Would you give Stamkos away?

[Bringer of Jollity]

We're already one of the worst teams in the league. Whatever buoyancy Stamkos adds at the moment will decrease over time. We're not 1 player away from becoming a Cup contender. If he wanted out and if there was a team who thought his contract was a sweet deal and they would accept with no strings, we'd be crazy to not take that deal. We have to face it. The demolition to our competitiveness was done. It's time to break out a good blueprint and start rebuilding.

We'd still be stuck with Josi, Forsberg, Saros, Skjei, Marchy. And it isn't like trading Stamkos makes us a much worse team now, or keeping him makes us much better. There is no benefit now to giving him away for nothing. He may have some value to a team as his term starts to wind down and a team is looking to add some PP/extra goal punch for a year or two in an increasing cap environment. While we can't get back the players or other opportunities that were lost because we brought in, or kept, players like him, giving him away just to give him away, when we have no need for the cap space (and can find other roster spots to fee up for the young guys) is just compounding those mistakes.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Core point to be added: Say we get rid of Stamkos. Okay, cool. It's done. Now who's going to be playing those minutes?

As annoyed as we may be with the roster right now, we still have to build one.

Svechkov and Novak can have some of those minutes for now. The next 30 games don't really matter much. Him playing those minutes isn't building us to anywhere either. He's a declining asset on a terrible team. I'm not sure it has really sunk in to people that him playing those minutes has us sitting #30 in the league? Anybody can play those minutes on a 30th place team.

Then the idea is to get somebody better for next year, the year after, and the year after that. Having $21M in Cap space is no guarantee that we get somebody better. Having a #1OA draft pick isn't even a guarantee. But higher draft picks and more $$$ to spend are at least tools at our disposal in at least TRYING to get somebody better.

Of course, we aren't getting rid of Stamkos anyway. It's purely a hypothetical, since a) he has a NMC, and b) no team would take him. But in the alternate universe where we did find a taker, I suspect Barry Trotz just signs John Tavares for 5x$10M to replace him. So there's that. I'd rather keep Stamkos too in that universe.

 

[herzausstein]

Core point to be added: Say we get rid of Stamkos. Okay, cool. It's done. Now who's going to be playing those minutes?

As annoyed as we may be with the roster right now, we still have to build one.

I would be less concerned about who plays those minutes if we had a coach that promotes younger players... but with Bruno it'll be Hinostroza or Smith.

 

[Kat Predator]

We'd still be stuck with Josi, Forsberg, Saros, Skjei, Marchy. And it isn't like trading Stamkos makes us a much worse team now, or keeping him makes us much better. There is no benefit now to giving him away for nothing. He may have some value to a team as his term starts to wind down and a team is looking to add some PP/extra goal punch for a year or two in an increasing cap environment. While we can't get back the players or other opportunities that were lost because we brought in, or kept, players like him, giving him away just to give him away, when we have no need for the cap space (and can find other roster spots to fee up for the young guys) is just compounding those mistakes.

This was just about Stamkos and sort of a yeah or nay, right? No other team is going to take his contract at face value, so we're sort of arguing about whether pixie dust is more magical than a flying carpet...

However, the cap space freed up is not nothing. If we freed up that much space, we'd have even more space to go after and overpay for a #1C, which is something most everyone is wearing a groove in their brain about here. Stamkos is not our #1C for the future, but his cap space would give us more room in a bidding war situation.

Also, I do agree that he's not valueless. I just see the hypothetical as rephrasing a "what-if" scenario: what if Trotz wasn't our GM and we didn't really make his mistakes?

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

This was just about Stamkos and sort of a yeah or nay, right? No other team is going to take his contract at face value, so we're sort of arguing about whether pixie dust is more magical than a flying carpet...

However, the cap space freed up is not nothing. If we freed up that much space, we'd have even more space to go after and overpay for a #1C, which is something most everyone is wearing a groove in their brain about here. Stamkos is not our #1C for the future, but his cap space would give us more room in a bidding war situation.

