Steve Stamkos?

[jonlleafs]

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

Then we all become habs fans.

Wash your mouth! 

 

[bustaheims]

They didn't have a prospect pool, then.  Times are much different now and history will not be repeated, Shannyco has ALREADY structured things far different from then.

A Leafs fan's worst fear will not be realized, but I understand your fear.

They didn't have Marner/Matthews/Nylander level prospects, but it's not like the cupboards were empty. There were some good to very good prospects in the system - similar to the next tier of guys the Leafs have now - and the NHL team was more talented than the current group.

 

[rdowdall]

That or just add Stamkos and help things along some without it costing you a single future piece due to the special circumstances of the type of player he is and like my article proves, that you have both the cap and future cap to do so without it costing you your own future core players.

Yes Chicago knew what they had in those players before Toews and Kane arrived on the scene.  A non-playoff lottery team.

It's already been said, but again, Stamkos does nothing to improve team defense or goaltending, like ninja dust poof nothing. I think the points been lost here, but those future core players are really unknown at this point, debating cap implications is wrong headed when you have no idea what kind of team you have. You can beleaf all you want, but that system is sorely lacking evidence.

That non playoff lottery team Chicago had, yeah, that was real insignificant, it's also a team that the Leafs don't even remotely resemble.

And the Penguins are a team Chicago doesn't even remotely resemble.

Maybe the Leafs final UFA piece once Stamkos has been here a couple seasons and we know what the kids are isn't a forward like Hossa.

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

You keep drafting, what they have been doing.  The difference is that if you add Stamkos, he takes you out of that bottom 5.  He is a strong enough player, like Kessel that he can get you in to that 9, 10, 11 range.  But that is not where the Leafs want to be.  They want to be an LA, or a Chicago.  They want to be a team that is talked about as a contender year after year.  When they have those sports panels and they say "Well Bob, who do you think is going to win the cup this year?"  Bob says that he thinks the Leafs have the highest chance, and people don't think that Bob is smoking crack for saying it. 

The way that has the best chances of getting there, is building through the draft.  That's just the way the NHL is structured now.  There is a cap, so free agency isn't what it used to be, and trading for higher priced pieces is becoming harder and harder.  So what you need to do is build your core through the draft, because those picks also cost you nothing, and take your lumps losing, and then when you have a core that is considered one of the best in the league, add the secondary pieces that will always be available. 

Fast tracking is fast tracking is fast tracking.  If the Leafs don't patiently build this thing, then they are on the same track that they have been for the last 40 some odd years, which is trying to cheat the system to get the gains quicker than they should be gotten.

 

[TBLeafer]

Your angle.  IF the kids prove to be a bust AND we don't have Stamkos, what then?

Then we all become habs fans.

Pass. 

 

[bustaheims]

I think things can turn around quite quickly with the right leader and players.  Look at how crappy the Leafs were in 1992 and then they traded for Gilmour (granted they got some nice pieces on top of him as well) and the franchise turned around really quickly after adding Pat Burns as well.  Stamkos could be that catalyst guy that can help turn us around quickly.  It's not a waste if we start to compete hard in 2yrs.

I dunno. Do you think we can get today's equivalents of Fuhr/Andreychuk, Ellett, Rouse, Macoun, Anderson, Zezel,  Lefebvre, etc., for pennies on the dollar like they did back then? Because, I don't. Those Leafs completely remade their roster with a handful of trades over the course of a couple seasons - trades that are much more complicated and virtually impossible now.

 

[Kin]

So with Stamkos in addition to an already improved team over last season?

Don't I get an answer as to why we should think Marner will definitely be more like Kane than Drouin?

I'm optimistic.  I BeLeaf. 

Three guys in a car speeding towards a cliff. The optimist believes he's going to heaven and prepares to ascend towards the pearly gates. The pessimist believes that all that is waiting for him is eternal darkness and awaits his fate. The pragmatist tries the brakes.

 

[Frank E]

I mean, it wouldn't be that bad.

They've got that Pac (pronounced "Patch") guy, some neat little guys, Subban is exciting!  Their goalie wears a cool cowboy hat, "Yeehaw!" he'd say, and we'd sing "Ole Ole Ole Ole"....

 

[bustaheims]

I mean, it wouldn't be that bad.

They've got that Pac (pronounced "Patch") guy, some neat little guys, Subban is exciting!  Their goalie wears a cool cowboy hat, "Yeehaw!" he'd say, and we'd sing "Ole Ole Ole Ole"....

You'd also get to cheer every time a player on your team falls over, and boo when an undeserved penalty isn't called

 

[Frank E]

I mean, it wouldn't be that bad.

They've got that Pac (pronounced "Patch") guy, some neat little guys, Subban is exciting!  Their goalie wears a cool cowboy hat, "Yeehaw!" he'd say, and we'd sing "Ole Ole Ole Ole"....

You'd also get to cheer every time a player on your team falls over, and boo when an undeserved penalty isn't called

Imagine the enthralling hours we'd spend watching pre-game ceremonies!

 

[bustaheims]

I mean, it wouldn't be that bad.

They've got that Pac (pronounced "Patch") guy, some neat little guys, Subban is exciting!  Their goalie wears a cool cowboy hat, "Yeehaw!" he'd say, and we'd sing "Ole Ole Ole Ole"....

You'd also get to cheer every time a player on your team falls over, and boo when an undeserved penalty isn't called

Imagine the enthralling hours we'd spend watching pre-game ceremonies!

At least we can always count on ownership to help us relive the glory days, when the system was rigged in our favour.

 

[ZBBM]

I mean, it wouldn't be that bad.

They've got that Pac (pronounced "Patch") guy, some neat little guys, Subban is exciting!  Their goalie wears a cool cowboy hat, "Yeehaw!" he'd say, and we'd sing "Ole Ole Ole Ole"....

You'd also get to cheer every time a player on your team falls over, and boo when an undeserved penalty isn't called

Imagine the enthralling hours we'd spend watching pre-game ceremonies!

At least we can always count on ownership to help us relive the glory days, when the system was rigged in our favour.

Nicely done, lads. 

 

[Kin]

Fast tracking is fast tracking is fast tracking.  If the Leafs don't patiently build this thing, then they are on the same track that they have been for the last 40 some odd years, which is trying to cheat the system to get the gains quicker than they should be gotten.

I think that's the thing that makes me so suspicious of the push to sign Stamkos. It always seems to go hand in hand with a belief that the Leafs are much closer to contention than we'd think a 30th place team would be and signing Stamkos is a key element of how, in just a year or so, they can be right in the mix!

(Also, it seems to be held by people who seemingly have a very strong aversion to the idea of watching a few more years of not very good teams.)

I know some people reject the comparison but that same motivation was behind the Kessel deal. The folly of that deal wasn't that the Leafs gave up assets for Kessel, it was that they badly misjudged where the team was. They thought the team was a lot closer than they were and that it was better to be out in front of the impending success by supplementing it before they realized it than it was to add to it once it got here.

The Leafs have made so many mistakes over the years because they thought they were better than they were and wanted to double down on that confidence rather than see things play out. Maybe just one time they should risk erring the other way.

 

[TBLeafer]

I disagree that signing available UFA's is fast tracking. Fast tracking is trading future to 'win now'.

UFA market are players that come available naturally and if you believe you can improve you team with one, regardless of who that player is, well that's just good ol' natural team building as long as it doesn't cripple you from continuing to build the internally built portion of your team going forward.

 

[herman]

Fast tracking is fast tracking is fast tracking.  If the Leafs don't patiently build this thing, then they are on the same track that they have been for the last 40 some odd years, which is trying to cheat the system to get the gains quicker than they should be gotten.

I think that's the thing that makes me so suspicious of the push to sign Stamkos. It always seems to go hand in hand with a belief that the Leafs are much closer to contention than we'd think a 30th place team would be and signing Stamkos is a key element of how, in just a year or so, they can be right in the mix!

(Also, it seems to be held by people who seemingly have a very strong aversion to the idea of watching a few more years of not very good teams.)

I know some people reject the comparison but that same motivation was behind the Kessel deal. The folly of that deal wasn't that the Leafs gave up assets for Kessel, it was that they badly misjudged where the team was. They thought the team was a lot closer than they were and that it was better to be out in front of the impending success by supplementing it before they realized it than it was to add to it once it got here.

The Leafs have made so many mistakes over the years because they thought they were better than they were and wanted to double down on that confidence rather than see things play out. Maybe just one time they should risk erring the other way.

I agree with both of the above.

