Let us Dream: Steven Stamkos to Toronto 2016/2017

[Gary Nylund]

Its always hard to predict exchange rates, especially rates further out in the future. The Bank of Canada likes to hold Canadian dollar lower (against U.S.) to help sell Canadian exports to foreign markets (i.e. a lower price for exports makes the export easier to sell). This in turn creates additional wealth/revenue for Canadian companies, which in turn creates additional tax revenue for the government.

This is the most politically desirable way to reduce government (a country's) debt. Less palatable options are government austerity programs (slash spending) which is an unpopular choice for politicians.

Except for Toronto, you have to think that Canadian NHL teams are lobbying Bettman to minimize team cap increases. Of course, they will get a lot of support from the other 70% of the NHL teams who also have fiscal constraints.

Again, hard to say where the foreign currency exchange rate will be 5 to 10 years from now, but its good to understand the economics and that some of these factors and principles that drive economics are somewhat pervasive.

Not to derail this thread but ... I'm no expert on the subject but this doesn't seem quite right. I mean all those are good reasons for wanting a lower dollar but don't they apply to the US as well? I mean they have a ton of debt they would like to reduce as well so I don't see how their motivation is any different.

My understanding is that the main reason for the low loonie is the drop in oil prices - not looking to start an argument here, just curious as to your reasoning.

Agree 100% that predicting exchange rates is a tricky business. If anyone could actually do this with some accuracy they're probably filthy rich.

 

[Purity*]

a) We have no idea what the term, structure or dollar amount Stamkos will get from us or Tampa or anybody is going to look like, so there's no point crying about a max contract before the Leafs even have the ability to offer one.

b) Sidney Crosby made $8.7 million dollars in 2009 and won a Stanley Cup, when the NHL cap was $56.9 million. That's 15% of the cap, which in a possible $75 million cap world is $11.25 million.

1) What the ****? This whole freaking thread is about the hypothetical of Stamkos coming to Toronto, and you're judging me for that because "there's no point crying about a max contract before the Leafs even offer one!" So your opinion of offering a 4 year max is OK but when I give a very reaslistic estimate of 11-12M for max term there's no point in "crying about it?" Get real man

2)

When Crosby was signed to that contract, he had already won the Art Ross and Hart trophies in addition to being the youngest player in NHL history to be named to the 1st all-star team and all this before turning 20.

If we ever have the opportunity to sign a 19 year old with those credentials at a cost of 15% of the cap, I'm quite sure Leaf fans will be unanimous in their happiness!

What a ludicrous comparison. Admit it, you're way off with this one.

'Nuff said. This ain't super-young Crosby we're talking about, so once again, awful comparison. Oh, and they won in 2009, 6 years ago, we have more recent and more tangible examples with LA/CHI who had nothing like any of those contracts of Stammer's future one, that you keep conveniently ignoring.

 

[Cor]

He's coming

 

[ACC1224]

He's coming

Pretty much gauranteed now.

 

[Gabriel426]

I was hoping for a double scoop of Yzerman and Stamkos. guess one of them will do for now.

 

[Stephen]

If not a big fish like Stamkos, who the heck else are you all trying to save cap space for?

 

[ACC1224]

If not a big fish like Stamkos, who the heck else are you all trying to save cap space for?

You never know.

 

[Gabriel426]

In an ideal world for Leafs, they sign Stamkos for 6 yrs then when that expires, they will use that money to sign McDavid when he hits UFA.

 

[Mats13]

If not a big fish like Stamkos, who the heck else are you all trying to save cap space for?

#McDavid2022

not really sarcasm (one can dream)

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Its always hard to predict exchange rates, especially rates further out in the future. The Bank of Canada likes to hold Canadian dollar lower (against U.S.) to help sell Canadian exports to foreign markets (i.e. a lower price for exports makes the export easier to sell). This in turn creates additional wealth/revenue for Canadian companies, which in turn creates additional tax revenue for the government.

This is the most politically desirable way to reduce government (a country's) debt. Less palatable options are government austerity programs (slash spending) which is an unpopular choice for politicians.

Except for Toronto, you have to think that Canadian NHL teams are lobbying Bettman to minimize team cap increases. Of course, they will get a lot of support from the other 70% of the NHL teams who also have fiscal constraints.

Again, hard to say where the foreign currency exchange rate will be 5 to 10 years from now, but its good to understand the economics and that some of these factors and principles that drive economics are somewhat pervasive.

Not to derail this thread but ... I'm no expert on the subject but this doesn't seem quite right. I mean all those are good reasons for wanting a lower dollar but don't they apply to the US as well? I mean they have a ton of debt they would like to reduce as well so I don't see how their motivation is any different.