Also, I do agree that he's not valueless. I just see the hypothetical as rephrasing a "what-if" scenario: what if Trotz wasn't our GM and we didn't really make his mistakes?

The tinkerbell emoji here is waaaaay bigger than the genie, so I'm going with the pixie dust on this one.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I would be less concerned about who plays those minutes if we had a coach that promotes younger players... but with Bruno it'll be Hinostroza or Smith.

If it's Hinostroza or Smith, it gets us that much closer to drafting Hagens or Misa anyway. Which is still the best thing we can get out of the current debacle of a season. So again, I really wouldn't care who plays those minutes these last 30 games if Stamkos was gone.

 

[glenngineer]

Not sure why this is even a thing. We didn't give anything up for him. It's not like keeping or giving him up will improve our chances of improving or getting any worse. If someone came along and said, hey, we'd like to acquire Stamkos, he agrees to it and we can get a return, great. To give him away for nothing seems counterproductive.

He's not keeping anyone in the pipeline from playing. If we move on from him then what, playing Hinostroza, Bellows, one of the tweeners from the 4th line higher in the lineup? What does that accomplish? If it forced us to play the third line more, great but that isn't the case now and wouldn't be any different if Stamkos was gone.

We knew him coming here that he had a limited shelf life. If he can put up around 50-60 a year while teaching some of the kids how to be a pro and a winner, that's worth his price tag.

If you want to move on from anyone, it would be Saros and it would be for something underwhelming as his value is not what it once was and with a new contract kicking in next year.

Back to Stamkos for a moment. If we continue to nose dive and land a 1C in the draft and we're willing to play them next year, we can slot Stamkos back to the wing or 2C if we want and then he's slotted in a better position to succeed. Even if he's a shell of his former self, I'd rather a kid learn from him than most of the players we currently have on the roster.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

This was just about Stamkos and sort of a yeah or nay, right? No other team is going to take his contract at face value, so we're sort of arguing about whether pixie dust is more magical than a flying carpet...

However, the cap space freed up is not nothing. If we freed up that much space, we'd have even more space to go after and overpay for a #1C, which is something most everyone is wearing a groove in their brain about here. Stamkos is not our #1C for the future, but his cap space would give us more room in a bidding war situation.

Also, I do agree that he's not valueless. I just see the hypothetical as rephrasing a "what-if" scenario: what if Trotz wasn't our GM and we didn't really make his mistakes?

It makes it tough to assess some of those because there are so many disparate notions on what direction to head in. At face value, we are crappy team that seems to be heading downward, but may still try to compete next year, I guess.

In that scenario, sure we need a 1C. But who fits that bill that's available at this deadline or offseason we'd need that immediate extra cap space for (and isn't solved by trading or letting go guys like Nyquist, Novak, etc...)? EP40? Tavares? Is Wyatt Johnston REALLY a true #1C we are going to pay 8 figures a year for and can't make the cap room otherwise? I don't see it.

If it is coming from a full rebuild perspective I don't see why we're going "all-in" on getting a 1C just to play through 3-5 crappy years, aside from just them being that hard to get and we don't think we'll have another chance later. Again, I'm not seeing anyone currently available that fits that bill and the timelines for us to get back to competitive.

 

[Armourboy]

Stamkos is just money, its what you do with it that would really determine if moving him would be a good choice or not. It doesn't really matter anyways because until Brunette is gone it won't matter who is or isn't here.

 

[Meuracas]

Tampa fan coming in peace - it’s Brunette and Trotz you need to get rid of, not your players…but this you already knew.

I’d take Stammer back in a heartbeat if the cap hit was, say, max 6. His current contract will never be good but giving him away for free would not solve any of your issues…and I want to see Nashville succeed.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Stamkos is just money, its what you do with it that would really determine if moving him would be a good choice or not. It doesn't really matter anyways because until Brunette is gone it won't matter who is or isn't here.

Oh obviously. But I think you also have to consider the 3 years after this one. It's unlikely Stamkos is going to get better through the length of this contract either. And again, it's all moot because we do know he'll be here for the full contract, and we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Anyway, I'm pretty content that all the polling has proven me correct on the fact that other teams wouldn't take Stamkos - not at his full contract anyway - for free. That's polling like 85% on the flawed main board poll. Whereas here, I think there's a little bit too much fatalism about where our franchise is going and what it can do in the future, so I certainly was wrong about the Nashville homer viewpoint on it all. I'm more optimistic than most fans here about how quickly we could turn things around and what heights we could aspire to.

 

[Viqsi]

Oh obviously. But I think you also have to consider the 3 years after this one. It's unlikely Stamkos is going to get better through the length of this contract either. And again, it's all moot because we do know he'll be here for the full contract, and we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Anyway, I'm pretty content that all the polling has proven me correct on the fact that other teams wouldn't take Stamkos - not at his full contract anyway - for free. That's polling like 85% on the flawed main board poll. Whereas here, I think there's a little bit too much fatalism about where our franchise is going and what it can do in the future, so I certainly was wrong about the Nashville homer viewpoint on it all. I'm more optimistic than most fans here about how quickly we could turn things around and what heights we could aspire to.

I for one am amused that you've now made two absolutist assertions about views on this guy, been demonstrably proven wrong on both, and are still claiming victory. Either there's a significant commuincations gap here, or...

Your logical fallacy is special pleading

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I for one am amused that you've now made two absolutist assertions about views on this guy, been demonstrably proven wrong on both, and are still claiming victory. Either there's a significant commuincations gap here, or...

Your logical fallacy is special pleading

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I'm only claiming partial victory, fwiw. Partial defeat if you prefer! I was right about the general view of Stamkos outside of Nashville, wrong about how our fanbase here views him. Don't see how any of that is in dispute, the poll results are in?

 

[glenngineer]

Oh obviously. But I think you also have to consider the 3 years after this one. It's unlikely Stamkos is going to get better through the length of this contract either. And again, it's all moot because we do know he'll be here for the full contract, and we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Anyway, I'm pretty content that all the polling has proven me correct on the fact that other teams wouldn't take Stamkos - not at his full contract anyway - for free. That's polling like 85% on the flawed main board poll. Whereas here, I think there's a little bit too much fatalism about where our franchise is going and what it can do in the future, so I certainly was wrong about the Nashville homer viewpoint on it all. I'm more optimistic than most fans here about how quickly we could turn things around and what heights we could aspire to.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how we turn things around quickly.

Our D corp is a mess. Molendyk and Gibson are at least a full season away from playing together as a pair and even then, they'll be young and green coming into the NHL. Outside of Wilsby and Stastney, I'm not excited about anything else in the system.

Forward wise, say Svechkov, Novak, Evangelista and ZLH keep progressing, are these 4 middle six guys? With who we've drafted/acquired, we'd have to hit on Wood, Kemell, Surin, Edstrom and Stiga to round out a top 9. None of these guys are top 3 guys. So we've got a roster full of top 6 guys, maybe. I've said this in the past that if you have a really solid top 9 filled with true second line talent, you can compete at a high level, at least statistically speaking.

If we get a top 3 pick this year and can draft Hagens or Misa, that certainly helps. All that to say, if what I said is true about three second lines, that means these 9 guys would be averaging around 50-60 points each in the NHL and Hagens or Misa is over a PPG. No offense but when was the last time we drafted a player who's average 50-60 points a season that's stayed on the roster? Smith and Fiala are the only immediate two that come to mind.

So what gives you hope that we can turns this around quickly with certain guys aging out of this team and replacing them with the pieces we currently have in the system? Maybe, if Hagens or Misa comes in immediately and is a PPG player playing with Forsberg and other guys step up dramatically, it's a possibility. I just don't see it. I'd love to be wrong but how many times do we as a fan base get all excited about a prospect to be let down? Too often.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I'd love to hear your explanation of how we turn things around quickly.

