Stamkos Debate - PostDeadline 2016

[Pookie]

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

In the shade there is a box called bad contracts. Skill as a player is independent of terms that serve as boat anchors.

Key here is avoiding a bad contract.

 

[HockeyThoughts]

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.

John Tavares is poor defensively too.

 

[thewave]

In the shade there is a box called bad contracts. Skill as a player is independent of terms that serve as boat anchors.

Key here is avoiding a bad contract.

So never sign a UFA player including our own. Got ya.

 

[Pookie]

So never sign a UFA player including our own. Got ya.

Yes. Because that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Stephen]

Debating with the anti-Stamkos people on here, I get the strong sense they don't want Stamkos because he's 26 and is going to be a big ticket player who will spoil the clean cap.

I wonder what their stance is on Morgan Rielly? Rielly is 22 years old and only 4 years away from being a 26 year old. Are we going to have to walk away from him then?

 

[AppsSyl]

Although I didn't agree with them, I could at least understand some of the anti-Stamkos point of view in regard to cap space when we were still saddled with Phaneuf and Kessel's contracts, but now that we are pretty much clear of both of them (except the 1.2 million retained from Kessel) and have more cap flexibility than most teams I think it is absolute lunacy not to sign a 26 year old franchise player for simply cap space. Teams rarely if ever get a chance to obtain a star player in their prime through UFA in hockey. It never happens. Stamkos would be a vital piece in our rebuild.

 

[Pookie]

Debating with the anti-Stamkos people on here, I get the strong sense they don't want Stamkos because he's 26 and is going to be a big ticket player who will spoil the clean cap.

I wonder what their stance is on Morgan Rielly? Rielly is 22 years old and only 4 years away from being a 26 year old. Are we going to have to walk away from him then?

You don't.

The issue with Stamkos is that the team doesn't need him next year. Or the year after or the year after that.

They will be bad. Stamkos or not, there are no playoff expectations.

When you need him, 4 years from now when Rielly is 26 and Prospects are playing, he's 30. With a massive cap hit. Maybe useful. Maybe not. Big risk.

That's as simple as I can make this.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Debating with the anti-Stamkos people on here, I get the strong sense they don't want Stamkos because he's 26 and is going to be a big ticket player who will spoil the clean cap.

I wonder what their stance is on Morgan Rielly? Rielly is 22 years old and only 4 years away from being a 26 year old. Are we going to have to walk away from him then?

well I was waiting for this argument.

This was basically brought up why omg - we shouldnt consider trading Kadri, why? because he's 25, does this mean we should trade Morgan too, I guess so.

which. no. that's not the only reason why people bring up Stamkos's age. geeze, I just wish it were july, this would be over with and we could just move on to other things to talk about.

 

[Stephen]

well I was waiting for this argument.

This was basically brought up why omg - we shouldnt consider trading Kadri, why? because he's 25, does this mean we should trade Morgan too, I guess so.

which. no. that's not the only reason why people bring up Stamkos's age. geeze, I just wish it were july, this would be over with and we could just move on to other things to talk about.

Please enlighten me as to why most players are young at 26, while Stamkos is near the end of his productive years?

 

[Stephen]

You don't.

The issue with Stamkos is that the team doesn't need him next year. Or the year after or the year after that.

They will be bad. Stamkos or not, there are no playoff expectations.

When you need him, 4 years from now when Rielly is 26 and Prospects are playing, he's 30. With a massive cap hit. Maybe useful. Maybe not. Big risk.

That's as simple as I can make this.

You have to differentiate between you personally wanting the Leafs to be bad because it fits your notion with what a rebuild should look like versus what the Shanaplan might actually be willing to try.

We don't need the best coach in the world this year or next year or the year after. Many people were crying that they didn't want to see Nylander, Kapanen and company up here for another couple of years back in September. And yet here they all are as part of a work in progress.

 

[Pookie]

Best coach is moot given the impact coaching has on results.

Leafs needed PR though and got that with Babcock.

I don't want the Leafs to be bad. They are bad and the only way to fix that is time.

If Stamkos comes and with him come trades involving our draft picks, then that is too costly.

Short cuts don't work.

 

[coachbob]

i might not know what the right thing to do is, but shortcuts actually do work....thats why they are named shortcuts....a faster way to get to your destination.

 

[Jerkini]

If we wait until we're "good" to sign a marquee player, will one be available?

Will Stamkos be completely useless when he's 30 and we're poised to be a competitive team?

Does anyone reasonably expect us not to be able to afford players like Nylander, Marner and 2016 First Round pick if we spend $11m on Stamkos?

I've seen both sides of the fence, the benefits outweigh the negatives. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Pookie]

And which short cut have the Leafs taken that has led to success in the last 4 decades?

 

[Jerkini]

Best coach is moot given the impact coaching has on results.

Leafs needed PR though and got that with Babcock.

I don't want the Leafs to be bad. They are bad and the only way to fix that is time.

If Stamkos comes and with him come trades involving our draft picks, then that is too costly.

Short cuts don't work.

What about our current regime makes you think this is a realistic outcome of a Stamkos signing? It's a pretty foolish concern, IMO.

 

[Jerkini]

And which short cut have the Leafs taken that has led to success in the last 4 decades?

Here's the difference. This doesn't hurt the team in any other area. It only improves it. So if improving your team for free is a "shortcut", what the hell are we even doing.

Waiting until we can slot in 15 guys at the exact same time who will lead us to the promised land? That's not realistic.

 

[Gabriel426]

Really can't wait till July 1st or whenever Stamkos is sign with whoever. Bc this debate or discussion is going no where. Pretty much everyone is recycling their points over and over and over again.

 

[Pookie]

What about our current regime makes you think this is a realistic outcome of a Stamkos signing? It's a pretty foolish concern, IMO.

Regime reports to MLSE.

It's not foolish if you know what drives them.

 

[Jerkini]

Regime reports to MLSE.

It's not foolish if you know what drives them.

I'm not buying that. Not anymore.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Really can't wait till July 1st or whenever Stamkos is sign with whoever. Bc this debate or discussion is going no where. Pretty much everyone is recycling their points over and over and over again.

word, big bird.

i trust that management in what they decide to do. the end

 

[Gabriel426]

Regime reports to MLSE.

It's not foolish if you know what drives them.

Depends on who they trade though?

I mean, I would happily trade Trouba for Kap, or one of the RHD at St. Louis for Pits 1st and Leivo, or Drouin for Leafs 1st rounder this yr(as long as not top 3).

Stamkos or not, Leafs will start trading prospects and picks for players that fit the team now and in the future.

 

[Confucius]

34 won't be too old, at 34 he'll probably have another mega contract and when that one draws near an end (42) then it may be time to worry about age. Although Jagr is still producing at 44.

 

[Faltorvo]

Thank gawd this site offers options

someone has gone full blown moron in this thread.

 

[Mad Brills*]

I'd like him, but nothing over 9.5 million.

Anything over that and buh bye

 

[Stephen]

What about our current regime makes you think this is a realistic outcome of a Stamkos signing? It's a pretty foolish concern, IMO.

Regardless of what people are comfortable with, I think it's a reality that some combination of prospects and some combination of picks will be traded away at that point, Stamkos or not. It may mean they are on an "accelerated" time table or not, but it will happen. There will be some prospects who will form the future core, and some prospects who will help bring back pieces that will form the core.

The Los Angeles Kings once had a young core of players that included B. Schenn, Simmonds and Jack Johnson. Should they have waited for those pieces to develop into superstars, or was turning them into core pieces of a multi cup winning team the best decision?