Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

I've spoken before about my reluctance to simply hand Stamkos the captaincy but I don't know that we know enough regardless to say the team would go from 30th to "winning", no.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

No. We don't know nearly enough about the team yet. We can't just look at Matthews/Marner's potential projections(remember, again, the Drouin example of actual points scored vs. his NHLe) as being raw additions to the team. JVR might be dealt. PAP may not be back. Giving Matthews/Marner PP time reduces it for other guys and will reduce their scoring. We have no idea about how good defensively they might be, we don't know how the goaltending will shake out, we don't know how good Zaitsev will be, etc.

Going back to the Pythagorean W-L model for the Leafs to actually make the playoffs next year(or at least to be a bubble team) then they'd need to add 18 or so points(although 27 points actually separated them from the playoffs).

So assuming their GA stays the same(a massive assumption given the state of the goaltending and the introduction of a bunch of rookies into the lineup) then to gain 18 points they'd need to add around 40-45 goals. To gain 27 points it'd be 60-65 goals. That's a massive leap forward and can't simply be achieved by adding up the goals you think the newcomers will score. The Blackhawks only increased their GF by 38 in Kane/Toews rookie seasons despite Kane/Toews scoring 45 between them.

(Also, I should point out here that relative to the league Chicago's GA in 2006-2007 was actually better than the Leafs' last year. The Hawks finished 22nd in GA that year, the Leafs 24th this year).

The Hawks big improvement from 06-07 to 07-08 probably had just as much, if not more, to do with Seabrook/Keith coming into their own as it did Kane/Toews coming onto the scene.

 

[TBLeafer]

By the by, Matthews' NHLe, far from being 70+ points is actually 42. Which, all things considered, isn't all that bad. Stamkos scored 46 points as a rookie, Tavares 54, Seguin 22.

That's the thing that I think we need to acknowledge. Marner/Nylander/Matthews can all be phenomenal NHL prospects who go on to phenomenal NHL careers...but there's a very good chance that none of them make a huge impact next year. What Kane and Toews did as rookies is far from normal/average even among incredible NHL prospects.

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

Maybe our D isn't as bad as we make it out to be and we just added Zaitsev and Carrick probably makes roster.

I don't think It will surprise anyone here when I say I'm siding with you on this issue.

1st of all, you are right in that this team as it stands now, without Stamkos, isn't a bottom 5 team next season. There were too many obvious manoeuvres in the roster at the end of last season to try and get the best lottery odds. And I'm not talking about just veteran players being curiously removed from the lineup. The rookies were just too good to finish dead last was the message I got from it. I can see a fairly substantial improvement coming next season, with or without Stamkos in the fold.

The addition of Stamkos only marginally effects their final place in the standings. The additions of Matthews, Marner and a full season of Nylander will do more than anything else to increase the odds of improvement.

Secondly, I think there are more signs pointing to Stamkos coming than not. I don't have time to list all the telltale signs I've picked up on, but I believe it's already a done deal.

The ink hasn't dried yet, but I'm with you and have been of the same mindframe since the beginning of last season, when he entered into his final season and was re-enforced when Kopitar signed and he didn't.

 

[Deebo]

With or without Stamkos, I think the Leafs would end up drafting in the top 10 next year.

 

[rdowdall]

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?

No, because you're not factoring in the production of the players they're replacing in the lineup. Right now, they'd represent a small increase, but, depending on the moves the team makes this summer, they could, in fact, not move the needle at all.

You mean just like the year after Chicago won 1st overall as a bottom five team in the league, drafted Kane and continued to suck the following year?  :

Right but as Nik pointed out, that was the exception not the rule.  There was a reason why Tallon didn't go out that year and try and sign a bunch of players or make trades to enhance his team.  He did that because he needed to wait and see what he had. 

I think your confusing my points with "I want them to lose for the next three years."  I'm not saying I want them to lose.  I'm saying that if they can win, I want it to be with a core that they haven't had to artificially inflate with players from other teams.  That way the Leafs can be sure of what they have before they start making decisions based on things that haven't happened yet, like Marner having a Calder winning season.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

I've spoken before about my reluctance to simply hand Stamkos the captaincy but I don't know that we know enough regardless to say the team would go from 30th to "winning", no.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

No. We don't know nearly enough about the team yet. We can't just look at Matthews/Marner's potential projections(remember, again, the Drouin example of actual points scored vs. his NHLe) as being raw additions to the team. JVR might be dealt. PAP may not be back. Giving Matthews/Marner PP time reduces it for other guys and will reduce their scoring. We have no idea about how good defensively they might be, we don't know how the goaltending will shake out, we don't know how good Zaitsev will be, etc.

Going back to the Pythagorean W-L model for the Leafs to actually make the playoffs next year(or at least to be a bubble team) then they'd need to add 18 or so points(although 27 points actually separated them from the playoffs).

So assuming their GA stays the same(a massive assumption given the state of the goaltending and the introduction of a bunch of rookies into the lineup) then to gain 18 points they'd need to add around 40-45 goals. To gain 27 points it'd be 60-65 goals. That's a massive leap forward and can't simply be achieved by adding up the goals you think the newcomers will score. The Blackhawks only increased their GF by 38 in Kane/Toews rookie seasons despite Kane/Toews scoring 45 between them.

(Also, I should point out here that relative to the league Chicago's GA in 2006-2007 was actually better than the Leafs' last year. The Hawks finished 22nd in GA that year, the Leafs 24th this year).

The Hawks big improvement from 06-07 to 07-08 probably had just as much, if not more, to do with Seabrook/Keith coming into their own as it did Kane/Toews coming onto the scene.

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

 

[TBLeafer]

It just got harder for Stamkos to remain in Tampa, too.

Cap is staying flat.  No NHLPA escalator was used to bring it to 74, per Deputy Commissioner Daly on TSN.

 

[jonlleafs]

If you add Stamkos, even without paying anything other than cap space, you are creating a core that is flawed again because you don't have the necessary pieces around him to make the team great.

Look at the Kessel trade.  Lets say that the Leafs didn't have to pay the picks they did in order to get Kessel, and they got Kessel for free.  That Leafs team still wouldn't have been able to compete for a cup.  Sure they would have had Seguin and Hamilton, but that Leafs team was further away than a Seguin and Hamilton away from getting a cup and being a dominate team year after year.  They didn't have the core in place in order to make that cup run.  It wasn't the Kessel trade itself that did in the Leafs, although it certainly didn't help either, it was the thinking that I can add a good or great player to a team without a core, and we are going to be able to add to that good or great player sometime later to make a better core.  That's the thinking that has done the Leafs in time and time again.  Trying to run before they can even crawl.

I would wholeheartedly disagree.  First of all, just because we sign Stamkos doesn't mean we shut down the Leafs management and fire Lou because we don't need a front office anymore.  We continue to add pieces either through the draft or trades since we have been stockpiling assets.  We are pushing up against the 50 contract limits so we have to trade quantity and hopefully get quality back. 

If we got Kessel for free and had Seguin and Hamilton, we surely would be competing in the playoffs and with the pieces we had at the time, we could have made a run.  I agree we may not have been the powerhouse like other teams are, but we would have had a decent lineup.

Again, like I said, we don't stop building once we sign Stamkos.  A fact that some of you seem to be missing here.  We are not giving up the future like we have done in the past i.e. Gilmour and Sundin years.  We keep all our top picks and keep building.

 

[rdowdall]

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

I've spoken before about my reluctance to simply hand Stamkos the captaincy but I don't know that we know enough regardless to say the team would go from 30th to "winning", no.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

No. We don't know nearly enough about the team yet. We can't just look at Matthews/Marner's potential projections(remember, again, the Drouin example of actual points scored vs. his NHLe) as being raw additions to the team. JVR might be dealt. PAP may not be back. Giving Matthews/Marner PP time reduces it for other guys and will reduce their scoring. We have no idea about how good defensively they might be, we don't know how the goaltending will shake out, we don't know how good Zaitsev will be, etc.

Going back to the Pythagorean W-L model for the Leafs to actually make the playoffs next year(or at least to be a bubble team) then they'd need to add 18 or so points(although 27 points actually separated them from the playoffs).

So assuming their GA stays the same(a massive assumption given the state of the goaltending and the introduction of a bunch of rookies into the lineup) then to gain 18 points they'd need to add around 40-45 goals. To gain 27 points it'd be 60-65 goals. That's a massive leap forward and can't simply be achieved by adding up the goals you think the newcomers will score. The Blackhawks only increased their GF by 38 in Kane/Toews rookie seasons despite Kane/Toews scoring 45 between them.