Our D corp is a mess. Molendyk and Gibson are at least a full season away from playing together as a pair and even then, they'll be young and green coming into the NHL. Outside of Wilsby and Stastney, I'm not excited about anything else in the system.

Forward wise, say Svechkov, Novak, Evangelista and ZLH keep progressing, are these 4 middle six guys? With who we've drafted/acquired, we'd have to hit on Wood, Kemell, Surin, Edstrom and Stiga to round out a top 9. None of these guys are top 3 guys. So we've got a roster full of top 6 guys, maybe. I've said this in the past that if you have a really solid top 9 filled with true second line talent, you can compete at a high level, at least statistically speaking.

If we get a top 3 pick this year and can draft Hagens or Misa, that certainly helps. All that to say, if what I said is true about three second lines, that means these 9 guys would be averaging around 50-60 points each in the NHL and Hagens or Misa is over a PPG. No offense but when was the last time we drafted a player who's average 50-60 points a season that's stayed on the roster? Smith and Fiala are the only immediate two that come to mind.

So what gives you hope that we can turns this around quickly with certain guys aging out of this team and replacing them with the pieces we currently have in the system? Maybe, if Hagens or Misa comes in immediately and is a PPG player playing with Forsberg and other guys step up dramatically, it's a possibility. I just don't see it. I'd love to be wrong but how many times do we as a fan base get all excited about a prospect to be let down? Too often.

I'm optimistic that we *could* turn things around quickly. I'm pretty sure we won't, however. We'll have the same GM, same coaching staff, and likely upwards of 90% of the same players. So in that context, everything you say describes the situation adequately.

What I meant is that I might differ from some posters in terms of thinking we *could* turn it around more quickly. I'm optimistic that the avenue at least exists. Fire the coach, trade off all the deadwood and declining players we can (which isn't going to be the NMC guys, unfortunately), and make better use of youth and Cap space. I think there are a lot of moves we *could* make to turn things around more quickly. Albeit I don't believe we actually will. But part of the process to doing so would be to stop clinging to overpaid veterans or negative and declining assets. Of which Stamkos is a representative, even though of course the scenario which started this thread is only a pure hypothetical, since we wouldn't ever actually be able to just give him away. (Other teams wouldn't take him.) It's representative of a mindset we shouldn't shy away from if we were to at least *try* to turn things around, however.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm optimistic that we *could* turn things around quickly. I'm pretty sure we won't, however. We'll have the same GM, same coaching staff, and likely upwards of 90% of the same players. So in that context, everything you say describes the situation adequately.

What I meant is that I might differ from some posters in terms of thinking we *could* turn it around more quickly. I'm optimistic that the avenue at least exists. Fire the coach, trade off all the deadwood and declining players we can (which isn't going to be the NMC guys, unfortunately), and make better use of youth and Cap space. I think there are a lot of moves we *could* make to turn things around more quickly. Albeit I don't believe we actually will. But part of the process to doing so would be to stop clinging to overpaid veterans or negative and declining assets. Of which Stamkos is a representative, even though of course the scenario which started this thread is only a pure hypothetical, since we wouldn't ever actually be able to just give him away. (Other teams wouldn't take him.) It's representative of a mindset we shouldn't shy away from if we were to at least *try* to turn things around, however.

This reads to me a lot like "so pay to get rid of all these UFAs we just picked up, then go out and pick up a bunch of UFAs, but, like, somehow do it right this time."

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

This reads to me a lot like "so pay to get rid of all these UFAs we just picked up, then go out and pick up a bunch of UFAs, but, like, somehow do it right this time."

No, don't pay to get rid of these UFAs. You seemed to miss this point in the poll you made also. Just because a player has negative value does not mean you MUST DUMP THEM at negative value. But you at least have to be willing to move them at zero value if that opportunity were ever to miraculously arise.

