Steve Stamkos?

[herman]

I'm on the fence. I've read all the polite, captivating arguments in this thread and still can't make my mind.

I think the safe bet is to just continue the course and not sign Stamkos. However, the safe bet is often a loser's bet. Marner or Nylander may not pan out. The Leafs might select 5th and get a player of no consequence.

When Kessel came in, it was at a great cost and the team didn't have a strong commitment to rebuilding. Stamkos will come at no cost -- other than a big chunk of cap space gone -- and the team can still keep their commitment to the rebuild.

Will Stamkos improve the team to such a level that they start drafting in the middle of the pack? I really don't know. Will his cap hit of $10M provide a huge impediment to future growth of the team? I really don't know.

I think I'm leaning toward skipping Stamkos. The main reason is simply that I think the team is just too early in the rebuild. The defense, in particular, is too far behind.

I'm feeling this way too, but I've vacillated in both directions during the course of the season.

On the one hand: epic elite production when Stamkos has been relied upon heavily for that role; available without giving up hard assets. On the other hand: 1/7th of your Salary Cap in one player, which could hamstring our really efficient management team a bit.

Personally, I wouldn't jump for an opportune signing of this magnitude until we have enough horses in the stable that really look championship calibre (goalie, 1D, 1C, a structure that can literally skate the puck to the net). The sniper is preferably my last get.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

 

[herman]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

It's fun!

If it was a 26 year old Doughty, I'd say yes. Scoring Center/Winger at this stage of the build? Maaaaybe.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

I'm pro-Stamkos, but I don't think it's insane for someone to not want him.

Anyway, I have faith that our management group will be able to build a successful team in the future either way.

 

[Zee]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?  Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.  Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?  Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.  Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

Do you think that is not a bit of recency bias in questioning whether he's a top player in the league by virtue of his scoring rank right now?

Even if it takes the Leafs all of 5 seasons to compete where Stamkos is then 30 or 31, that's not a David Clarkson 31.  Alex Ovechkin is 30 going on 31 in the fall and he's leading the league in goals.  As I said previously, great players are better for longer and get worse slower.  It's not a bad gamble to make on someone like Stamkos.  On someone like Bolland, yes, bad gamble.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

I'm pro-Stamkos, but I don't think it's insane for someone to not want him.

Anyway, I have faith that our management group will be able to build a successful team in the future either way.

I feel similar.  I've argued for him, but I don't think it's crazy to take the other position either.  It's not something clear cut 100% yes or no, but things rarely are anyway.

 

[Bullfrog]

The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.


Bah. I can't decide!

 

[herman]

A lot of the uncertainty depends on where people assess the team to be on their development curve towards championship calibre, and overlaying where they see Stamkos' development curve.

I think Stamkos is about one or two steps from his peak. Our team is a couple more years away if the pieces from this past offseason make significant hay.

 

[bustaheims]

The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.

This is kind of where I'm at, too. From a purely rational perspective, looking at what I consider to be a realistic timeline for the Leafs, and what their needs really are going forward, I'm leaning against the team taking a serious run at Stamkos. There's also one big unknown that will have a significant impact on things - and that's if the Leafs get to draft Matthews. If they do, it becomes a really easy "no" for me. If they don't, it's a little more clouded. Even though adding Stamkos would only cost cap space, when the Leafs are in a position to take that next step, that space will likely be more effectively used to shore up the blueline, bring in a goalie, improve the secondary and depth scoring, etc. - the kind of things championship teams really need in addition to a 1st line centre.

 

[losveratos]

I swear to god this thread is like the twilight zone.

A bunch of really intelligent people with more time than sense talking themselves into not signing one of the top players in the NHL.

By what measure is he one of the top players in the NHL right now?  He's 43rd in scoring.  Bottom line is the Leafs won't be a contender for a number of seasons, so what's the point of having a Stamkos on the team?  Tampa currently has a much better roster than the Leafs, and yet nobody really takes them seriously as a Stanley Cup threat despite the fact they already have Stamkos on the team.  Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

I agree with the heart of your argument. He's potentially not worth the coming contract. But the scoring leaders comments are just not necessary.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Yeah, I mean I can see merit in the counter argument for sure, but I still think it's a bit of a leap to say you shouldn't sign him for no asset cost.

It just seems like the nay camp are running in circles saying, don't sign him because of the cap, don't sign him because the team isn't good enough, don't sign him because what if he makes the team mediocre? It's like they're clutching at straws looking for reasons not to sign him and only consider the negative outcomes of his signing.

I get that being a Leafs fan recently comes with the need to use pessimism as a defence mechanism, but this seems over the top.

