Toggle sidebar

Steven Stamkos now and in the future: net positive, net negative, or roughly somewhere in the middle?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates

Is Stamkos as an asset a net positive, net negative, or somewhere in the middle?

  • Net positive asset; he'll be a key contributor for a while yet

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Net negative asset; he's a liability and an anchor and must be dumped ASAP

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Somewhere in the middle; maybe a bit overpaid but not a real anchor

    Votes: 11 47.8%

  • Don't know, don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    23
  • This poll will close: .
Viqsi

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
56,609
36,772
40N 83W (approx)
There's a bit of a debate going on among Preds fans and so a small survey is being conducted.

Stamkos is currently scoring 0.6 points per game at the moment - he's got 17-15-32 in 50, on pace for approximately 28-25-53 in 82, shooting at 15.7% currently (nearly a full point under his NHL career average of 16.6%, but closer to what he's done his prior two years at Tampa Bay). Half of his goals are on the power play.

His 35th birthday is a week from yesterday; he's signed until he's 38 at $8m/year (three seasons after this one) Based on the cap hit information we have from the NHL and NHLPA, by the time we get to his final season his contract will take up 7% of the cap, or the equivalent of $6m/year in today's cap dollars.

Cast your votes.
Click to read more...
 
I think the poll statement of the debate is overly draconian. It really should just be:

"If Steven Stamkos was willing to waive his NMC and come to your team, and you had to give up nothing to get him, would you take him?"

YES
or
NO

You get him at his full contract, no contract dumps back to Nashville, no retention, just straight up you get Stamkos and the remainder of his 4x$8M for nothing.

That's the real question here.
 
Porter Stoutheart said:
I think this statement of the debate is overly draconian. It really should just be:

"If Steven Stamkos was willing to waive his NMC and come to your team, and you had to give up nothing to get him, would you take him?"

YES
or
NO

You get him at his full contract, no contracts dumps back, no retention, just straight up you get the remainder of his 4x$8M for free.

That's the real question here.
Click to expand...
That's misleading and deliberately tilting the debate, because you're telling teams to take on his cap hit. You were arguing it from the perspective of Nashville giving him up for free. His cap hit here is a sunk cost.
 
Viqsi said:
That's misleading and deliberately tilting the debate, because you're telling teams to take on his cap hit. You were arguing it from the perspective of Nashville giving him up for free. His cap hit here is a sunk cost.
Click to expand...
:huh: I'm not sure you know the perspective I was arguing about it from, then? Because in your tilted version of the poll, I would vote Option #3... he IS a net negative asset, but since the Preds suck already and have oodles of Cap-room, he's basically just "overpaid" and not a total anchor to a going-nowhere team like the Preds. Which is probably what I would expect most Preds fans to vote, if you phrased the debate that way. You'd split the vote between Option #2 and Option #3 anyway. But that's not really the question. The question is if any other team out there would take him on his current contract without giving up anything in return. It is a simple YES or NO answer.

Putting in qualifiers like "and must be dumped ASAP" is asinine, because there is no pressure to dump him at negative value. You're overcomplicating the question and muddying the waters.
 
Not sure how he is doing in Nashville at even strength, according to his stats, he is improving.
He should be an asset on the PP, was definitely a liability at even strength in Tampa.
I think he is an overpaid PP asset.
 
Porter Stoutheart said:
:huh: I'm not sure you know the perspective I was arguing about it from, then? Because in your tilted version of the poll, I would vote Option #3... he's a net negative asset, but since the Preds suck already and have oodles of Cap-room, he's basically just "overpaid" and not a total anchor to a going-nowhere team. Which is probably what I would expect most fans to vote, if you phrased the debate that way. But that's not really the question.
Click to expand...
Except for the part where it totally is the question. What prompted me to create this poll was the following:
Porter Stoutheart said:
I'm astonished if people see him as a net-positive asset around here. I doubt very much that he'd be viewed that way in a main boards poll absent the homerism.
Click to expand...
The flaw here IMO is binary thinking - you seemed to be presuming that anyone who doesn't see him as a net negative to be dumped instead sees him as a net positive. So a "sunk cost" third option would be appropriate. That's what I figured should be evaluated.

I know, normally I address these things by linking to yourlogicalfallacyis.com, but this time I was legit curious what the mainboards opinion was. :)
 
Viqsi said:
Except for the part where it totally is the question. What prompted me to create this poll was the following:

The flaw here IMO is binary thinking - you seemed to be presuming that anyone who doesn't see him as a net negative to be dumped instead sees him as a net positive. So a "sunk cost" third option would be appropriate. That's what I figured should be evaluated.

