Stamkos Debate - PostDeadline 2016

[usernamezrhardtodo]

I understand the logic to not wanting to make Stamkos the highest paid player in the league....

However I don't understand the logic of not wanting to add one of the premier players in the league for nothing but cap space. Do you assume we already have our Claude Giroux or Patrick Kane in Nylander and Marner (I'm a big fan by the way) and will need the space when they ask for 10 million a year. What if there not?

Stamkos has his warts. So does Tavares, as does Toews. However the guy is a proven ELITE level player. 1st overall pick. Highest "Goal" scorer next to a guy named Ovechkin since entering the league. Only 26 years old when he is ready to sign.

I get saving for the future but how many great opportunities do you get in Life. Should we just sit on our hands and wait for Mcdavid? Because he's clearly coming and is clearly going to be the better player?

What if Stamkos come's and elevates what we do have. What if Marner becomes a greater player because he gets the chance to play with a GREAT player like Stamkos.

If it's all about money for Stamkos he won't be a Leaf. I think Management has already made this decision. However I think they are realists and have a number that's fair to compensate him with the UFA premium and not break our "cap" bank.

And with the way things are looking "cap" is an asset that we do have a lot of over the next year.

I don't see the problem. We are the Toronto Maple Leafs. The butt end of jokes in many circles. Yet we are to good for a UFA Stamkos? Oh boy.

Great points...all of them. I agree that the angst that people have over the extra couple of million is crazy. They have already slotted in Nylander and Marner at crazy cap numbers when they have not even had a full season under them at the NHL level. There are plenty of elite players that are not making 10m a season. So why everyone assumes an overpayment will kill any chance of Nylander and Marner getting contracts is beyond me.

One other thing to remember is that Stamkos doesn't cost you assets to acquire...we don't have to finish Last overall to get him or trade something valuable as well. He is a free wallet and the reason they tend to get more $$ is because of the fact a team just pays $$ ...not picks or prospects to get that player.

You would think that by the way some people don't want to pay 11-12m to Stamkos that it is coming out of their own pocket or something. I still think its a done deal...he is coming and probably it will be a significant over payment as well...but I am OK with that. He has no attitude issues...a good pro...good role model ..stand up guy who will be your captain and Face of the franchise for many years to come. It is a no brainer IMHO.

 

[Pookie]

Why can't Stamkos be here for double that time frame? If I'm signing him, it's with the intent of pretty much taking him through to his retirement.

He could.

He could also find himself on the sidelines like Lupul. Or with significantly less production. If we have an oft injured, low producing player… why would you want him on the roster?

I find there are a few schools of thought in this thread:

- Stamkos till retirementment… at all costs
- Ok, but let's have a reasonable deal here that doesn't hurt us
- No thanks.

As in the case of most things in life, the middle of the extremes is usually the best option.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

He could.

He could also find himself on the sidelines like Lupul. Or with significantly less production. If we have an oft injured, low producing player… why would you want him on the roster?

I find there are a few schools of thought in this thread:

- Stamkos till retirementment… at all costs
- Ok, but let's have a reasonable deal here that doesn't hurt us
- No thanks.

As in the case of most things in life, the middle of the extremes is usually the best option.

What if Nylander suffers another concussion or two and all of a sudden has an unfulfilled career and doesn't become a $10 million a year player?

Take the known, deal with the unknown later.

 

[Drew75]

I think the question becomes (if you look long term and big picture):

How many guys do you need in your main core to compete year after year? (Using the Chicago method of sign your core, then fill in the blanks with prospects & fill-ins).
For example - Chicago has Toews ($10.5), Kane ($10.5), Hossa ($5.3), Keith ($5.6), Seabrook ($6.9), and Crawford ($6.0).
Hossa & Keith are on illegal contracts, Seabrook took likely less to help, and it'll be interesting to see how the Toews and Kane contracts impact what they can do going forward. So - they essentially pay $45million for their core, giving them around $25-$30 million to fill out the rest of the team.

Assuming you need 3 forwards, 2 D, and a goalie to build around - and you need to try and keep that amount as low as possible in order to give yourself flexibility with the rest of the roster. $45 million seems like a reasonable figure - giving you an average of $7.5 million AAV for each core player.

If you sign Stamkos for $12million, that will leave you an AAV of $6.6 million for each of your remaining 5 core players.

I think everyone agrees that these numbers can work over the next 3 - 4 years, but where it becomes a challenge is years 4-7 of the contract. Is a 34 year old Stamkos still worth the $12 million cap hit when you need to keep 5 other guys signed?

One option could be simply skipping the "bridge" deal with guys like Reilly, Nylander, and Marner - trying to lock them up at 8 years X $5.5 - $7 million as soon as their ELC's run out. There is a risk to that - but if we sign Stammer, we may put ourselves in a position where we don't have a choice.

I can understand both sides of the argument - but personally I'm leaning towards skipping on Stamkos (I can't help feel that as of year 4/5 we're going to regret the contract, and I feel that GOOD management looks at all ALL 7 years of impact).

Assuming they develop as they have been, we have Nylander, Marner, and Reilly all capable of being in that group of 6 core pieces. That means we need another forward (hello top 3 pick this year), D man (hopefully when we trade down with Pittsburgh's pick to the #10 spot and grab one of Juolevi, Chychrun, or Sergachev who has inexplicably fallen! ) - and a goalie (Carter Hart @ #31 says hello!) Then we sign them all to long term second contracts (except for Hart) and end up with an awesome core locked up at a remarkably reasonable cap hit!

Works for me!

 

[Gary Nylund]

Great points...all of them. I agree that the angst that people have over the extra couple of million is crazy.

A couple million here, a couple million there, pretty soon you're talking about serious money.

They have already slotted in Nylander and Marner at crazy cap numbers when they have not even had a full season under them at the NHL level. There are plenty of elite players that are not making 10m a season. So why everyone assumes an overpayment will kill any chance of Nylander and Marner getting contracts is beyond me.

Great, I'd much rather do that than pay Stamkos 12m.

We need a lot more than Stamkos, Nylander and Marner to build a contender. The issue isn't fitting 3 players under the cap, it's fitting an entire team.

One other thing to remember is that Stamkos doesn't cost you assets to acquire...we don't have to finish Last overall to get him or trade something valuable as well. He is a free wallet and the reason they tend to get more $$ is because of the fact a team just pays $$ ...not picks or prospects to get that player.

You would think that by the way some people don't want to pay 11-12m to Stamkos that it is coming out of their own pocket or something. I still think its a done deal...he is coming and probably it will be a significant over payment as well...but I am OK with that. He has no attitude issues...a good pro...good role model ..stand up guy who will be your captain and Face of the franchise for many years to come.

Not at all, why anyone would think that? Has anyone actually said that? If there was no salary cap, they could pay him 40m per season, it wouldn't bother me one little bit.

It is a no brainer IMHO.

There's that expression again. If you're going to allot 15% or more of the cap to pay one player, you better put some thought into it.

 

[Babcocks Marner]

A couple million here, a couple million there, pretty soon you're talking about serious money.

Amazes me that people just keep ignoring that.

Just think, the over payment on Kessel/Phanuef/Lupul/Clarkson alone was over 5mil, maybe even 6 million...... enough to sign a Saad type player long term.

 

[egd27]

Amazes me that people just keep ignoring that.

Just think, the over payment on Kessel/Phanuef/Lupul/Clarkson alone was over 5mil, maybe even 6 million...... enough to sign a Saad type player long term.

Or 1/2 a Stamkos......

 

[The Blue Leafs]

There's that expression again. If you're going to allot 15% or more of the cap to pay one player, you better put some thought into it.

I agree with your points about essentially a "blank cheque" approach. I trust our management to be quite bright and have worked out how a UFA Stamkos affects our ability to build a team properly. With the ability to sign the pieces needed to contend.

However there is also the expression " A bird in the hand is better then two in the bush". Nothing is guaranteed in life. If an Elite hometown player wants to come home to be the face of team. You have to consider it strongly at the very least

Great points...all of them. I agree that the angst that people have over the extra couple of million is crazy. They have already slotted in Nylander and Marner at crazy cap numbers when they have not even had a full season under them at the NHL level. There are plenty of elite players that are not making 10m a season. So why everyone assumes an overpayment will kill any chance of Nylander and Marner getting contracts is beyond me.

One other thing to remember is that Stamkos doesn't cost you assets to acquire...we don't have to finish Last overall to get him or trade something valuable as well. He is a free wallet and the reason they tend to get more $$ is because of the fact a team just pays $$ ...not picks or prospects to get that player.

You would think that by the way some people don't want to pay 11-12m to Stamkos that it is coming out of their own pocket or something. I still think its a done deal...he is coming and probably it will be a significant over payment as well...but I am OK with that. He has no attitude issues...a good pro...good role model ..stand up guy who will be your captain and Face of the franchise for many years to come. It is a no brainer IMHO.