Yes, I know cap space is an asset, but the team has given themselves a lot of wiggle room in that regard and they still have a lot of fairly big ticket contracts to come off the books over the short term. In addition, they've also shown that they can get creative when it comes to moving out undesirable contracts.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The main things that have me leaning towards not taking him is the cap implication and slight (only very slight) concern that he'll be overpaid for what he can bring.

Emotionally, I couldn't imagine passing on the opportunity to get an elite player for free.

This is kind of where I'm at, too. From a purely rational perspective, looking at what I consider to be a realistic timeline for the Leafs, and what their needs really are going forward, I'm leaning against the team taking a serious run at Stamkos. There's also one big unknown that will have a significant impact on things - and that's if the Leafs get to draft Matthews. If they do, it becomes a really easy "no" for me. If they don't, it's a little more clouded. Even though adding Stamkos would only cost cap space, when the Leafs are in a position to take that next step, that space will likely be more effectively used to shore up the blueline, bring in a goalie, improve the secondary and depth scoring, etc. - the kind of things championship teams really need in addition to a 1st line centre.

I have those concerns too, but then a big part of me thinks you just figure that out when the time comes.  All of the Leafs' good young players will be on their ELC's until, what, 2019 at least?  I kind of like the idea of guys like Nylander, Marner coming up with someone like Stamkos on the roster rather than the Edmonton way of throwing them all into the fire as the best offensive weapons on the team from a young age.  Plus at some point Lupul/Bozak are coming off the cap too.

I feel like other teams have been able to make it work with elite talent, Leafs should be able to as well.

But there's still that nagging worry as well...

 

[Kin]

Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

That might not be the best approach. Toews is currently undergoing a critical re-evaluation.

 

[losveratos]

Why do people keep using that argument? Its incredibly useless. He's 5 places higher than Toews atm... is he better than him? Obviously not... which is why obviously a large swath of those above him are also not as good as he is.

That might not be the best approach. Toews is currently undergoing a critical re-evaluation.

Then quickly glance over the other names immediately below him and then the 16 people above him that he would immediately pass with a 3 point game. Which he's already attained multiple times this season so it's not even out of the question.

Like I said earlier. Its a value concern, but that argument doesnt hold traction (in my opinion) until either much closer to the end of the season or if theres an actual large disparity. And seeing as everyone below Ovechkin on the first page are all huddled around each other. I'd say he's just not out of the top of the league. And that his 43rd in scoring is unimportant (at the moment).

 

[Peter D.]

Like I said before, when the Leafs are ready to compete, Stamkos will be 30 or beyond in age and probably well past his glory days.  Who knows maybe he'll be an exception to the rule and will continue to produce well into his 30s, but the law of averages say it's a remote chance at that.  I'd rather go the youth movement like the Leafs are doing right now and grow the team together.

For me, I don't look at it from the perspective that Stamkos will be past his glory days at 30 years old (I think he will be quite productive well beyond that).  I'm thinking that he is 26, and the Leafs could potentially have him for at least the next dozen years. 

And there is really nothing that can convince me that a 26-year old talent like Stamkos can't grow with the team as it is being built. 

 

[Kin]

I'd say he's just not out of the top of the league. And that his 43rd in scoring is unimportant (at the moment).

It's not something I want to parse especially but I suppose that sort of depends on what you think "top of the league" means.

 

[bustaheims]

I feel like other teams have been able to make it work with elite talent, Leafs should be able to as well.

While that's true, for the most part, those teams have done so either before they signed that elite talent to big money deals, or when they already had their other areas of concern filled with cost effective talent that were more than simply "good enough" to fill those roles. They also had the organizational depth that, when those secondary and depth pieces became too expensive, they had cheap, young options that were able to step in and fill those roles. I'm not convinced the Leafs are able to do any of that.

My concern is that, with Stamkos, the Leafs will become a very top heavy team before they're able to make the jump to contender.

 

[Kin]

While that's true, for the most part, those teams have done so either before they signed that elite talent to big money deals, or when they already had their other areas of concern filled with cost effective talent that were more than simply "good enough" to fill those roles. They also had the organizational depth that, when those secondary and depth pieces became too expensive, they had cheap, young options that were able to step in and fill those roles. I'm not convinced the Leafs are able to do any of that.

Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe it's just my memory but I can't off-hand think of any team that signed a particularly big free agent that was instrumental in their cup run and who was signed before they already had the major pieces of their cup winning team in place. Chara maybe.

Hossa in Chicago, but that was one of those cap circumventing deals that aren't options now. But, yeah, for the most part, Cup teams and Cup contenders have brought in depth pieces via UFA, not big pieces. Partly because really high quality pieces haven't been available by UFA, and partly because they had those pieces in place internally before they became contenders. The perennial contenders definitely seem to have grasped the concept that spending UFA prices to being in major pieces is not a successful strategy.