Steve Stamkos?
- Thread starter sickbeast
- Start date
- Status
TBLeafer said:
If there's a need for that much invention to engineer a perfect score, I invite you to dial 410 915 0909... even if you have the right red ribbon, he's probably going to get his 10 mil +.
Seriously though, the faith I have in Shanahan's group involves something a lot more realistic, like building a team from the bottom up, not the top down. He has a WJC gold and two Richards, 4 and 6 seasons ago, it's just not worth it for the money he's actually going to get.
Alright I know it's been shot down before but I'm gonna give it another go. What if toronto signs him to a 2 year max deal. 28 million over 2. It makes up 8 million over 10. It will limit what toronto can do so they will still be bad especially this year where greening, michael and laich taking up over 10 million in space. Plus if stamkos wants to retire a leaf they can give him am 8 year deal at 28 for less aav since they overpaid for the first 2 years.
Tigger said:
I'm sorry, I thought bottom up is what they are already doing, given that they hit ROCK BOTTOM last season.
If Stamkos signs, he will be just the THIRD long term contract handed out by Shannyco.
Based on that and his rationally projected cap, the Leafs will have +/- 20M per locked up in 3 players and with no major signings required at the moment for another TWO years minimum. That's over 50M per to fill out the rest of the team.
They are so flush with cap it's sick beyond next season and it seems those that don't want him signed can't see beyond next season when it comes to the Leafs cap.
Or they just dismiss it over some fantasy that the Leafs need to change their rebuild plan just because the acquired him.
You may want to build from the bottom up. I want to build with the best pieces available from the bottom up.
Kin
New member
sneakyray said:
I don't understand that one. Unless you think the Leafs will be competitive over the next two years why are you paying Stamkos? To pick 11th instead of 8th? Or 8th instead of 3rd?
If you want to sign Stamkos it's so that he's around for when the team is competitive.
bustaheims
Active member
TBLeafer said:
It's not that at all, actually. What we see is a team that's going to either have to sign a ton of new contracts, one that's going to be filled with inexperienced young players, or one where the landscape of the team is a complete unknown at this point - to the point where all you can really say about the future cap is that they have X amount committed to Y number of players. But, at this point, those are pretty meaningless numbers, as they will change dramatically in the next 24 months.
And, you still haven't answered my question - how much money is Stamkos leaving on the table in the scenario you've constructed where he buys into the plan and signs at a discount because he so badly wants to be a Leaf?
Kin
New member
TBLeafer said:
That still doesn't address what I was asking though. I'm asking why, if Stamkos is so valuable and would be such a great addition to the team, it's a signing that makes obvious sense at 10.5 but not at 12 or 13.
It reminds me of the arguments we had here over Brad Richards when he was a UFA. Some people backed Burke's insistence at staying at 5 years/45(I think that was the offer) despite Richards having offers on the table that were 20+ million more. My argument at the time was that if you think Richards is an elite franchise #1 Center who can help the team win(a point I wasn't sure about but figured the team was already all-in on the Kessel years anyway) then the team will have a much harder time finding another one of those down the line than they will dealing with 2 or 3 million dollars in inefficient cap space.
Personally, I think if you really think a UFA is going to be a major addition to the team and have a huge impact...you should really be advocating to sign them regardless of the cost.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Yup. He doesn't handcuff the team now, but he almost certainly will when they actually need the cap space.
Nik the Trik said:
If the plan is to cycle the young guys through the lineup again this year and ride out the likes of laich, greening, michalek, bernier and sparks, then they will still be bad, especially if there is no improvement in goal.
If the leafs want stamkos long term but for a more manageable cap hit later then this might be the road to take. Lets look at the overall cap hits.
2 years 28 million
8 years 70 million
thats a total of 98 million dollars of overall salary over 10 years. It would be a way for stamkos to become a leaf for the rest of his career (if thats what he wants) and still make more money than if he signed for 10 plus over 7 years. It allows him to monetarily maximize the earlier years in his contract and it is some sort of a bonus for signing with the leafs while they are still supposed to be bad so he can be a part of the team that doesn't kill them cap wise when they are ready to be competitive in 2 or 3 years.
bustaheims
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Disagree. He's going to St Louis.
Kin
New member
sneakyray said:
Except ultimately he'd make about the same. If he signed for something like 80 million over 7 years then at 33 he could sign a 3 year deal and make, you'd think, at least the extra 18 million. He could structure the 80 million however he'd want too so he could still get paid 28 in the first two years.
In your situation Stamkos is a 14 million dollar cap hit for years 1 and 2 and then a 8.75 cap hit every year after that. In mine Stamkos is a 11.5 cap hit in years 1-7 and then 6 or so in years 8,9 and 10.
So he's actually a lower cap hit in his later years in mine. Also my deal is less risk for Stamkos(he guarantees the big contract right away rather than risk injury) and the Leafs(who don't risk losing him in two years if he's unhappy).
louisstamos
Active member
I think he goes to St. Louis. Contending team without a 1st line centre. I think Montreal and Vancouver will throw max money at him, but St. Louis gives him the best shot to win.
That said, I think he signs a shorter deal there. Something like 3 or 4 years.
That said, I think he signs a shorter deal there. Something like 3 or 4 years.
Nik the Trik said:
Because as so obviously discussed, we live in a salary cap world and there is a point between which Stamkos becomes an asset or an anchor.
We don't want anchors at any price. Even if that anchor is a 3M per cap player that turned out to be a bad player because they are a bad unmovable contract at that price.
- Status