Official Tank Thread of the Toronto Maple Leafs

[OvenMittz*]

Of course he's again -he's a human being just like all of us, and after hitting our prime physical condition in our minds 20- we decline. Forwards tend to have played their best offensive year by age 29, and most have it already happen by the age of 25.

Thinking Stamkos is going to be a 50 goal 90+ point guy while he's with the Leafs is foolhardy in my opinion. There is a very really chance he regresses into a 70-80 point guy. That is a very valuable piece to have on a team - but his cap hit should reflect the type of player he is/will become rather than what he was in his early 20s. I don't want to pay him 11 million, even 10ish million makes me hesitate.

I'm generally supportive of signing Stamkos but Leafs management to do what's best for the team, not Stamkos' bank account. Most recent Stanley cup contenders have won on well balanced salary cap teams.

this.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Of course he's again -he's a human being just like all of us, and after hitting our prime physical condition in our minds 20- we decline. Forwards tend to have played their best offensive year by age 29, and most have it already happen by the age of 25.

Thinking Stamkos is going to be a 50 goal 90+ point guy while he's with the Leafs is foolhardy in my opinion. There is a very really chance he regresses into a 70-80 point guy. That is a very valuable piece to have on a team - but his cap hit should reflect the type of player he is/will become rather than what he was in his early 20s. I don't want to pay him 11 million, even 10ish million makes me hesitate.

I'm generally supportive of signing Stamkos but Leafs management to do what's best for the team, not Stamkos' bank account. Most recent Stanley cup contenders have won on well balanced salary cap teams.

Well put IMO, agree with all this.

 

[Ovate]

Is anyone who's advocating for signing Stamkos actually thinking he'll be a 90 point scorer? Or are you just building up a strawman here?

Even at 70-80 points, Stamkos is easily a top 10 forward in the league.

 

[Canada4Gold]

We're going to be built off ELC's and RFA contracts for the foreseeable future.

Look at the long term contracts we have. If we were to sign Stamkos to a 7 year deal the only guys who would be here by year 3 are Phaneuf(7m) and Gardiner(4.05m)

Look at what our lineup might look like by then.

______-Stamkos-Marner
Nylander-Kadri-Brown
Leipsic-Gauthier-Leivo
______-Carrick-______

Rielly-______
Phaneuf-Gardiner
Percy-Loov

______
Bibeau

And then you have guys like Johnson, Bracco, Toninato, Timashov, Dzierkals, etc at forward, and Dermott, Harrington, Granberg, Valiev, etc on defense. That you can fit in there.

The point in if you sign Stamkos next year, offload Bozak, or someone else to make it fit in the short term, assuming we don't burn a year off Nylander's contract this year and Marner is here next year their ELC's are up after year 3 of Stamkos contract, Brown's is up year 1, Kapanen's year 3, Gauthier year 2, etc. You can bridge some of them, or sign a long term deal, a lot of those years are still be RFA years so they won't be as expensive yet.

Then whoever we draft this year, or next, possibly don't end their ELc until years 4 or 5 depending on when we bring them up. If it's Matthews or some other forward you shift things around to fill that 1LW spot, or maybe resign JVR. If it's Chychrun that fills the 1D spot long term.

My point is that the majority of our team isn't going to get expensive until years 6 or 7 of Stamkos' contract or even after he's gone.

I wouldn't sign him to speed up the rebuild, but to be another piece to it. He'd be a good veteran presence to the team while still in his prime for most of the contract, he'd be 32 when it's over.

A player like Stamkos will make your team that much better, and I don't see it being a problem financially until the contract is over because of the abundance of young cheap talent that we expect to be on the team. If it really becomes a problem in years 6 or 7 you try to pay someone to take them off your hands, or just buy them out. But I think the benefit far outweighs the risk here. If he becomes a free agent I think you go hard after him.

 

[theIceWookie]

Is he getting younger?

He'll be 26 when next season starts. Assuming we sign him for the likely required years, he'll be 30 when he starts the 5th year of that contract. That's about the earliest time we can even start to think about contending and that's the time we might see just how risky a signing Stamkos was.

Talking about signing Stamoks without cost being a huge part of that discussion in this cap era is beyond naive.

And yet passing on potentially the best free agent ever might be over more dumb than not thinking about the cap complications would be naive.

Chicago didn't win without signing Hossa to a big time contract, Boston didn't win without signing Chara to a big contract. People need to stop fering big contracts so much that it blinds them to the potential of having vital veteran talent playing for them. It honestly astounds me how quickly people have already turned to "don't sign Stammer". It might be the most Leafian thing ever.