(Also, I should point out here that relative to the league Chicago's GA in 2006-2007 was actually better than the Leafs' last year. The Hawks finished 22nd in GA that year, the Leafs 24th this year).

The Hawks big improvement from 06-07 to 07-08 probably had just as much, if not more, to do with Seabrook/Keith coming into their own as it did Kane/Toews coming onto the scene.

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

You didn't bother to look that up did you?

 

[Kin]

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

I don't have team possession numbers for 06-07(do you? I'd love to see them) but just in terms of shot attempts/shots against there wasn't really a vast improvement. The Hawks were middle of the pack in shots against both years and improved from 29th to 22nd in shots for. That's not nothing but I don't think it really explains the team's jump. I don't think it's an either/or proposition.

Regardless, the fact remains that we can't just assume that Stamkos + Marner + Matthews equals a winning team. Like Deebo said, odds are they're not all that good and draft in the top 10 regardless(Even Chicago in their one season jump only just finished outside the bottom 10, drafting #11). The team's goaltending/defense is too shaky for that and odds are it's a few years before either gets resolved.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

I've spoken before about my reluctance to simply hand Stamkos the captaincy but I don't know that we know enough regardless to say the team would go from 30th to "winning", no.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

No. We don't know nearly enough about the team yet. We can't just look at Matthews/Marner's potential projections(remember, again, the Drouin example of actual points scored vs. his NHLe) as being raw additions to the team. JVR might be dealt. PAP may not be back. Giving Matthews/Marner PP time reduces it for other guys and will reduce their scoring. We have no idea about how good defensively they might be, we don't know how the goaltending will shake out, we don't know how good Zaitsev will be, etc.

Going back to the Pythagorean W-L model for the Leafs to actually make the playoffs next year(or at least to be a bubble team) then they'd need to add 18 or so points(although 27 points actually separated them from the playoffs).

So assuming their GA stays the same(a massive assumption given the state of the goaltending and the introduction of a bunch of rookies into the lineup) then to gain 18 points they'd need to add around 40-45 goals. To gain 27 points it'd be 60-65 goals. That's a massive leap forward and can't simply be achieved by adding up the goals you think the newcomers will score. The Blackhawks only increased their GF by 38 in Kane/Toews rookie seasons despite Kane/Toews scoring 45 between them.

(Also, I should point out here that relative to the league Chicago's GA in 2006-2007 was actually better than the Leafs' last year. The Hawks finished 22nd in GA that year, the Leafs 24th this year).

The Hawks big improvement from 06-07 to 07-08 probably had just as much, if not more, to do with Seabrook/Keith coming into their own as it did Kane/Toews coming onto the scene.

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

You didn't bother to look that up did you?

Don't think I need to.  Wouldn't you say the relationship between is a little symbiotic?

How many points did the top producers have in 2005-06 and 2006-07 for Chicago?

Now go to 2007-08.

 

[bustaheims]

Don't think I need to.

If you're going to state something as a fact, you should, at the very least, have done enough digging to be able to prove it is a fact - so, that, when you're questioned, you can provide some evidence that supports your claim that's more than "go look at the points these players put up."

 

[Deebo]

Regardless, the fact remains that we can't just assume that Stamkos + Marner + Matthews equals a winning team. Like Deebo said, odds are they're not all that good and draft in the top 10 regardless(Even Chicago in their one season jump only just finished outside the bottom 10, drafting #11). The team's goaltending/defense is too shaky for that and odds are it's a few years before either gets resolved.

This is why I actually think signing him is a good idea though, you get the elite player in Stamkos and you are still able to add top 10 talent to the system for another year or maybe 2.

I don't think the plan management talks about includes being bottom 10 for more than another 1 or 2 years. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think the playoffs before the end of Matthews' ELC is a definite possibility.

 

[rdowdall]

I would wholeheartedly disagree.  First of all, just because we sign Stamkos doesn't mean we shut down the Leafs management and fire Lou because we don't need a front office anymore.  We continue to add pieces either through the draft or trades since we have been stockpiling assets.  We are pushing up against the 50 contract limits so we have to trade quantity and hopefully get quality back. 