 

[Viqsi]

No, don't pay to get rid of these UFAs. You seemed to miss this point in the poll you made also. Just because a player has negative value does not mean you MUST DUMP THEM at negative value. But you at least have to be willing to move them at zero value if that opportunity were ever to miraculously arise.

...then frankly I'm not seeing enough unicorns to know where you're going, because if these guys are all strictly negative but you're not removing them, then how are they not going to get in the way of a Miraculous Turnaround? Unless, of course, it turns out they're not actually strictly net negative, and would do better in better circumstances, and thus would not be worthwhile to just throw away...

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

...then frankly I'm not seeing enough unicorns to know where you're going, because if these guys are all strictly negative but you're not removing them, then how are they not going to get in the way of a Miraculous Turnaround? Unless, of course, it turns out they're not actually strictly net negative, and would do better in better circumstances, and thus would not be worthwhile to just throw away...

I don't get your binary thinking here? Just because Stamkos (for example) is a negative value player doesn't mean he gets in the way of a Miraculous Turnaround. Lots of teams are carrying around negative value players. Sure, it would be nice to throw them away if you could. But if you can't, you do what we're going to end up doing with Stamkos... keep him, live with his negative value, mitigate against it in your lineup the best you can, and try not to ever make the same mistake again.

 

[Viqsi]

I don't get your binary thinking here? Just because Stamkos (for example) is a negative value player doesn't mean he gets in the way of a Miraculous Turnaround. Lots of teams are carrying around negative value players. Sure, it would be nice to throw them away if you could. But if you can't, you do what we're going to end up doing with Stamkos... keep him, live with his negative value, mitigate against it in your lineup the best you can, and try not to ever make the same mistake again.

Well, for one, it's more than just Stamkos.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Well, for one, it's more than just Stamkos.

Yes, it is. But I think Skjei is probably the only other one that is actually un-movable like Stamkos? You can live with 2 overpaid/hence-negative-value players in your lineup. But you do have to do some things differently with the rest of the lineup to help mitigate. I don't think those are impossibly difficult things either.

 

[glenngineer]

Yes, it is. But I think Skjei is probably the only other one that is actually un-movable like Stamkos? You can live with 2 overpaid/hence-negative-value players in your lineup. But you do have to do some things differently with the rest of the lineup to help mitigate. I don't think those are impossibly difficult things either.

I doubt Skjei is a negative value. It's not like he forgot how to play hockey overnight. Maybe bring in a coach with a stable system and his play turns around. Also not sure that Stamkos has negative value. While he's underperformed, who hasn't outside of Fil, he should be good for 60 points a year and while his salary says he should be better, that's still better than most guys in the league, let alone our own team.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I doubt Skjei is a negative value. It's not like he forgot how to play hockey overnight. Maybe bring in a coach with a stable system and his play turns around. Also not sure that Stamkos has negative value. While he's underperformed, who hasn't outside of Fil, he should be good for 60 points a year and while his salary says he should be better, that's still better than most guys in the league, let alone our own team.

One thing I will say is that we can watch how the market evolves now with the huge Cap increases coming. It might become the "new normal" for a slow 25-goal scoring winger to earn $8M, or for a mediocre #3D to get $7M. So while they were certainly "negative value" assets under this season's paradigm, that paradigm may start shifting soon.

 

[Predsanddead24]

For what it's worth Stamkos has a lower points per 60 at all strengths than Tomasino did last season which got him sent to the AHL. His point totals are somewhat ok but when you consider the primo opportunities he's getting I really don't think we'd see all that big of a step down if we gave someone like Novak the same opportunity he's getting. Add on that Stamkos isn't getting any younger and I just don't see why we'd want to keep him around. Although realistically he's unlikely to go anywhere so I guess we just have to hope that we can get a new coaching staff and that Stamkos can improve but even then I'm not holding my breath.