Having Stamkos as part of your core creates a domino effect. It allows you to create a core that can sustain young players and bring them in in a way that supports them and allows them to flourish. That's why a team like Chicago has been competitive for so long. That's why players like Saad have come up impressed, and then can be used to stay competitive. Either by displacing another core player or by being traded and restocking in picks/prospects. A core CANNOT be built solely through the draft.

 

[Gary Nylund]

And yet passing on potentially the best free agent ever might be over more dumb than not thinking about the cap complications would be naive.

Chicago didn't win without signing Hossa to a big time contract, Boston didn't win without signing Chara to a big contract. People need to stop fering big contracts so much that it blinds them to the potential of having vital veteran talent playing for them. It honestly astounds me how quickly people have already turned to "don't sign Stammer". It might be the most Leafian thing ever.

Having Stamkos as part of your core creates a domino effect. It allows you to create a core that can sustain young players and bring them in in a way that supports them and allows them to flourish. That's why a team like Chicago has been competitive for so long. That's why players like Saad have come up impressed, and then can be used to stay competitive. Either by displacing another core player or by being traded and restocking in picks/prospects. A core CANNOT be built solely through the draft.

Fair points. Having said that ...

I'm equally astounded at the number of people saying "sign Stammer" without considering the cost as I do think it's a factor that should absolutely be considered.

 

[Menzinger]

Is anyone who's advocating for signing Stamkos actually thinking he'll be a 90 point scorer? Or are you just building up a strawman here?

Even at 70-80 points, Stamkos is easily a top 10 forward in the league.

He's certainly a very valuable guy to have. But 70-80 point guys get paid 7-8.5 million range in terms of cap hit (ie Kessel, Perry, Getzlaf, ect).

I'd rather pay him closer to that than 11+ million as some have speculated he might get.

 

[champs*]

not a fan of stamkos

 

[nsleaf]

He's certainly a very valuable guy to have. But 70-80 point guys get paid 7-8.5 million range in terms of cap hit (ie Kessel, Perry, Getzlaf, ect).

I'd rather pay him closer to that than 11+ million as some have speculated he might get.

Makes perfect sense, totally agree, thats what the Leafs should offer, but it will be up to him, cause you know some team will throw a bucket load of dough his way

 

[Ovate]

He's certainly a very valuable guy to have. But 70-80 point guys get paid 7-8.5 million range in terms of cap hit (ie Kessel, Perry, Getzlaf, ect).

I'd rather pay him closer to that than 11+ million as some have speculated he might get.

Perry and Getlzaf signed their deals for a 64.3M cap. By the time Stamkos is UFA, the cap will be over 72M. And they and Kessel were both older when they signed than Stamkos will be. Plus, you pay a premium to give only a 7 year deal instead of 8.

I'm not saying go out at give him 12M+, but I'm comfortable at something in the 10.5-11.5 range.

 

[Daisy Jane]

And yet passing on potentially the best free agent ever might be over more dumb than not thinking about the cap complications would be naive.

Chicago didn't win without signing Hossa to a big time contract, Boston didn't win without signing Chara to a big contract. People need to stop fering big contracts so much that it blinds them to the potential of having vital veteran talent playing for them. It honestly astounds me how quickly people have already turned to "don't sign Stammer". It might be the most Leafian thing ever.

Having Stamkos as part of your core creates a domino effect. It allows you to create a core that can sustain young players and bring them in in a way that supports them and allows them to flourish. That's why a team like Chicago has been competitive for so long. That's why players like Saad have come up impressed, and then can be used to stay competitive. Either by displacing another core player or by being traded and restocking in picks/prospects. A core CANNOT be built solely through the draft.

Hossa has a cap circumventing contract, for one and is a great defensive piece as well as his offense.

Chara is a defenseman. and (is breaking down) but that is a good point.

at the same time - Steven Stamkos is a forward who has some defensive woes (to put it mildly) had a serious injury to his leg (to which i wonder if it will always be an issue), and more importantly, I do not think we have a system in place to house "a Stamkos". For me. a "Stamkos" is not a "Hossa". or a "Chara".

I'm not dissuading what you are saying but it's not simply because of his contract (to which - I think 100 percent needs to be considered). but it is can we still field a team around a massive contract? can we get support via other avenues. if say some pieces of the team doesn't take, are we hamstrung with an asset that is declining, taking up X amount of space on the cap and needs to have a lot of talent to make him go, vs. being a player who can go without a lot of help, or won't be a waste of money while we continue to find (in drafting/trading) with help.

that's what goes through my mind anyway

 

[mallory67]

Man, I am getting concerned with Columbus.
Clarkson Curse in full effect.

 

[Purity*]

And yet passing on potentially the best free agent ever might be over more dumb than not thinking about the cap complications would be naive.