I reread my post.  I fail to see where I said we should fire anyone.  Perhaps you could highlight it for me.

If we got Kessel for free and had Seguin and Hamilton, we surely would be competing in the playoffs and with the pieces we had at the time, we could have made a run.  I agree we may not have been the powerhouse like other teams are, but we would have had a decent lineup.

And again, as a fan I don't want the status quo "good enough" team.  I want a contender built properly for sustained winning.  Not a lets sign Stamkos and take a shot team.  The Leafs failures over that last half century are more than they "just" traded some 1st rounders.  Timing of the decisions that the made played a huge factor in to a lot of their failures.

Again, like I said, we don't stop building once we sign Stamkos.  A fact that some of you seem to be missing here.  We are not giving up the future like we have done in the past i.e. Gilmour and Sundin years.  We keep all our top picks and keep building.

So for you there is no difference in drafting in the 15 to 20 range as opposed to drafting in the 1-5 range.  You can grab players that can form a core just as easily in the 15 to 20 range as they can in the 1-5 range.

If you answer yes, then why couldn't the Leafs do it in through the Kessel years?  After you get past the 3 picks the Leafs gave up to get Kessel, they kept their first rounders.  In fact the acquired one the same draft year as Hamilton and took Tyler Biggs.  It's harder the farther on down the draft to project what kind of player you are going to get.  Also, draft picks later in the 1st round take longer to develop and 1st and 2nd overall drafted players usually step right in to your lineup. 

So Stamkos comes in, the Leafs are better and miss the playoffs by two points, or they even make it and lose in the first round.  They take a player at 18 to address a need.  That player is 2 to 3 years out before they can even begin to contribute significantly to the roster.  You are now 2 to 3 more years in to Stamkos contract, and he is starting to push 30 and his skills may start to decline, so you really aren't any closer to your goal.  You've now addressed the need that the 18th overall pick was supposed to fill, but now how do you compensate for Stamkos's drop in production?  How are you going to improve the roster in that 2 to 3 year cycle while waiting for that prospect to develop?  You are signing Stamkos specifically because you can't take the losing now and you want to win sooner rather than later.  You are looking at the Leafs prospects and saying "Why look at all the hype, there is no way they all aren't super awesome hockey players, there is no way we can't lose.  Might as well go all in and sign Stamkos."  How is this cycle any different than what we have seen in the past?  Because the draft position of the Leafs top prospects is higher?

 

[rdowdall]

Okay, so even if they top out to become marginal top six NHL'ers, they can still enjoy a winning culture with Stamkos as captain.

I've spoken before about my reluctance to simply hand Stamkos the captaincy but I don't know that we know enough regardless to say the team would go from 30th to "winning", no.

But even on their own, a 40+ point rookie center and a 50+ point rookie scoring winger takes the Leafs out of the bottom 5 all on their own, considering where the Leafs D rank in seasonal team goals against average, no?  Its a better seasonal team GAA than Keith and Seabrook before the additions of Toews and Kane.

No. We don't know nearly enough about the team yet. We can't just look at Matthews/Marner's potential projections(remember, again, the Drouin example of actual points scored vs. his NHLe) as being raw additions to the team. JVR might be dealt. PAP may not be back. Giving Matthews/Marner PP time reduces it for other guys and will reduce their scoring. We have no idea about how good defensively they might be, we don't know how the goaltending will shake out, we don't know how good Zaitsev will be, etc.

Going back to the Pythagorean W-L model for the Leafs to actually make the playoffs next year(or at least to be a bubble team) then they'd need to add 18 or so points(although 27 points actually separated them from the playoffs).

So assuming their GA stays the same(a massive assumption given the state of the goaltending and the introduction of a bunch of rookies into the lineup) then to gain 18 points they'd need to add around 40-45 goals. To gain 27 points it'd be 60-65 goals. That's a massive leap forward and can't simply be achieved by adding up the goals you think the newcomers will score. The Blackhawks only increased their GF by 38 in Kane/Toews rookie seasons despite Kane/Toews scoring 45 between them.

(Also, I should point out here that relative to the league Chicago's GA in 2006-2007 was actually better than the Leafs' last year. The Hawks finished 22nd in GA that year, the Leafs 24th this year).