The Kessel situation, while similarly motivated, is a slightly different situation though, as the only asset being given up for Stamkos is cap flexibility, instead of a king's ransom in picks (on top of cap space), per part of TBLeafer's point.

UFA market are players that come available naturally and if you believe you can improve you team with one, regardless of who that player is, well that's just good ol' natural team building as long as it doesn't cripple you from continuing to build the internally built portion of your team going forward.

This is true to a point. The UFA market is great for plugging holes in the line up, but it is also a great time for GMs to do stupid things. UFA contracts are generally either really smart short-term low-risk (WINNIK), or bafflingly expensive (per the open market pressures) and entirely cost-inefficient (Clarkson? Gomez? So many...).

For a rebuilding team looking for sustained success, you want to stock your team with players outperforming their salaries, don't you? Best place to find that is internally. When you have a firm, established foundation of prime players, then the UFA/trade market would be a good place for a shrewd add that pushes players down the lineup where their talent will outshine their roles.

 

[Kin]

I agree with both of the above.

The Kessel situation, while similarly motivated, is a slightly different situation though, as the only asset being given up for Stamkos is cap flexibility, instead of a king's ransom in picks (on top of cap space), per part of TBLeafer's point.

But good teams trade picks and prospects all the time. Chicago has traded their last two firsts, LA has traded three of their last four. The reason the Leafs picks ended up as "a king's ransom" as oppose to a couple of midround 1st's was because they so badly misjudged where they were.

I mean, if your point is just to inform me that signing a free agent isn't exactly the same thing as trading for a player, play through, but I think that's safely assumed.

 

[rdowdall]

I disagree that signing available UFA's is fast tracking. Fast tracking is trading future to 'win now'.

UFA market are players that come available naturally and if you believe you can improve you team with one, regardless of who that player is, well that's just good ol' natural team building as long as it doesn't cripple you from continuing to build the internally built portion of your team going forward.

That's where I have an issue with it.  In order for the Leafs to continue to build internally they have to be bad.  Stamkos makes them good before they are actually good.  The Leafs were the worst team in the League last year.  Stamkos isn't going to turn them in to a cup contender.  But he is going to bring them up from worst to about 9th, 10th, 11th.  You are trading your future because of the way the system works in the NHL.

The system that the NHL works with is that bad teams get rewarded with high picks.  I don't agree with this system, but that is what the system is.  Stamkos makes the Leafs better today than a lot of teams.  That means that they won't finish near the bottom, which means their chances of getting an elite player are lower.  In order to maximize their chances at getting that elite d-man or goalie near the top of the draft, they need to be a bad team.  Unfortunately there isn't a way around it.

I understand the thinking.  Add Stamkos now and as he is an elite player,  then the Leafs have one.  It's the next step that's the problem.  How do they get that elite d-man?  How do they get that elite goalie?  Does one become available in through free agency?  Do you trade for one?  You are hedging your bets that one is going to become available.  You are building your team through a possibility that you are going to be able to make a move to get on of those pieces. 

How often did we hear that the Leafs were going to trade for a #1 center through the Kessel years?  How often did they trade for a #1 center through the Kessel years?  How many #1 centers were drafted near the top of the draft through the Kessel years? 

If you are really bad for 5 or 6 years, then you will get those pieces.  You will get a Stamkos and a Hedman.  You will get a Kane and Toews.  You will get a Crosby and Malkin.  The Leafs have only be really bad (and been able to reap the benefits of it) for about 3 years now .  Another couple of years and then you will have a foundation to build on top of.  Next year there is a pretty good d-man at #2 that would probably pan out as an elite defender.  They will have a better idea of where their secondary prospects (The Neilsens, the Dermott's, the Timashov's) are in terms of development.  They will have seen Nylander and the 1st from this year, and most likely Marner at the NHL level for a year.  They will have an idea of if they can handle the NHL.

In another year, the Leafs will have a clearer picture of where they are at in terms of their foundation.  Adding Stamkos now would be a gamble because all the information isn't there yet.  It's a decision based on projection.

 

[TBLeafer]

UFA market are players that come available naturally and if you believe you can improve you team with one, regardless of who that player is, well that's just good ol' natural team building as long as it doesn't cripple you from continuing to build the internally built portion of your team going forward.

This is true to a point. The UFA market is great for plugging holes in the line up, but it is also a great time for GMs to do stupid things. UFA contracts are generally either really smart short-term low-risk (WINNIK), or bafflingly expensive (per the open market pressures) and entirely cost-inefficient (Clarkson? Gomez? So many...).