Chicago didn't win without signing Hossa to a big time contract, Boston didn't win without signing Chara to a big contract. People need to stop fering big contracts so much that it blinds them to the potential of having vital veteran talent playing for them. It honestly astounds me how quickly people have already turned to "don't sign Stammer". It might be the most Leafian thing ever.

Having Stamkos as part of your core creates a domino effect. It allows you to create a core that can sustain young players and bring them in in a way that supports them and allows them to flourish. That's why a team like Chicago has been competitive for so long. That's why players like Saad have come up impressed, and then can be used to stay competitive. Either by displacing another core player or by being traded and restocking in picks/prospects. A core CANNOT be built solely through the draft.

So silly, these are not comparable whatsoever.

We're talking about making a guy the highest paid player in the league, who also has some serious problems come playoff time.

I've said it time and time again, don't sink huge money into playoff chokers. If we were getting Stamkos at less than 9 million, my opinion would be vastly different. But the $ amounts I've seen speculated for him scares me to say the least.

I'm not saying go out at give him 12M+, but I'm comfortable at something in the 10.5-11.5 range.

Toews and Kane got that kind of money because of their great playoff performances. They didn't get it because of what they did in the regular season.

What has Stamkos done to deserve 11.5$?

 

[I Believe]

Man, I am getting concerned with Columbus.
Clarkson Curse in full effect.

They need a top pairing D very badly.

I can see Richards getting the boot very soon though, possibly tomorrow.

 

[Trapper]

They need a top pairing D very badly.

I can see Richards getting the boot very soon though, possibly tomorrow.

The GM said he would make a trade first before he fired the coach.
We gave them Clarkson, now gives us your 1st round pick for Phaneuf. Not lottery protected. Our Lou version of Tom Kurvers deal.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I'm not dissuading what you are saying but it's not simply because of his contract (to which - I think 100 percent needs to be considered). but it is can we still field a team around a massive contract? can we get support via other avenues. if say some pieces of the team doesn't take, are we hamstrung with an asset that is declining, taking up X amount of space on the cap and needs to have a lot of talent to make him go, vs. being a player who can go without a lot of help, or won't be a waste of money while we continue to find (in drafting/trading) with help.

that's what goes through my mind anyway

After this year, for the next 7 years most of our team will be based around young players who are on ELC's and RFA contracts. i.e. cheaper talent.

I just outlined how the cap shouldn't be an issue until years 6-7 on the contract and probably after.

A team can afford to have 1 contract that big without it handicapping them, especially one that's going to be built around younger, cheaper talent for the foreseeable future.

 

[Seras]

Fair points. Having said that ...

I'm equally astounded at the number of people saying "sign Stammer" without considering the cost as I do think it's a factor that should absolutely be considered.

The problem with this line of thought is that there is no other option on a tier just below for substantially less money.

There are only so many top end players and those guys get paid.

 

[Gary Nylund]

After this year, for the next 7 years most of our team will be based around young players who are on ELC's and RFA contracts. i.e. cheaper talent.

I just outlined how the cap shouldn't be an issue until years 6-7 on the contract and probably after.

A team can afford to have 1 contract that big without it handicapping them, especially one that's going to be built around younger, cheaper talent for the foreseeable future.

Right, the cap is not an issue. Because you can see 7 years into the future and tell us that's the way it is. Some people were saying the same thing when we signed Clarkson - "who else are we going to spend the money on".

The problem with this line of thought is that there is no other option on a tier just below for substantially less money.

There are only so many top end players and those guys get paid.

The problem with this line of thought - we don't need another option.

What's the point of signing him for top dollar for 7 years when the first 5 years are a write off as we won't be contending. Then the last 2 years it's likely his best years will be far behind him and the contract is an anchor.

I agree, those guys get paid. Let someone else pay him an we can same our money for other players.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Right, the cap is not an issue. Because you can see 7 years into the future and tell us that's the way it is. Some people were saying the same thing when we signed Clarkson - "who else are we going to spend the money on".

Yeah I guess we should never sign anyone then. Because hey we might need that cap space in 7 years.

Hey look Crosby becomes available, nope can't do it, might need that cap space in 7 years. McDavid you say? Sorry can't afford that, 7 years time we might want some cap space.

Stamkos is an elite player, and it's not like he's past his prime, he's 25. With the way this team is shaping up for the future it would be a smart investment. But hey, who knows, we might want cap space in 7 years so lets never sign anyone.

 

[Canada4Gold]

5 years? How long do you expect a rebuild to take? We've already been bad enough to draft good young assets for 2. You don't think the follow team, coached by Babcock will be making the playoffs in 3 years?

JVR-Stamkos-Marner
Johnson-Nylander-Brown
Leivo-Kadri-Kapanen
Komarov-Gauthier-Leipsic

Rielly-Chychrun
Phaneuf-Gardiner
Loov-Dermott
Percy/Harrington

Bernier
Bibeau

A team doesn't sit in the gutter for 7 years, how long was Calgary there before they made the playoffs? And they didn't enter their rebuild with good young assets like Kadri, JVR, Rielly, and Nylander. If they could have signed one of the best scorers in the game they would have.

Stamkos will still be an elite player by the time we're ready to win the cup, and likely won't impact the cap because of said young players will be cheaper until they start reaching their UFA years when Stamkos will be gone. It's a risk every team in our position should be willing to take.

But yeah, lets go full Edmonton, hogging elite young talent, and never bring in any veterans to help ever because we can't afford them because we need cap space in 7 years.

 

[Purity*]

Yeah I guess we should never sign anyone then. Because hey we might need that cap space in 7 years.

Hey look Crosby becomes available, nope can't do it, might need that cap space in 7 years. McDavid you say? Sorry can't afford that, 7 years time we might want some cap space.

Stamkos is an elite player, and it's not like he's past his prime, he's 25. With the way this team is shaping up for the future it would be a smart investment. But hey, who knows, we might want cap space in 7 years so lets never sign anyone.

It's incredibly annoying when you misrepresent the argument like that.

This isn't any old FA signing here. Potentially making a player the highest paid player in the league should definitely be approached with caution.

Again, why should he get Toews and Kane money? His playoff performance does not warrant that kind of payday whatsoever.

 

[Canada4Gold]

It's incredibly annoying when you misrepresent the argument like that.

This isn't any old FA signing here. Potentially making a player the highest paid player in the league should definitely be approached with caution.

Again, why should he get Toews and Kane money? His playoff performance does not warrant that kind of payday whatsoever.

I did approach it with caution. A when I was done thinking about it I concluded with a well thought out argument about how we are going to be built mainly on our younger players that are cheaper and thus can afford that kind of money to 1 player for the next 7 years.

We're not becoming Pittsburgh here and locking in half our cap to 5 players. A team can have 1 player making that type of money, especially a team that's going to be built off ELC's and RFA contracts for the duration of Stamkos' next contract.

But maybe you'd prefer to become Edmonton and hope the young guys will swim instead of sinking.

 

[Purity*]

I did approach it with caution. A when I was done thinking about it I concluded with a well thought out argument about how we are going to be built mainly on our younger players that are cheaper and thus can afford that kind of money to 1 player for the next 7 years.

We're not becoming Pittsburgh here and locking in half our cap to 5 players. A team can have 1 player making that type of money, especially a team that's going to be built off ELC's and RFA contracts for the duration of Stamkos' next contract.

But maybe you'd prefer to become Edmonton and hope the young guys will swim instead of sinking.

Your plan has a serious hole in it. You are relying on not running into any cap problems in 7 years. ELC's last 3 years, after that, say sweet goodbye to any depth you could possibly have.

Prefer to be Edmonton? Actually I'd prefer to be like Chicago and LA and have lots of depth. You won't have any depth with a 11-12M cap hit player on the books. And you seriously want your highest paid player getting upstaged come playoff time? Yeah not gonna work.

 

[dimi78]

Yeah I guess we should never sign anyone then. Because hey we might need that cap space in 7 years.

Hey look Crosby becomes available, nope can't do it, might need that cap space in 7 years. McDavid you say? Sorry can't afford that, 7 years time we might want some cap space.

Stamkos is an elite player, and it's not like he's past his prime, he's 25. With the way this team is shaping up for the future it would be a smart investment. But hey, who knows, we might want cap space in 7 years so lets never sign anyone.

Ask yourself this question. Why is Tampa a legitimate contender not giving in to pay him a max contract for him to become a UFA?

Stamkos is a great goal scorer 2nd best in the league behind Ovechkin but I personally don't view him in the caliber of player to be signed to a max contract further more if the Leafs do sign him I hope they make him a winger, stop wasting his talents and just realize he's Brett Hull 2.0 when he's at his best.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Right, the cap is not an issue. Because you can see 7 years into the future and tell us that's the way it is. Some people were saying the same thing when we signed Clarkson - "who else are we going to spend the money on".



The problem with this line of thought - we don't need another option.

What's the point of signing him for top dollar for 7 years when the first 5 years are a write off as we won't be contending. Then the last 2 years it's likely his best years will be far behind him and the contract is an anchor.

I agree, those guys get paid. Let someone else pay him an we can same our money for other players.

what were Nonis's immortal words? "I don 't care about years 6 or 7 ?"