Couldn't agree more. Again nothing is guaranteed. We could get lucky and draft Matthews. We are more likely to draft Chychrun. Matthews might not ever be the player Stamkos is now. Lou just recently said he doesn't think about tomorrow. He focuses on today. That does not mean he's thinks only in the now. It means things change day to day. Stamkos might just want to be a Leaf and is willing to work with them to make it work. That will change things. If it's all about him and a pay cheque. Well that changes things to!

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

A couple million here, a couple million there, pretty soon you're talking about serious money.



Great, I'd much rather do that than pay Stamkos 12m.

We need a lot more than Stamkos, Nylander and Marner to build a contender. The issue isn't fitting 3 players under the cap, it's fitting an entire team.



Not at all, why anyone would think that? Has anyone actually said that? If there was no salary cap, they could pay him 40m per season, it wouldn't bother me one little bit.



There's that expression again. If you're going to allot 15% or more of the cap to pay one player, you better put some thought into it.

Fair enough points....but I tend to believe that Shanny and Lou won't be signing Clarkson like deals in the future and I trust them to make good moves in the Leafs best interest pertaining to the cap. I agree with some of your points if we had Nonis or Burke in charge...they might mess up things even if they did a smart move in signing Stamkos by over paying some UFA down the road. I think we should just look at this way...If they DO sign Stamkos...it was well thought out and they have accounted for many scenarios. If they DON'T sign him..then I trust they know what they are doing.

Simply put..I see no reason not to doubt this Management group and its decisions. Signing him or not...I will happy with what they decide...Lou knows Best (except for Ilya K)

 

[Stephen]

People don't want to play Stamkos because they implicitly think Marner and Nylander will both be $10 million players in a roughly five years after their ELC and bridge years.

I think that would be a wonderful problem to have because it just means they will have developed into such great players. But what if Marner and Nylander settle in at a Skinner, Kadri, or Nugent-Hopkins level? Then we'll absolutely need Stamkos.

 

[Babcocks Marner]

Or 1/2 a Stamkos......

Touche!

 

[thewave]

It takes a real special kind of person, a person not based in reality to be predicting how good guys like Nylander and Marner will be, how much they will make and how our cap will look. All this while also predicting the contract Stamkos will sign and the rate of his decline in performance. If this is your thought process I feel for you to an extent but think you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.

What happens If Nylander and Marner are hovering around 40-45 pts 2 years in? They'll be getting Kadri type contracts and that won't change until they hit 60-70 pts.

 

[theIceWookie]

People don't want to play Stamkos because they implicitly think Marner and Nylander will both be $10 million players in a roughly five years after their ELC and bridge years.

I think that would be a wonderful problem to have because it just means they will have developed into such great players. But what if Marner and Nylander settle in at a Skinner, Kadri, or Nugent-Hopkins level? Then we'll absolutely need Stamkos.

It boggles my mind that people are so willing to turn aside the option of signing a player as good as Stamkos based simply on What If scenarios.

We're talking about a 26 year old player who's career goals per game average is .547 and points per game average is .989. Why the hell would you pass on the opportunity to take that player on your term for only cap space? That's insane in my mind.

Like you said, I'd rather have the problem of having Nylander and Marner becoming potential 10 million dollar players and having to figure out to fit them with Stammer's contract, than to potentially wonder what might have been once upon a time had we decided to sign Stamkos.

Chicago has had no problem trading away supposed core players and staying competitive (and winning a cup) to fit their star players. In fact it's probably been one of the reason's they've stayed to consistently competitive. It's allowed them to trade those mid range core players who are attractive to other teams and can return prospects/picks to restock the system. That's the kind of system we're hoping to buiild. Stamkos helps us do that

 

[Gary Nylund]

Or 1/2 a Stamkos......

Nicely done.

Fair enough points....but I tend to believe that Shanny and Lou won't be signing Clarkson like deals in the future and I trust them to make good moves in the Leafs best interest pertaining to the cap. I agree with some of your points if we had Nonis or Burke in charge...they might mess up things even if they did a smart move in signing Stamkos by over paying some UFA down the road. I think we should just look at this way...If they DO sign Stamkos...it was well thought out and they have accounted for many scenarios. If they DON'T sign him..then I trust they know what they are doing.

Simply put..I see no reason not to doubt this Management group and its decisions. Signing him or not...I will happy with what they decide...Lou knows Best (except for Ilya K)

I agree with this 100%, I do trust our guys, I just think it's an interesting subject to discuss.