I know, normally I address these things by linking to yourlogicalfallacyis.com, but this time I was legit curious what the mainboards opinion was. :)
Click to expand...
It's fine if you want to find a different answer to a question that wasn't the original debate. You have that right, of course. (What is the logical fallacy for biasing the answer to what you want it to be by putting misleading qualifiers in the voting options?)
 
Porter Stoutheart said:
It's fine if you want to find a different answer to a question that wasn't the original debate. You have that right, of course. (What is the logical fallacy for biasing the answer to what you want it to be by putting misleading qualifiers in the voting options?)
Click to expand...
Dunno offhand, but if it applies, we're both guilty. ;)
 
aylib said:
Not sure how he is doing in Nashville at even strength, according to his stats, he is improving.
He should be an asset on the PP, was definitely a liability at even strength in Tampa.
I think he is an overpaid PP asset.
Click to expand...
He has definitely been improving since moving to center. Surprisingly enough. Still, he's overall a little slow and his main contribution is on the PP. He'd be a net positive asset on a $5-6M contract, and if his utilization was scaled back a bit to fit his current limitations. "An overpaid PP asset" is basically bang on.

That said, he's still just on pace for about 28 goals on the season. So it's not like he's a "dominant" PP asset either. If you are going to pay a guy $8M to be that one-trick pony, it'd be nice if he could put up somewhat more impressive numbers doing it? :dunno:

I don't think you have to say he's a HUGELY negative asset and MUST BE DUMPED ASAP to agree that he's overall a slightly negative asset. Which different teams would be in different positions in terms of being able to accommodate. But probably very very few (if any) teams would be willing to trade for him at zero or positive value. :dunno:
 
Viqsi said:
There's a bit of a debate going on among Preds fans and so a small survey is being conducted.

Stamkos is currently scoring 0.6 points per game at the moment - he's got 17-15-32 in 50, on pace for approximately 28-25-53 in 82, shooting at 15.7% currently (nearly a full point under his NHL career average of 16.6%, but closer to what he's done his prior two years at Tampa Bay). Half of his goals are on the power play.

His 35th birthday is a week from yesterday; he's signed until he's 38 at $8m/year (three seasons after this one) Based on the cap hit information we have from the NHL and NHLPA, by the time we get to his final season his contract will take up 7% of the cap, or the equivalent of $6m/year in today's cap dollars.

Cast your votes.
Click to expand...
First of all your stats are wrong, Stamkos has 33 points not 32 points. And Stamkos had a terrible start to his season with just 1 point in his first 8 games. But he's slowly been improving. Since October 28th Stamkos has 16+16=32 points in 42 games and since December 10th Stamkos has 10+10=20 points in 22 games. Don't count out Stamkos just yet...
 
He got overpaid but his shooting ability is still very valuable. I think his deficiencies on 5v5 are a bit exaggerated by some on here. Put him with a play driver and he'll score some goals, Nashville wasn't doing that early in the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: banks
DownIsTheNewUp said:
He got overpaid but his shooting ability is still very valuable. I think his deficiencies on 5v5 are a bit exaggerated by some on here. Put him with a play driver and he'll score some goals, Nashville wasn't doing that early in the season.
Click to expand...
He was playing with Kuch and Point— can’t ask for better playmaker/play driver.
 
Viqsi said:
This is the source I was working from:
sportsforecaster.com

Steven Stamkos Stats, Profile, Bio, Analysis and More | Nashville Predators | Sports Forecaster

All the latest news, stats and analysis on Steven Stamkos of the Nashville Predators on SportsForecaster.com.
sportsforecaster.com sportsforecaster.com

I'm not sure where the discrepancy lies.
Click to expand...
Jesus tap dancing Christ! What kind of bargain bin site is that?! You're supposed to use NHL.com for stats and Stamkos'page on NHL.com says he has 17+16=33points in 50 games: Steven Stamkos Stats And News
 
Mulletman said:
First of all your stats are wrong, Stamkos has 33 points not 32 points. And Stamkos had a terrible start to his season with just 1 point in his first 8 games. But he's slowly been improving. Since October 28th Stamkos has 16+16=32 points in 42 games and since December 10th Stamkos has 10+10=20 points in 22 games. Don't count out Stamkos just yet...
Click to expand...

I'm glad he's finding a groove in Nashville. I've always liked Stamkos.

But those 20 games aren't enough for me to ignore the long decline he's been on since he was with Tampa. Any time I've watched him play he's looked uninspired and slow. He's never carrying his line or dictating the pace/play. His line hasn't run through him in a long time.

Those 20 games certainly aren't enough for me to assume he'll be productive for the length of this contract. He's a net negative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylib
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom