Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

Not beyond driving through it or watching a Bills or a Leafs game there.  Can't say I've checked out the nightlife with Niagra Falls so close.

I think proximity to Toronto and future Stanley Cup contention both currently favour Buffalo over Detroit.

Downtown Buffalo is a lot like you'd imagine Toronto about 10 years into a nuclear armageddon.

Got it.  Nice visual.    8) 

 

[TBLeafer]

Patience requires a little more than 15 months and shiny new toys.

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?

It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.

I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

You don't really know that, I get that you 'feel' that but it's really unknown right now. You didn't really address that last post either, just skipped by the evidence and said the same thing.

What exactly do you mean by evidence?  It all seemed like opinions to me, so I responded with my own.

You stated that when players of this calibre enter the league, teams get better 'it just happens', and proceeded to list a group of players. That's what SI and I were responding to.

Oh that point.  Okay so from the teams that took a slight dip, how many continued to do so after the 2ND top end prospect made the team?

 

[Tigger]

You tell me.

 

[McGarnagle]

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?
It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.
I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

Just out of curiosity - is signing Stamkos something you think is actually MLSE's intent, or a move you personally endorse?

 

[rdowdall]

So I am not sure if the Leafs are going to sign Stamkos or not.  I have made my points known.  I got some deadlines coming up at work so I need to spend a little less time on the site during the day, so I'm just going to sum up my feelings here and then bow out for a bit.

If the Leafs sign Stamkos, and it all works out as is expected, then the Leafs win the cup, and we are all happy as fans, and those that are against the signing of Stamkos will probably happily eat the crow associated with the "I told you so's" because everyone loves parades.

If the Leafs sign Stamkos, and it turns out to be the wrong move, then the Leafs are probably going to be looking at 2nd round playoff exits and questions about how the team gets over the hump, probably for the duration of Stamkos's contract, and possibly for the duration of Matthews career.

If the Leafs don't sign Stamkos, then they probably wallow near the bottom of the League for the next couple of years, continue to amass prospects and take stock each of those years to figure out where they are at in terms of their rebuild.

 

[jdh1]

If Stammer wants to be a Leaf to benefit the team the best in the long run.He should sign his 15% of the cap elsewhere for 3 years.

When the Leafs are ready to win it all or contend he can then come as a free agent on a shorter deal and go for it.

If he wants a seven year deal now at 13 to 15% of the cap.The Leafs must pass on him.We don't need him gobbling up valuable cap space while the team is rebuilding.

 

[Kin]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

 

[TBLeafer]

You tell me.

Sure. Once a team had 3 or 4 top flight players to share the heavy lifting, they started to shoot up the standings.

Malkin to Crosby and Flurry.

Hedman to Stammer and Marty.

Toews and Kane to Keith and Seabrook with average goaltending.

Doughty to Kopitar and quick.

ROR, Ekblad, Eichel, E. Kane to nobody.

How many top flight prospects will the Leafs be adding next season before Stammer even enters into the equation?

 

[TBLeafer]

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?
It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.
I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

Just out of curiosity - is signing Stamkos something you think is actually MLSE's intent, or a move you personally endorse?

I think they were always going to make sure they were prepared for the possibility to be at least able to make a solid bid if he ever came available.

Buying out Cowen insures that they are in a position to do just that.

 

[Kin]

No one is doubting the positive influence good players have on a team. The question is the impact of good prospects. Just assuming that all of the team's good prospects are going to instantly be great NHL players is the whole crux of where we are.

 

[Tigger]

You tell me.

Sure. Once a team had 3 or 4 top flight players to share the heavy lifting, they started to shoot up the standings.

Malkin to Crosby and Flurry.

Hedman to Stammer and Marty.

Toews and Kane to Keith and Seabrook with average goaltending.

Doughty to Kopitar and quick.

ROR, Ekblad, Eichel, E. Kane to nobody.

How many top flight prospects will the Leafs be adding next season before Stammer even enters into the equation?

No-one knows for sure. You added a couple names and provided almost no context, people around here do their homework for the most part.

 

[bustaheims]

You tell me.

Sure. Once a team had 3 or 4 top flight players to share the heavy lifting, they started to shoot up the standings.

Malkin to Crosby and Flurry.

Hedman to Stammer and Marty.

Toews and Kane to Keith and Seabrook with average goaltending.

Doughty to Kopitar and quick.

ROR, Ekblad, Eichel, E. Kane to nobody.

How many top flight prospects will the Leafs be adding next season before Stammer even enters into the equation?

Is there a trade that hasn't been announced yet?

 

[Tigger]

You tell me.

Sure. Once a team had 3 or 4 top flight players to share the heavy lifting, they started to shoot up the standings.

Malkin to Crosby and Flurry.

Hedman to Stammer and Marty.

Toews and Kane to Keith and Seabrook with average goaltending.

Doughty to Kopitar and quick.

ROR, Ekblad, Eichel, E. Kane to nobody.

How many top flight prospects will the Leafs be adding next season before Stammer even enters into the equation?

Is there a trade that hasn't been announced yet?

Stuck in the limbo that is Buffalo losing the draft lottery two years in a row...

 

[Kin]

Another team probably worth mentioning is the Panthers. The Panthers, in 2011-2012 were an ok team that scraped into the playoffs with 94 points on the strength of 18 OT/SOL. They had some very high draft picks on the team in Kulikov and Gudbranson.

Then the next year they added Calder-Winning Jonathan Huberdeau and fell off. Putting up 36 points over the 48 game season or roughly a 61 point pace over 82. The next year they added both Aleksander Barkov and got a full year from Nick Bjugstad and improved...to 66 points.

The next year they added Ekblad and got roughly back to where they were in 2011-2012 only this year without the raft of OTL losses buoying them up.

So they did eventually make a big leap, from 66 to 91 points, but they didn't make that leap because of a one year infusion of talent. By the time they made that leap a lot of their talented young prospects were in their 3rd or 4th years in the league. In addition, a huge amount of that growth is the result of figuring out their goaltending in getting some unexpectedly big years from Luongo.

So anyone who looks at any similar sort of growth(and remember even there it was a a few years between adding Huberdeau/Barkov and making the playoffs) should probably have a better answer for the goaltending situation then maybe Bernier figuring it all out.

 

[TBLeafer]

You tell me.

Sure. Once a team had 3 or 4 top flight players to share the heavy lifting, they started to shoot up the standings.

Malkin to Crosby and Flurry.

Hedman to Stammer and Marty.

Toews and Kane to Keith and Seabrook with average goaltending.

Doughty to Kopitar and quick.

ROR, Ekblad, Eichel, E. Kane to nobody.

How many top flight prospects will the Leafs be adding next season before Stammer even enters into the equation?

Is there a trade that hasn't been announced yet?

Sorry, lol. I meant Reinhart.

 

[Kin]

 
I think the reverse is also true, everything would have to go wrong for them not to improve from last year.  The reality will probably fall somewhere in the middle, some things will go right, some will go wrong.  I can't see the Leafs finishing with 69 or less points again.  Maybe 80+ is too high, but I don't think it's totally out of the question either.

Not really. In order for the Leafs not to substantially improve(assuming that there's sort of a +5 or -5 range that's entirely depending on luck) I think only three things have to happen, none of which are particularly hard to imagine:

1. The goaltending is worse or the same(or even only marginally improved).
2. Some of the rookies struggle/none of them are phenomenal successes.
3. They have a tough injury or two.

I don't think that qualifies as "everything going wrong".

 

[TBLeafer]

Another team probably worth mentioning is the Panthers. The Panthers, in 2011-2012 were an ok team that scraped into the playoffs with 94 points on the strength of 18 OT/SOL. They had some very high draft picks on the team in Kulikov and Gudbranson.

Then the next year they added Calder-Winning Jonathan Huberdeau and fell off. Putting up 36 points over the 48 game season or roughly a 61 point pace over 82. The next year they added both Aleksander Barkov and got a full year from Nick Bjugstad and improved...to 66 points.

The next year they added Ekblad and got roughly back to where they were in 2011-2012 only this year without the raft of OTL losses buoying them up.

So they did eventually make a big leap, from 66 to 91 points, but they didn't make that leap because of a one year infusion of talent. By the time they made that leap a lot of their talented young prospects were in their 3rd or 4th years in the league. In addition, a huge amount of that growth is the result of figuring out their goaltending in getting some unexpectedly big years from Luongo.

So anyone who looks at any similar sort of growth(and remember even there it was a a few years between adding Huberdeau/Barkov and making the playoffs) should probably have a better answer for the goaltending situation then maybe Bernier figuring it all out.

That's great and all but what experienced elite talent did they have to insulate this infusion of top young prospects?

Brad Boyes?

 

[L K]

 
I think the reverse is also true, everything would have to go wrong for them not to improve from last year.  The reality will probably fall somewhere in the middle, some things will go right, some will go wrong.  I can't see the Leafs finishing with 69 or less points again.  Maybe 80+ is too high, but I don't think it's totally out of the question either.

Not really. In order for the Leafs not to substantially improve(assuming that there's sort of a +5 or -5 range that's entirely depending on luck) I think only three things have to happen, none of which are particularly hard to imagine:

1. The goaltending is worse or the same(or even only marginally improved).
2. Some of the rookies struggle/none of them are phenomenal successes.
3. They have a tough injury or two.

I don't think that qualifies as "everything going wrong".

The Leafs as a 69 point 30th place team actually puts them as one of the best 30th place teams.  I think it's very conceivable that they have a similar season but end up finishing more like 4th-6th worst.

 

[Kin]

That's great and all but what experienced elite talent did they have to insulate this infusion of top young prospects?

Brad Boyes?

That's not really relevant for two reasons. One, we're talking about their capability for growth without signing Stamkos. Two, as we've discussed before, in the majority of the cases you mention of young elite players joining teams there wasn't established elite talent their either. LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh...in all of those cases elite established talent whether it's in the form of Carter or Hossa or Gonchar only came on board after the young players had established themselves.

 

[Redleaf]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

Its interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. What with the cherry picking of examples for  evidence in arguments and what not.

Oh, and he's not constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built. He's laying out his arguments with points, examples and facts, Just like you guys say one should present their arguments around here.

Shoe....meet other foot.