On the subject of Clarkson etc. ... so many have said this - we won't be making these mistakes etc. but everyone makes mistakes, no matter how brilliant our management team is, they won't always be able to project accurately how players will turn out, they will make mistakes guaranteed. It was pointed out earlier that even the vaunted Chicago organization has made some mistakes. I think we can expect that we will make less mistakes than we have made over the last 10 years or whatever but that's no reason to be in a rush to use up our "mistake quota".

I predict we will set our price and stick to it. I think UFA's always get overpaid so we may be willing to do so but ... not a penny more than 10.5m for several reasons, one being that it's just a bad precedent to set. And I really hope Stamkos will accept 9m.

 

[Faltorvo]

This team without a #1 goalie… and with only Jake Gardiner signed beyond the start of the 2019 season is going to win a Cup in 7 years?

Cool.

awww pookie pookie pookie

ya should have warned babcock before he signed here.

I can just picture managements pitch to Babs

"welllll, ya knowwwww, we plan to draft and develop for the entirety of your contract"


"you you mean no premium UFAs"?

"nawww 26 is old, graphs show a decline in production"

"oh well, trade for elite players?"

"naww, why would we give up all those blue chip prospects, when we pass on them for free in UFA season"


"so 7 years,eh?"

"oh yes yes at least and that's only if everything goes perfectly"

 

[Babcocks Marner]

It takes a real special kind of person, a person not based in reality to be predicting how good guys like Nylander and Marner will be, how much they will make and how our cap will look. All this while also predicting the contract Stamkos will sign and the rate of his decline in performance. If this is your thought process I feel for you to an extent but think you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.

What happens If Nylander and Marner are hovering around 40-45 pts 2 years in? They'll be getting Kadri type contracts and that won't change until they hit 60-70 pts.

There is no way in hell Marner/Nylander will be making 10mil during Stamkos's 7 year tenure here. They might One day, but that will be +7 years from now

I'm sure most people agree with you on this point. Stamkos won't hurt us from signing our prospects.

 

[Peace Frog]

Here's a question for all you "crapologists" out there....

What if next season, all the chatter is about Tavares possibly becoming a UFA? Do we not go after him for the same reason as passing on Stamkos?

If so, then the Leafs would have passed on two home grown superstars that could change the face of our franchise. All because they were more concerned about cap issues that might never occur, and if they did, it would be right around the time that their contracts would be over.

 

[Faltorvo]

Here's a question for all you "crapologists" out there....

What if next season, all the chatter is about Tavares possibly becoming a UFA? Do we not go after him for the same reason as passing on Stamkos?

If so, then the Leafs would have passed on two home grown superstars that could change the face of our franchise. All because they were more concerned about cap issues that might never occur, and if they did, it would be right around the time that their contracts would be over.

The funniest part of those all scared about that topic is

IF they are that good, to create that kind of cap pressure

ummm we have a cup contender on our hands.

 

[Menzinger]

Here's a question for all you "crapologists" out there....

What if next season, all the chatter is about Tavares possibly becoming a UFA? Do we not go after him for the same reason as passing on Stamkos?

If so, then the Leafs would have passed on two home grown superstars that could change the face of our franchise. All because they were more concerned about cap issues that might never occur, and if they did, it would be right around the time that their contracts would be over.

I'd personally prefer Tavares because of his good two way play, as Stamkos is only really effective at one end of the ice.

I'm just wary of trying to build a team around a single Hugh priced UFA - recent cup winners haven't gone down this path, they've had much more balanced cap distribution.

Doesn't mean I'm outwardly opposed to either Stamkosbor Tavares, but I don't think it's a "no brainer", management has to think long and hard as to whether hey can build a competitive team with a 10-12 million dollar player.

I'm glad im not the one making the decision.

 

[Tak7]

People don't want to play Stamkos because they implicitly think Marner and Nylander will both be $10 million players in a roughly five years after their ELC and bridge years.

I think that would be a wonderful problem to have because it just means they will have developed into such great players. But what if Marner and Nylander settle in at a Skinner, Kadri, or Nugent-Hopkins level? Then we'll absolutely need Stamkos.

Exactly.

And isn't it about time this organization tried making smarter, more calculated risks based on youth and development, rather than the hope-and-a-prayer type of risks they've been doing prior to this management?

I've got no problems banking on Marner and Nylander hopefully becoming huge money players down the road.

 

[Confucius]

Nicely done.



I agree with this 100%, I do trust our guys, I just think it's an interesting subject to discuss.

On the subject of Clarkson etc. ... so many have said this - we won't be making these mistakes etc. but everyone makes mistakes, no matter how brilliant our management team is, they won't always be able to project accurately how players will turn out, they will make mistakes guaranteed. It was pointed out earlier that even the vaunted Chicago organization has made some mistakes. I think we can expect that we will make less mistakes than we have made over the last 10 years or whatever but that's no reason to be in a rush to use up our "mistake quota".