For a rebuilding team looking for sustained success, you want to stock your team with players outperforming their salaries, don't you? Best place to find that is internally. When you have a firm, established foundation of prime players, then the UFA/trade market would be a good place for a shrewd add that pushes players down the lineup where their talent will outshine their roles.

Yes, that most certainly is the goal as well as your seasoned vets at least performing AT their contract level.  Do you find Hossa overpaid?  If Stamkos for at least 5 of his 7 years brings 40-50 goals in a season, he'll be worth his contract.

When I look at team building and UFA's, I ask myself a few key questions to find out if I'm fast tracking or not.

1. Do I have to buy out any existing team members in order to fit under cap?

2. Do I have to let any of my existing UFA's that were integral to my team's success last season walk? 

3. Does it prevent me from signing my own key core players I will want to keep in the near future?

If I answer no to these 3 things, than fast tracking the team build is NOT going on.

It is merely making the team better while I can continue to go about my business of internally drafting and developing.  It just makes a prospect beating out a seasoned vet for a roster spot 1 player harder.

To me that's an acceptable problem to have.

 

[TBLeafer]

I disagree that signing available UFA's is fast tracking. Fast tracking is trading future to 'win now'.

UFA market are players that come available naturally and if you believe you can improve you team with one, regardless of who that player is, well that's just good ol' natural team building as long as it doesn't cripple you from continuing to build the internally built portion of your team going forward.

That's where I have an issue with it.  In order for the Leafs to continue to build internally they have to be bad.  Stamkos makes them good before they are actually good.  The Leafs were the worst team in the League last year.  Stamkos isn't going to turn them in to a cup contender.  But he is going to bring them up from worst to about 9th, 10th, 11th.  You are trading your future because of the way the system works in the NHL.

The system that the NHL works with is that bad teams get rewarded with high picks.  I don't agree with this system, but that is what the system is.  Stamkos makes the Leafs better today than a lot of teams.  That means that they won't finish near the bottom, which means their chances of getting an elite player or lower.  In order to maximize their chances at getting that elite d-man or goalie near the top of the draft, they need to be a bad team.  Unfortunately there isn't a way around it.

I understand the thinking.  Add Stamkos now and as he is an elite player,  then the Leafs have one.  It's the next step that's the problem.  How do they get that elite d-man?  How do they get that elite goalie?  Does one become available in through free agency?  Do you trade for one?  You are hedging your bets that one is going to become available.  You are building your team through a possibility that you are going to be able to make a move to get on of those pieces. 

How often did we hear that the Leafs were going to trade for a #1 center through the Kessel years?  How often did they trade for a #1 center through the Kessel years?  How many #1 centers were drafted near the top of the draft through the Kessel years? 

If you are really bad for 5 or 6 years, then you will get those pieces.  You will get a Stamkos and a Hedman.  You will get a Kane and Toews.  You will get a Crosby and Malkin.  The Leafs have only be really bad (and been able to reap the benefits of it) for about 3 years now .  Another couple of years and then you will have a foundation to build on top of.  Next year there is a pretty good d-man at #2 that would probably pan out as an elite defender.  They will have a better idea of where their secondary prospects (The Neilsens, the Dermott's, the Timashov's) are in terms of development.  They will have seen Nylander and the 1st from this year, and most likely Marner at the NHL level for a year.  They will have an idea of if they can handle the NHL.

In another year, the Leafs will have a clearer picture of where they are at in terms of their foundation.  Adding Stamkos now would be a gamble because all the information isn't there yet.  It's a decision based on projection.

We've seen enough of bad thanks AND we have our ace in the hole to show for it.

Might as well go for the longest drive too, while we're on a roll.

 

[bustaheims]

We've seen enough of bad thanks AND we have our ace in the hole to show for it.

Might as well go for the longest drive too, while we're on a roll.

Right there. That's the problem. The Leafs' haven't seen enough bad. They won't have seen enough bad until they're capable of being good without having to bring in significant pieces from outside the organization.

 

[Kin]

Do you find Hossa overpaid?

Hossa signed a deal with an artificially low Cap hit and a bunch of backdiving years he probably won't be around for. That's no longer an option. Stamkos is almost certainly going to have one of the top 5 cap hits in the league.