The Hawks big improvement from 06-07 to 07-08 probably had just as much, if not more, to do with Seabrook/Keith coming into their own as it did Kane/Toews coming onto the scene.

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

You didn't bother to look that up did you?

Don't think I need to.  Wouldn't you say the relationship between is a little symbiotic?

How many points did the top producers have in 2005-06 and 2006-07 for Chicago?

Now go to 2007-08.

I did.  Toews and Kane are middle of the road possession players in 2007. 

 

[TBLeafer]

I'd say Toews and Kane greatly aided Keith and Seabrook to come into their own.  They probably had a much easier time defending based on the vastly increased puck possession that Toews and Kane generated.

I don't have team possession numbers for 06-07(do you? I'd love to see them) but just in terms of shot attempts/shots against there wasn't really a vast improvement. The Hawks were middle of the pack in shots against both years and improved from 29th to 22nd in shots for. That's not nothing but I don't think it really explains the team's jump. I don't think it's an either/or proposition.

Regardless, the fact remains that we can't just assume that Stamkos + Marner + Matthews equals a winning team. Like Deebo said, odds are they're not all that good and draft in the top 10 regardless(Even Chicago in their one season jump only just finished outside the bottom 10, drafting #11). The team's goaltending/defense is too shaky for that and odds are it's a few years before either gets resolved.

I was assuming the shots correlated somewhat with possession.

Goaltending for Chicago was also sub-par at the time.  Crawford hadn't established himself and Khabibulin was less than stellar at the time to say the least.

 

[Kin]

This is why I actually think signing him is a good idea though, you get the elite player in Stamkos and you are still able to add top 10 talent to the system for another year or maybe 2.

Sure but the flip side to that is not signing him, adding even better talent through the draft and then having the 10+ million in cap space after those two years to address the team's needs. That's really the central crux of this argument how good Stamkos is vs. who you could add in 2 years on one side and the relative level of draftable talent + the chance that the 10 million can be spent with a clearer picture of the team's strengths and weaknesses in 2 years on the other.

But we've been over that enough I think.

 

[Britishbulldog]

With or without Stamkos, I think the Leafs would end up drafting in the top 10 next year.

That's what I am thinking as well.  5-6th without or 9-10th with.  I would argue that the Sabres have a better D corp and goaltending duo as well as some top prospects starting with Eichel and they finished only 2 spots higher then the Leafs in the Eastern Conference last season.  That was a virtually insurmountable 12 points.

 

[Kin]

I was assuming the shots correlated somewhat with possession.

Right but that's what I'm saying. There isn't a huge change. The 06-07 Hawks took 26.8 shots per night and allowed 29.4. The 07-08 Hawks took 28 shots per game and allowed 28.6.

So they increased their shots per night by 1.2 and decreased their shots against by .8 a night. I think it's pretty tough to read that as a huge sea change in the volume of work Keith/Seabrook were being asked to do especially when Keith/Seabrook both saw fairly significant increases to their ice time.

Goaltending for Chicago was also sub-par at the time.  Crawford hadn't established himself and Khabibulin was less than stellar at the time to say the least.

True but considering that's a problem the Leafs are also likely to have I don't see how that affects things here.

 

[Kin]

Another thing to keep in mind is this question of leadership. I know it's one of those things that can divide the metrically-analytical minded from traditional analysis of the game but as someone who believes in it as a concept in addition to other ways of measuring the game I find the idea that Stamkos' leadership is necessarily a positive to be questionable, especially the assumption that he'd be the best choice as Captain.

A lot of teams have had more success by having a really good young group of players, letting them mesh and giving one of them the C. The Blackhawks with Toews, the Pens with Crosby, the Lightning with Stamkos, the Kings with Brown. I think leadership is too often seen as some sort of transferrable integer as opposed to being more of an aspect of feel/fit. Stamkos was probably, based on results, a good choice as a leader for the Lightning at that time. I'd be careful about automatically assuming the same would be true for the Leafs.

Besides there's an undeniable appeal in letting Nylander and Matthews and Marner and Rielly and whoever else play together and see a leader emerge from that group.

 

[herman]

there's an undeniable appeal in letting Nylander and Matthews and Marner and Rielly and whoever else play together and see a leader emerge from that group.

I prefer this.