I predict we will set our price and stick to it. I think UFA's always get overpaid so we may be willing to do so but ... not a penny more than 10.5m for several reasons, one being that it's just a bad precedent to set. And I really hope Stamkos will accept 9m.

My feeling he would take 9 from us before taking 9 from Tampa.

 

[Pookie]

What if Nylander suffers another concussion or two and all of a sudden has an unfulfilled career and doesn't become a $10 million a year player?

Take the known, deal with the unknown later.

Exactly. He could and then you'd be more than 7 years away.

There are no guarantees over a 7 year deal. Didn't Kessel teach us anything?

Avoiding bad contracts is the best way to win.

 

[TNCHL]

Here's a question for all you "crapologists" out there....

What if next season, all the chatter is about Tavares possibly becoming a UFA? Do we not go after him for the same reason as passing on Stamkos?

If so, then the Leafs would have passed on two home grown superstars that could change the face of our franchise. All because they were more concerned about cap issues that might never occur, and if they did, it would be right around the time that their contracts would be over.

Totally agree with you. If there's an opportunity to sign a superstar we should take the chance and run with it.

 

[GBLeaf]

I think the question becomes (if you look long term and big picture):

How many guys do you need in your main core to compete year after year? (Using the Chicago method of sign your core, then fill in the blanks with prospects & fill-ins).
For example - Chicago has Toews ($10.5), Kane ($10.5), Hossa ($5.3), Keith ($5.6), Seabrook ($6.9), and Crawford ($6.0).
Hossa & Keith are on illegal contracts, Seabrook took likely less to help, and it'll be interesting to see how the Toews and Kane contracts impact what they can do going forward. So - they essentially pay $45million for their core, giving them around $25-$30 million to fill out the rest of the team.

Assuming you need 3 forwards, 2 D, and a goalie to build around - and you need to try and keep that amount as low as possible in order to give yourself flexibility with the rest of the roster. $45 million seems like a reasonable figure - giving you an average of $7.5 million AAV for each core player.

If you sign Stamkos for $12million, that will leave you an AAV of $6.6 million for each of your remaining 5 core players.

I think everyone agrees that these numbers can work over the next 3 - 4 years, but where it becomes a challenge is years 4-7 of the contract. Is a 34 year old Stamkos still worth the $12 million cap hit when you need to keep 5 other guys signed?

One option could be simply skipping the "bridge" deal with guys like Reilly, Nylander, and Marner - trying to lock them up at 8 years X $5.5 - $7 million as soon as their ELC's run out. There is a risk to that - but if we sign Stammer, we may put ourselves in a position where we don't have a choice.

I can understand both sides of the argument - but personally I'm leaning towards skipping on Stamkos (I can't help feel that as of year 4/5 we're going to regret the contract, and I feel that GOOD management looks at all ALL 7 years of impact).

Assuming they develop as they have been, we have Nylander, Marner, and Reilly all capable of being in that group of 6 core pieces. That means we need another forward (hello top 3 pick this year), D man (hopefully when we trade down with Pittsburgh's pick to the #10 spot and grab one of Juolevi, Chychrun, or Sergachev who has inexplicably fallen! ) - and a goalie (Carter Hart @ #31 says hello!) Then we sign them all to long term second contracts (except for Hart) and end up with an awesome core locked up at a remarkably reasonable cap hit!

Works for me!

I think you have a well constructed argument. However, I don't think there is necessarily a blue print figure for success related to your 'core' and cap. Chicago are in a very fortunate situation with some of their players. But also, by the time Stamkos is 34, his contract would be up. Not only that, but I would bet that the salary cap would also be up. Yes I'm sure that will increase the average salary, but it also means his 11/12m would be a smaller percentage of the overall cap.

They key is, if we don't avoid bridge deals, then at what stage will Marner/Nylander/2016 1st need paying? Will they still be UFA? For me the timing is absolutely bang on to take this calculated risk. If we then do avoid bridge deals and get a little lucky with having top talent tied down to good deals. (Like the Hawks did) then we'll be golden. There is an element of risk to all big deals. I just believe Stamkos is worth the risk.

 

[thewave]

Exactly. He could and then you'd be more than 7 years away.

There are no guarantees over a 7 year deal. Didn't Kessel teach us anything?

Avoiding bad contracts is the best way to win.

Now we shade Kessel and Stamkos the same. Haha you're a real joker, I am assuming you're joking... You are joking right?