My understanding is that the main reason for the low loonie is the drop in oil prices - not looking to start an argument here, just curious as to your reasoning.

Agree 100% that predicting exchange rates is a tricky business. If anyone could actually do this with some accuracy they're probably filthy rich.

There is more than one factor in the difference in exchange rate, and the drop in oil prices is one.

As an aside, the U.S. is the largest producer (as of 2014) of oil in the world and produces about three times the amount barrels per day than Canada. Also, the U.S. became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010

In fact, OPEC is dropping oil prices in a deliberate attempt to damage (and/or crush) the U.S. oil/gas production/refining/distribution market who has higher prices (more expensive shale extraction fracking technology, refining, etc.) to drill/produce/refine oil & gas.

Creating a delta between Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar is not reporting anything new and has been well known for quite some time as a big percentage of Canada's GDP comes from exports. The difference of exports in relation to GDP between Canada & the U.S. is large: Canada 31.6% versus U.S. 13.5%.

 

[Gary Nylund]

There is more than one factor in the difference in exchange rate, and the drop in oil prices is one.

The U.S. is the largest producer (as of 2014) of oil in the world as well and produces about three times the amount barrels per day than Canada. The U.S. became the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2010

In fact, OPEC is dropping oil prices in a deliberate attempt to damage (and/or crush) the U.S. oil/gas production/refining/distribution market who has higher prices (more expense fracking technology, refining, etc.) to drill/produce/refine oil & gas.

Creating a delta between Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar is not reporting anything new and has been well known for quite some time as a big percentage of Canada's GDP comes from exports.

Let me see if I'm getting this.

1 - Falling oil prices also hurt the US
2 - The US produces more oil than us so falling oil prices hurt them as well
3 - You're saying the falling dollar then is deliberate manipulation on Canada's part

Questions:

1 - I'm guessing that since the US economy is massive compared to Canada's, falling oil prices impact their dollar less even though they produce more because oil sales are a smaller part of their economy, am I wrong?

2 - If Canada can weaken the dollar by manipulation and a weak dollar is good for us, why weren't we doing a long time ago - I think our dollar was roughly equal to the US dollar only a few short years ago.

Sorry to derail this therad but I think it's pretty much run it's course anyway.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Let me see if I'm getting this.

1 - Falling oil prices also hurt the US
2 - The US produces more oil than us so falling oil prices hurt them as well
3 - You're saying the falling dollar then is deliberate manipulation on Canada's part

Questions:

1 - I'm guessing that since the US economy is massive compared to Canada's, falling oil prices impact their dollar less even though they produce more because oil sales are a smaller part of their economy, am I wrong?

2 - If Canada can weaken the dollar by manipulation and a weak dollar is good for us, why weren't we doing a long time ago - I think our dollar was roughly equal to the US dollar only a few short years ago.

Sorry to derail this therad but I think it's pretty much run it's course anyway.

Not sure what you mean by runs its course, but if you look at above (revised) post, Canada relies more heavily on exports (exports are a larger percentage of GDP) and yes Canada has held its currency at a lower rate in the past to increase exports & increase government coffers.

Time is relative, so when you say the Canadian dollar was at par a few years ago, then think back when Canada's dollar was at about 65 cents to the U.S. for a pretty long period of time. So, yes it happened a long time ago.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Not sure what you mean by runs its course, but if you look at above (revised) post, Canada relies more heavily on exports (exports are a larger percentage of GDP) and yes Canada has held its currency at a lower rate in the past to increase exports & increase government coffers.

Time is relative, so when you say the Canadian dollar was at par a few years ago, then think back when Canada's dollar was at about 65 cents to the U.S. for a pretty long period of time. So, yes it happened a long time ago.

Ok thanks, that makes sense.

By run it's course I mean that nobody has had anything new to say on the Stamkos subject for a while now, it's mostly gum-flapping now. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

 

[TNCHL]

Ya, he just wants to help the Leafs out. Shanny could probably convince him to play for free here. LOL.

Why are you twisting my words?

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Ok thanks, that makes sense.

By run it's course I mean that nobody has had anything new to say on the Stamkos subject for a while now, it's mostly gum-flapping now. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

I see. Yes, probably time to get back to the Stamkos subject, if in fact there is something new to mention as you say.

I'm pretty much in the "build your own" camp, whether that's in hockey, or in business. I have created and owned companies that are based and operate on both sides of the border as an example.

