News: Steven Stamkos to hit free agency on July 1st

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFC

Registered User
Sep 26, 2013
47,890
24,210
NB
You really don't think a 34 year old Steven Stamkos doesn't play 4 more years?
Stamkos looks like a guy who might go to 40. But that's probably not with the Lightning, because we will enter rebuild phase before then.
 

MKGamingByMunish

Registered User
Apr 21, 2021
26
17
Considering Guentzel seems to be staying put in Carolina, can Stamkos go to Vancouver?

Maybe 4 Years @ $6M? Or 5 Years @ $5M?

A cheaper option for the Canucks and gives them a bit more freedom to make other moves...
 
  • Like
Reactions: David71

Uncle Scrooge

Hockey Bettor
Nov 14, 2011
13,722
8,426
Helsinki
I find it weird that the Bolts would trade for McDonagh's full cap hit and then be like oops we only have 5M to round out the roster with Stammer still unsigned.

That doesn't scream a GM that really wanted to get this done. Feels like the plan from the start was to lowball Stamkos and then it's take it or leave it.

But why would you trade for a 35 yr old McDonagh if the plan isn't to keep the band together.

And if you're willing to let Stamkos go, how are you going to find offense of that quality for low $$? They don't even have a 2nd line now. Cirelli isn't good enough to carry that line offensively, and spare parts won't get them anywhere.

You could say they planned to dump some cap and the price ended up being too high. But they didn't have any good draft picks to begin with.

I'll reserve judgement until I see what happens, but so far this looks puzzling. You can't expect Kucherov to carry the team offensively like he did every year.
 

Stammertime91

TBL: TEAM OF THE CENTURY
Dec 13, 2011
14,244
13,355
Tampa: NHL's Newest Dynasty
I find it weird that the Bolts would trade for McDonagh's full cap hit and then be like oops we only have 5M to round out the roster with Stammer still unsigned.

That doesn't scream a GM that really wanted to get this done. Feels like the plan from the start was to lowball Stamkos and then it's take it or leave it.

But why would you trade for a 35 yr old McDonagh if the plan isn't to keep the band together.

And if you're willing to let Stamkos go, how are you going to find offense of that quality for low $$? They don't even have a 2nd line now. Cirelli isn't good enough to carry that line offensively, and spare parts won't get them anywhere.

You could say they planned to dump some cap and the price ended up being too high. But they didn't have any good draft picks to begin with.

I'll reserve judgement until I see what happens, but so far this looks puzzling. You can't expect Kucherov to carry the team offensively like he did every year.
This is by and large how we feel so good assessment of the situation.


I wouldn't mind losing Stamkos if we were miles apart and a team was offering 8M and north of it. We all figured somewhere like 5-7M with the pieces of Sheary, Jeannot or Perbix being moved.

To offer him a Nick Paul contract, $400k more than Jeannot, is a f***ing insult. That's wild. Pavelski got more and was older at the time. There's not even a comparable allowing you to offer 3M. I can't say with any certainty, but it just feels personal if 3M is a true figure. It feels like Brisebois does not like Stamkos. I understand losing Palat and Killorn offering that kind of contract, but to end a guys 16 year tenure, he's your captain, at 3M? Nah. Time for Brisebois to take a hike.
 

CashMash

Registered User
Jun 5, 2015
3,232
754
Finland
I'll say it now just so I don't appear to be roasting the team that signs him.
Unless he signs a great contract, which he won't, Stamkos will become an albatross in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimeZone

Leafs87

Mr. Steal Your Job
Aug 10, 2010
15,159
5,260
Toronto
2 cups 4 SCFs. Imagine he’d want a high cap low term payout with a competitive team to retire early than play at a discount into his 40s. wtf offer lol
 

Stammertime91

TBL: TEAM OF THE CENTURY
Dec 13, 2011
14,244
13,355
Tampa: NHL's Newest Dynasty
I'll say it now just so I don't appear to be roasting the team that signs him.
Unless he signs a great contract, which he won't, Stamkos will become an albatross in the near future.
The number floated is 3M. His counter or number from his side was 4-5? Anything at 6M and less for 3 years is incredibly fair. 4-5M 30/30 production is not an albatross by any means.

The only way it becomes an albatross is if GMs start competing and work their way into the +7M range with term. That's where it'll hurt a team but if he's comfortable with 4-5M, that's a f***ing bargain.
 

waffledave

waffledave, from hf
Aug 22, 2004
33,738
16,669
Montreal
My neighbors are from Thunder Bay and they love it here. I'll have them call Steven up, basically book it he's coming to Montreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFC

DFC

Registered User
Sep 26, 2013
47,890
24,210
NB
I find it weird that the Bolts would trade for McDonagh's full cap hit and then be like oops we only have 5M to round out the roster with Stammer still unsigned.

That doesn't scream a GM that really wanted to get this done. Feels like the plan from the start was to lowball Stamkos and then it's take it or leave it.

But why would you trade for a 35 yr old McDonagh if the plan isn't to keep the band together.

And if you're willing to let Stamkos go, how are you going to find offense of that quality for low $$? They don't even have a 2nd line now. Cirelli isn't good enough to carry that line offensively, and spare parts won't get them anywhere.

You could say they planned to dump some cap and the price ended up being too high. But they didn't have any good draft picks to begin with.

I'll reserve judgement until I see what happens, but so far this looks puzzling. You can't expect Kucherov to carry the team offensively like he did every year.
You have grasped our nightmare rather well.
 

CashMash

Registered User
Jun 5, 2015
3,232
754
Finland
The number floated is 3M. His counter or number from his side was 4-5? Anything at 6M and less for 3 years is incredibly fair. 4-5M 30/30 production is not an albatross by any means.

The only way it becomes an albatross is if GMs start competing and work their way into the +7M range with term. That's where it'll hurt a team but if he's comfortable with 4-5M, that's a f***ing bargain.
If those are the actual numbers (4-5m), that's indeed incredibly fair. Nevermind if so. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stammertime91
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad