doesn't make them true.  Lets look at Mr. Hammer (M.C. to his friends) as an example.  For a while he proclaimed that he was "2 Legit".  He proclaimed, in fact, that he was so "Legit" that it made him unable "2 Quit".  Years have passed by now, and history has shown, that in fact Mr. Hammer (again, M.C. to his friends) was not in fact "2 Legit".  In fact, he was left lacking in "Legit", so much so, that he did in fact have "2 Quit".

This might be the best metaphor posted on this site.

Genuinely LOL'd.

 

[TBLeafer]

All the same members, on the same side of the debate, parroting each other.  Who'd a guessed it?

You're right.  Funny stuff.  :

 

[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?

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.

Okay, you are in the poker world championships, with a $25 million pot.  It's just you and one other person left.  Your hand is pretty decent.  Looks to be almost a surefire win.  Before you are crowned the official winner, do you call up a bunch of places and buy a yacht, a mansion and 3 new Jags?

You can say things as much as you want, but it doesn't make them true.  Lets look at Mr. Hammer (M.C. to his friends) as an example.  For a while he proclaimed that he was "2 Legit".  He proclaimed, in fact, that he was so "Legit" that it made him unable "2 Quit".  Years have passed by now, and history has shown, that in fact Mr. Hammer (again, M.C. to his friends) was not in fact "2 Legit".  In fact, he was left lacking in "Legit", so much so, that he did in fact have "2 Quit".

No of course not.  Stamkos is the straight flush river card that hasn't turned up yet.  But I know its out there so I hope that the odds shine upon me and I stay in the game.

Ah, but he is only the straight flush river card if you know what else is in your hand.

See what you don't understand is, that if you are the Leafs:

U can't touch this!!!
U can't touch this!!!
U can't touch this!!!

Break it down!!!

Stop!!!  Not Stammer time!!!

 

[bustaheims]

No of course not.  Stamkos is the straight flush river card that hasn't turned up yet.  But I know its out there so I hope that the odds shine upon me and I stay in the game.

Actually, in this scenario, Stamkos would be the turn card that you're betting heavily on, while still waiting on the river to make your hand.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Defining what is meant by 'contender' is a good idea here too. One of 2-4 teams that are predicted to have the strongest chance of winning the Cup, that's a contender in my mind. Sure an 8th seed can once in a while go deep, and even win, and that may happen in 3 or 4 years (consistent playoffs I mean, not an 8th seed Cup win), but to be one of the top 2-4 teams in the league? Much tougher to say. That may take 5+ years to happen, especially since the goal is not to get to that top tier for a year or two, but to consistently be there or close to the top tier for a much longer period of time.

That's basically the definition I was going by - to me, a contender is a team that is expected to be one of the strongest challengers for the Cup before the season begins. A team that should reasonably be expected to win their division, or, at the very least, earn home-ice advantage in the opening round.

I figured your thoughts were close to mine.

But it can be very tough to judge as a fan in the moment, I mean I could see the Leafs winning their division in 3-4 years, certainly earning home ice in 3-4 years, but I still don't think that's means they're necessarily a contender, at least not the level of contention that I want and expect.

The NBA this season was really easy. The Raptors, look how far they made it. Were they ever contenders? Not in my mind. Even from the start of the season, the goal was to reach the Conf finals and lose to the only contender in the East. Don't get me wrong, great season, great stepping stone for the future, although I'm not supremely confident they'll be able to take that next step, but that's another topic. The NBA contenders this season was a very short list, Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. That's what I want to see from the Leafs, will they be there in 4 years, highly unlikely, will they be well on their way? They freaking better be.

 

[Bill_Berg]

No of course not.  Stamkos is the straight flush river card that hasn't turned up yet.  But I know its out there so I hope that the odds shine upon me and I stay in the game.

Actually, in this scenario, Stamkos would be the turn card that you're betting heavily on, while still waiting on the river to make your hand.

Or he'd be a pocket Ace with a flop full of low cards and the turn and river pending.

 

[TBLeafer]

No of course not.  Stamkos is the straight flush river card that hasn't turned up yet.  But I know its out there so I hope that the odds shine upon me and I stay in the game.

Actually, in this scenario, Stamkos would be the turn card that you're betting heavily on, while still waiting on the river to make your hand.

Nah, the turn card is about to produce Matthews.

 

[bustaheims]

Nah, the turn card is about to produce Matthews.

No, if you're of the mind that Matthews is a relatively known quality, he would have come on the flop or he's a card in your hand.

 

[louisstamos]

Is there any way to change these to Backgammon allusions?  I'm totally lost...

 

[TBLeafer]

Nah, the turn card is about to produce Matthews.

No, if you're of the mind that Matthews is a relatively known quality, he would have come on the flop or he's a card in your hand.

In the hand are Rielly and Kadri.  The first two knowns signed to long term prospects.  I guess you could say then, yes the top prospects (Nylander, Marner and soon-to-be Matthews) would be the flop, making Stamkos the turn, sure.

Perfect.  Possible Royal Flush.  Enough to keep you in the game, but still not enough to go all-in until you see the river, so more evaluation of what you now have is needed which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

Stamkos perfectly compliments the existing hand, but he still isn't the final piece.

Going off your logic, not mine. 

 

[bustaheims]

In the hand are Rielly and Kadri.  The first two knowns signed to long term prospects.  I guess you could say then, yes the top prospects (Nylander, Marner and soon-to-be Matthews) would be the flop, making Stamkos the turn, sure.

Perfect.  Possible Royal Flush.  Enough to keep you in the game, but still not enough to go all-in until you see the river, so more evaluation of what you now have is needed which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

Stamkos perfectly compliments the existing hand, but he still isn't the final piece.

Going off your logic, not mine. 

Well, no. In this case, Nylander, Marner, and the other prospects are the river that you're hoping turns up in your favour. They're the unknowns. And, if they don't show, they make the fact that Stamkos came up on the turn mostly useless.