So, from the perspective of hockey, I always think if you are good at assessing talent and building your own, you are far better off than acquiring a high end piece from somewhere else. I guess this is merely my personal preference or perspective.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

If stamkos signs with the leafs than he won't demand that much money

Why are you twisting my words?

Sorry. Not really twisting your words as much as making a light joke via hyperbole.

What makes you think Stamkos will give the Leafs a discount?

 

[one77]

JVR - Marner - Kapanen
Nylander - Stamkos - Brown
Panik - Kadri - Bracco
Komarov - Gauthier - Winnik
-Johnson/Leivo/Holland

Rielly - Chychrun
Gardiner - Phaneuf
Loov - Harrington
-Percy/Granberg/Dermott/Valiev/Finn

Bernier
Bibeau

Drool.

 

[ACC1224]

Sorry. Not really twisting your words as much as making a light joke via hyperbole.

What makes you think Stamkos will give the Leafs a discount?

How will we know if it's a discount?
Some will feel he's overpaid, underpaid or correctly paid. Who's to say who's right?

 

[IBeL34f]

How will we know if it's a discount?
Some will feel he's overpaid, underpaid or correctly paid. Who's to say who's right?

I imagine just by what we'd hear in the media about other offers. It doesn't always happen, but some players will say they left more money or term on the table, or details will come out of what other teams offered, that kind of stuff.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Ok thanks, that makes sense.

By run it's course I mean that nobody has had anything new to say on the Stamkos subject for a while now, it's mostly gum-flapping now. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

we can trade for him now

 

[Gary Nylund]

I see. Yes, probably time to get back to the Stamkos subject, if in fact there is something new to mention as you say.

I'm pretty much in the "build your own" camp, whether that's in hockey, or in business. I have created and owned companies that are based and operate on both sides of the border as an example.

So, from the perspective of hockey, I always think if you are good at assessing talent and building your own, you are far better off than acquiring a high end piece from somewhere else. I guess this is merely my personal preference or perspective.

I understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't object to signing a UFA if it made sense but the feeling of satisfaction would definitely be much greater for me also if we drafted our heroes. For example - it would be much more satisfying to win a cup with Marner as our best player then it would be to win with Stamkos leading the way.

There was a telling post in another thread where people were composing a team out of the best Leafs over the last 25 years. The post pointed out that in one person's team, only 3 players in the lineup were drafted by us. That pretty much sums up what we have been as a franchise.

 

[Stephen]

There's no need to fetishize the draft process.

The draft is the most economical and efficient way to get improving talent on cost controlled salaries and the primary means to build a team, but that doesn't mean you turn your nose up at other avenues if they become available. You get your heroes where you can.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

How will we know if it's a discount?
Some will feel he's overpaid, underpaid or correctly paid. Who's to say who's right?

Well, people will argue regardless, that's for sure.

But, I think you can apply market value principles to this like an arbitrator would. I'll throw this out for discussion.

1. Toews and Kane have $10.5 m/a contracts. Both of these contracts are recent. Let's call this market value.
   
2. Ovechkin and Malkin get paid $9.5 m/a. Their contracts are a little older. If Leafs sign Stamkos for the same money, I'd say the Leafs signed a good deal.
   
3. Crosby gets paid $8.7 m/a. Signing Stamkos at a number like this would be a really good deal

If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos at anything less than what Sid is getting paid ($8.7 m/a), then I think you could easily put this in the category of a home-city discount.

 

[IBeL34f]

Well, people will argue regardless, that's for sure.

But, I think you can apply market value principles to this like an arbitrator would. I'll throw this out for discussion.

1. Toews and Kane have $10.5 m/a contracts. Both of these contracts are recent. Let's call this market value.
   
2. Ovechkin and Malkin get paid $9.5 m/a. Their contracts are a little older. If Leafs sign Stamkos for the same money, I'd say the Leafs signed a good deal.
   
3. Crosby gets paid $8.7 m/a. Signing Stamkos at a number like this would be a really good deal

If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos at anything less than what Sid is getting paid ($8.7 m/a), then I think you could easily put this in the category of a home-city discount.

Crosby's $8.7M is essentially a gimmick, and shouldn't be used when comparing elite players' contracts.

I agree with the rest though, anywhere around $10M is a fine deal for Stamkos. I would call anywhere up to $11M his market value, as the cap's gone up since Toews and Kane signed their extensions.

 

[TNCHL]

Sorry. Not really twisting your words as much as making a light joke via hyperbole.

What makes you think Stamkos will give the Leafs a discount?

If he's joining toronto Money is not his first concern, for the better of the growth of the team he will take less, I believe he signs in toronto for around 9 mil.