Paying $20M or more for two forwards (which is what we'd be looking at in a year or two down the road) makes it a lot harder to build anything around them. Sure you can bring him in and trade other parts for D, but there's no way you can keep any kind of quality together for more than a couple of years with that kind of cash tied up on your top line.
To me the idea of adding Stamkos is just doubling down on the same top-heavy model that's kept the Oilers in the basement for the last five years.
Yes, the numbers game is a very fair argument against Stamkos. Trying to say that he is declining and might turn into Semin is nonsense. I know not you (hopefully), but my argument for Stammer is I'd rather have 20M tied up in two generational players/goal scorers than entertaining the idea of guys like RNH/Eberle or replacing them with your typical UFAs/expendable players like the Erickson's of the world to do the job good enough at a lower but still expensive cost.
I'm not a fan of comparing to other teams models as I think every team's players and situations make them unique but the obvious comparison is Chicago operating with Toews/Kane contracts. I think the most important thing to see in that situation is how they've installed that type of leadership and skill up top and how it helps them get the most out of role players and young guys coming in on their ELCs.
I know none of the matters without defense and the reason I don't like my comparison to Chicago is that we will never duplicate a Duncan Keith or even a Seabrook. Still, I see benefit in building around McD and SS while making everyone else expendable and not apart of the future. My guess is that it gives us more options.