Steve Stamkos?
- Thread starter sickbeast
- Start date
- Status
Zee
Active member
Bullfrog said:
I believe the biggest surprise next season may be Bernier. He was horrible the first half of the season but played much better in the 2nd half. If he puts together any kind of solid goaltending for the entire year the team will improve significantly. I know many have written him off already but we've seen other goalies who struggle for seasons and finally put it all together. Look no further than Dubnyk as an example. Bernier has all the tools necessary to be a solid goalie, I think his mental game has to improve for him to take the next step.
Bullfrog said:
We're replacing Paranteau/Grabner/Boyes/Matthias with Matthews/Nylander/Marner/Brown. I get that you lose a ton of experience there but for a team that did a lot of things right but just didn't have the talent to score goals that's a pretty significant swap. 80-85 points may be optimistic but I don't think it's unrealistic optimism. Being a .500 club isn't exactly something to boast about these days.
bustaheims
Active member
TBLeafer said:Yet part of the rebuild is precisely what that season produced, so it did its part.
Yes, by the time the season ended, the rebuild was starting, but it didn't start until midway through the season. At most, you could call the 14/15 season a transitional season - which leaves us back with where I started - in the 2nd year of/going into the 2nd full season of the rebuild.
TBLeafer said:
Such as? I figure you will use Toews and Kane, and then possibly Malkin and Crosby. But then after that? If you make a statement that you have the history of the league on your side, then people will expect you to back it up with facts. Do some leg work, look up some stuff on the net and see if your statement actually holds water or if you might be mis-remembering things.
TBLeafer said:
Because Tim Murray has a rebuild quickly mentality. Here is an article from when he was hired:
http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/gm-tim-murray-wants-higher-expectations-for-sabres-quick-rebuild/
?When you tear it down, it doesn?t happen overnight,? he said. ?I don?t buy into five-year rebuilds."
Where I think some people get squeamish with this type of scenario it sounds an awful lot like this one:
"I'm not interested ... in a five-year rebuild like some of these teams have done," said Burke. "Maybe because of my age, maybe just because I know it doesn't have to be five years because it wasn't in Anaheim.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/32929-Maple-Leafs-GM-Brian-Burke-expects-team-to-be-in-playoffs-next-season.html
And we know what happened with Burke's plan.
TBLeafer said:
Well, one is that if Stamkos decides to play in Buffalo there isn't really anything they can do about it. If Buffalo offers Stamkos the moon at $12.5 million a year, no trade clauses, and all the wings he can eat, and that sounds good to Stamkos, then the Leafs aren't really going to be able to counter that.
Also, we aren't sure if what Buffalo is doing is going to result in the type of team the Leafs want to have. Again, this isn't about just making the playoffs once or twice. It's about sustained winning over a long period. Just because Buffalo has made some moves doesn't mean they are out of the woods yet. In five years time Buffalo fans could be lamenting the O'Reilly and Kane moves as being the wrong moves at the wrong time.
Significantly Insignificant said:
It wouldn't be once or twice in Buffalo's case. It would be for the foreseeable future.
What can we do about it? We can at least give him a SOLID offer and hope that at the end of the day, Stamkos just prefers Toronto as a destination, like Babcock did.
That's a pretty good 1/2 punch of simultaneous offseason signings. Unlike the season prior, Toronto has become a desirable destination for players around the league.
bustaheims said:TBLeafer said:Yet part of the rebuild is precisely what that season produced, so it did its part.
Yes, by the time the season ended, the rebuild was starting, but it didn't start until midway through the season. At most, you could call the 14/15 season a transitional season - which leaves us back with where I started - in the 2nd year of/going into the 2nd full season of the rebuild.
Okay then, its the second full season. Like when Buffalo added ROR to Eichel.
As for history, when multiple top prospects of the level of quality Matthews and Marner are enter the league, their teams get better. It just happens, unless you're Edmonton, who had to wait until they drafted McDavid, but he got injured for a good chunk of the season so they still didn't make it out of the bottom five.
Kopitar, Doughty
Stmakos, Hedman
Toews, Kane
Crosby, Malkin
ROR, Eichel
Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Brown, Zaitsev all playing in their rookie season. Hell, perhaps even Jimmy Vesey.
bustaheims
Active member
TBLeafer said:
No. That would have been their 3rd full season, and, as others have said, we don't know if that's a model worth following.
TBLeafer said:
I'm not so sure. They have problems on that team and I am not sure where the growth is going to come from. Eichel is going to get better, but then after that they are a little stagnant. I don't know if I would have them as a playoff team this year without adding someone like Stamkos, and even if they added Stamkos, they may still only be a bubble team.
TBLeafer said:
I think for Babcock at the end of the day, it was about money. Toronto simply paid him more so he came here. You've already said that you have a price point of $10 million. If other teams are around 11 or 12, is 10 still a solid offer?
What are you basing the "Toronto has become a desirable destination for players around the league" comment on?
If it's on this article:
https://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2016/03/14/rebuilding-maple-leafs-attractive-to-free-agents-like-stamkos-feschuk.html
then I would point out that:
A) It is written by Feschuk.
b) It has quotes from two guys already on the Leafs, and those quotes are saying "I would think that this would be a good place to come", not that it is already considered that.
bustaheims
Active member
TBLeafer said:
No. Their rebuild started at the trade deadline in 12/13, when they started stripping away vets for picks and pieces they could sell off later - including core pieces like Roy and Pominville - and continued as they shopped Vanek all summer, trading him early in the 13/14 season.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
I find all this discussion of identifying exactly what the timepoint is in the rebuild at this moment both entertaining and amusing. But, honestly, it's irrelevant. It's not like if we can arbitrarily decide that the hiring of Shanahan or Dubas or the firing/trading of whoever was the start of the rebuild, that it somehow makes the future core of this team suddenly any more or less advanced in their development as individual players.
The patience we need to show with this team isn't dictated by how long we think or decide the rebuild has been going on, it's dictated by both how close and how likely the future core of this team is to being elite NHL talent. The disputes here aren't really about the past timeline, it's about how likely and how soon Marner/Nylander/Matthews/Reilly/?/?/? are to being the core of a championship contending team. I'm with the majority of people here that we need to see significantly more from all of those players before setting expectations too high too soon.
The patience we need to show with this team isn't dictated by how long we think or decide the rebuild has been going on, it's dictated by both how close and how likely the future core of this team is to being elite NHL talent. The disputes here aren't really about the past timeline, it's about how likely and how soon Marner/Nylander/Matthews/Reilly/?/?/? are to being the core of a championship contending team. I'm with the majority of people here that we need to see significantly more from all of those players before setting expectations too high too soon.
bustaheims said:
Yeah they had 11 picks in the 2013 draft, including 5 in the first two rounds. At the very least the rebuild preceded that.
Misty
New member
This has been an entertaining read but the one thing I haven't seen really addressed is why on earth Stamkos would want to come here.
Most players of his pedigree are driven by winning. They work their tails off to be that little bit better than anyone else in the hopes of winning the ultimate prize. In the NHL, that's getting to hoist the Stanley Cup, not don the Blue & White. I doubt, very much, that Stamkos' goal is much different than that and at his current age I would expect him to base his decision, this summer, on what is most likely to get his name engraved on that trophy.
Undoubtedly someone is going to say "but the Leafs are building that cup-contending team right now" but if I were Stamkos I'd just nod sagely and say something to the effect of "been there, done that, still don't have a cup." He's already endured the years it took Tampa to go from rock bottom (hence his being drafted there), to being a playoff team, to being a contender. It is really only in the last 2 years that the Bolts have been in the discussion as a serious threat to make the final, and surely those years of not winning with the Bolts would temper his expectations for the Leafs' ascension. He, of all people, ought to know it's unlikely to be a meteoric rise.
He's also likely smart enough to know that even when you're a contender, it takes a certain amount of luck (a perfect storm) to actually win it. He's had the last two seasons to recognize the first-hand, and he need only look at some of his regular foes to see how even perennial favorites don't win it. He can't have failed to notice that Crosby & Malkin went more than half a decade between cups, even though every October the Pens were usually in the conversation as threats.
If I were him, I'd only be looking to sign with one of the serious cup contending teams, and those would certainly be the only ones I'd even remotely think of discounting my salary for. Or perhaps a team that's solidly in the playoff discussion each year but is one Steven Stamkos short of being a serious contender. Those are the teams that are going to give me the best chance to win a cup sometime in the next 5 or 6 years, not a team that's in the very early stages of a rebuild.
Sure, as a Toronto boy Stamkos would probably love to put that jersey on, but I just don't see that as enough of an incentive for a player, driven the way he is driven, to consign himself to at least another handful of years of rebuild and development before there's even a remote likelihood of being a real contender. The window for success would be too short. I'd rather sign a shorter cap-friendly deal with a team that's contending right now (like Hossa did for a year with the Wings and then again for the Hawks). Then, when I've (hopefully!) won my cup, if I still have some gas left in the tank I can still go play for the Leafs, later, when they're actually a contender and could use someone like me to play on their 3rd or 4th line...maybe even to win another cup.
Most players of his pedigree are driven by winning. They work their tails off to be that little bit better than anyone else in the hopes of winning the ultimate prize. In the NHL, that's getting to hoist the Stanley Cup, not don the Blue & White. I doubt, very much, that Stamkos' goal is much different than that and at his current age I would expect him to base his decision, this summer, on what is most likely to get his name engraved on that trophy.
Undoubtedly someone is going to say "but the Leafs are building that cup-contending team right now" but if I were Stamkos I'd just nod sagely and say something to the effect of "been there, done that, still don't have a cup." He's already endured the years it took Tampa to go from rock bottom (hence his being drafted there), to being a playoff team, to being a contender. It is really only in the last 2 years that the Bolts have been in the discussion as a serious threat to make the final, and surely those years of not winning with the Bolts would temper his expectations for the Leafs' ascension. He, of all people, ought to know it's unlikely to be a meteoric rise.
He's also likely smart enough to know that even when you're a contender, it takes a certain amount of luck (a perfect storm) to actually win it. He's had the last two seasons to recognize the first-hand, and he need only look at some of his regular foes to see how even perennial favorites don't win it. He can't have failed to notice that Crosby & Malkin went more than half a decade between cups, even though every October the Pens were usually in the conversation as threats.
If I were him, I'd only be looking to sign with one of the serious cup contending teams, and those would certainly be the only ones I'd even remotely think of discounting my salary for. Or perhaps a team that's solidly in the playoff discussion each year but is one Steven Stamkos short of being a serious contender. Those are the teams that are going to give me the best chance to win a cup sometime in the next 5 or 6 years, not a team that's in the very early stages of a rebuild.
Sure, as a Toronto boy Stamkos would probably love to put that jersey on, but I just don't see that as enough of an incentive for a player, driven the way he is driven, to consign himself to at least another handful of years of rebuild and development before there's even a remote likelihood of being a real contender. The window for success would be too short. I'd rather sign a shorter cap-friendly deal with a team that's contending right now (like Hossa did for a year with the Wings and then again for the Hawks). Then, when I've (hopefully!) won my cup, if I still have some gas left in the tank I can still go play for the Leafs, later, when they're actually a contender and could use someone like me to play on their 3rd or 4th line...maybe even to win another cup.
Redleaf
Active member
Misty said:
I think for the same reason Babcock decided to sign in Toronto. He may get a sense that big things are on the horizon and wants to be a part of that in his home town and playing for the team he grew up cheering for. I don't think Babcock takes a back seat to anyone when it comes to drive, desire and a determination to win. If it was just about money, he could have signed in Buffalo or where ever.
There's something in the Shanaplan that has winners listening, believing in it, and signing on. That is a fact!
Misty
New member
I suppose, although as a counter to that, Babcock's window of opportunity to win with the Leafs is considerably longer and easily extended if everyone is happy, whereas Stamkos' playing days are finite. Perhaps he'll manage to maintain an elite level of play into his early/mid 30's where he'd be an integral part of a cup team, but that's still a fairly short opportunity if you know that it will be at least 3 years before you might be in a position to contend, and that's only if a large number of the Leafs' prospects develop at or above their projections.RedLeaf said:
Babcock's other difference is that he's already won at every level, so in terms of life goals or bucket list he's already got his name on the cup. His new challenge is to do it with this team. Admittedly, that's probably also something of a selling point for Stamkos, too, knowing that he'd be playing for a coach with a proven resumee.
RedLeaf said:
Misty said:
As RL stated, Babcock was a "win now" coach. Stamkos has an EVEN MORE vested interest in becoming a Leaf and probably raised an eyebrow when Babs failed to sign with the Red Wings, just as he has failed to sign/turned down an offer(s) thus far with Tampa.
EVERY Toronto area born and raised fan of the team has an unwavering dream of seeing Toronto raise the Stanley Cup. The allure as Stamkos watching this rebuild unfold as it is should show him that in his next 7 year term, the Leafs are going to be continually building toward that same goal.
He will be in his prime and can contribute handily over the next 7 years to the Leafs achieving that goal. He would be the proven elite player and leader that would see the group of Matthews, Marner and Nylander along though their ELC and RFA years.
His contract would be tied to the remainder of Babcock's 8 year term. Do you think Babcock possibly wants to win one during that time?
- Status