Steve Stamkos?

[Kin]

He's likely going to get a NMC, Clarkson may not have been an asset but he was traded ( and Horton's deal provides a bit of a cap valve in times of need ), and, you're saying that if the price is right sign Stamkos, ok, your limit is higher than mine and others.

And, I mean, if the Clarkson contract is going to be brought up it's undeniable that both TSN and Sportsnet rated him as the best possible UFA available that summer and the Leafs signed him. So if the argument is that the best way to improve a team is to just go out and sign the best available free agent...we've seen the pitfalls there.

 

[TBLeafer]

He's likely going to get a NMC, Clarkson may not have been an asset but he was traded ( and Horton's deal provides a bit of a cap valve in times of need ), and, you're saying that if the price is right sign Stamkos, ok, your limit is higher than mine and others.

And, I mean, if the Clarkson contract is going to be brought up it's undeniable that both TSN and Sportsnet rated him as the best possible UFA available that summer and the Leafs signed him. So if the argument is that the best way to improve a team is to just go out and sign the best available free agent...we've seen the pitfalls there.

Sorry, BTW.  I sell Ford's for a living so during the day if I don't reply right away... you know why in the future.

An undrafted 30 year old UFA is a little different than a 1st OA picked Captain in their mid-twenties, no?

Stamkos' production stats definitely aren't inflated by other players.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay then change the word from naturally to ideally and it can all make sense.   

Well, no, because I still don't see how Stamkos in particular is required for the team to improve themselves via free agency.

If an team wants to improve through free agency, isn't it essential to go after the best players available to have the best chance of doing so successfully?

Not necessarily because all improvement is context based. If there's a 13 million UFA forward on the market and a 8 million dollar defenseman and a 6 million dollar goaltender then which of those players will improve a team the most obviously has just as much to do with the needs of a particular team as it does with the skills of the player. Especially when, as in the above example, a team could conceivably sign both the goaltender and the defenseman as opposed the forward.

We are one of the few teams with the highest future cap projections, so it is ideal in that situation as well.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the Leafs don't have much in the way of long term contracts? That we rank relatively highly in uncommitted cap space for any particular year? Because that doesn't seem to be overly relevant to the point here. Nobody is arguing that the Leafs shouldn't spend to the cap at some point, the difference of opinion is in how the team gets there and who the team spends the available cap space on.

There comes a point where that much future cap compared to his projected peak performance years is more risk than reward, IMO.

Right, we all agree on that. The difference is just in what that point is. Like I said though, I think you're largely at the same place I am if you think that point is 11 million or so.

We have very little players signed to anything after the next two seasons...  Plenty of room to build around a new cornerstone captain in their prime.

As for essential improvements... usually the best individual UFA available in a particular should provide the best year of year improvement to the team that signs him.  That is the goal of signing the best individual UFA available anyway.

I'm just not scared of this signing in any way shape or form in terms of potentially hurting the Leafs future if they manage to keep the signing under 11M per.  Yes if it goes over that it starts to get dicey, but I don't think it will because the cap didn't increase.

 

[skrackle]

I'm amazed how much you guys get your panties in a bunch over something you have ZERO control over.  If Stamkos signs, great!  If he doesn't, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as we still have good pieces moving forward.

I don't know. I think it's just a good Leafs discussion. The Stamkos question is a big one and it should and will be gone over from every angle. Of course, no-one has control over what the Leafs will or won't do, but if you follow the team and want to weigh in, this is the place to do it.

I know I've enjoyed reading this thread over the past while. I don't think anyone's getting too upset. A lot of good debate, actually. I wish posters on other forums I visit, hockey and otherwise, took the time to reason their points as well as it's usually done here.

 

[Andy007]

He's likely going to get a NMC, Clarkson may not have been an asset but he was traded ( and Horton's deal provides a bit of a cap valve in times of need ), and, you're saying that if the price is right sign Stamkos, ok, your limit is higher than mine and others.

And, I mean, if the Clarkson contract is going to be brought up it's undeniable that both TSN and Sportsnet rated him as the best possible UFA available that summer and the Leafs signed him. So if the argument is that the best way to improve a team is to just go out and sign the best available free agent...we've seen the pitfalls there.

Yep, nothing like comparing a 29 year-old who never reached 50 points and who had an average season point total of around 30 to a 26 year-old 40+ goal-scorer.

Seriously, how does Clarkson (arguably) being considered the top FA three years ago have an iota of bearing on the value of signing Stamkos?

 

[Kin]

We have very little players signed to anything after the next two seasons...  Plenty of room to build around a new cornerstone captain in their prime.

Sure, if the aim is to build around Stamkos. I'm just more of the opinion that you want to build around Matthews/Marner/Nylander instead.

As for essential improvements... usually the best individual UFA available in a particular should provide the best year of year improvement to the team that signs him.  That is the goal of signing the best individual UFA available anyway.

Only if that UFA fills the specific needs of the team signing him. Otherwise teams are better served identifying the right player for their particular situation and acquiring him however. What would have served Pittsburgh better last summer, signing the best available UFA or trading for Phil Kessel? What about San Jose? Was signing the best UFA goalie available better than trading for Jones?

I'm just not scared of this signing in any way shape or form in terms of potentially hurting the Leafs future if they manage to keep the signing under 11M per.  Yes if it goes over that it starts to get dicey, but I don't think it will because the cap didn't increase.

So, again, we agree. There is a point where signing Stamkos is a bad move and, in my opinion, it's below the figure where he's likely to sign.

 

[Kin]

Seriously, how does Clarkson (arguably) being considered the top FA three years ago have an iota of bearing on the value of signing Stamkos?

I'd be the first to say it's a drastic point but I'm responding to the stated idea that the best way for any team to improve in an off-season is just to sign the best UFA player available irrespective of team need. I was pointing out the lack of absolutism in the stated theory, if I'd wanted to say Clarkson is exactly the same as Stamkos or anything resembling such a statement I'm pretty capable of doing that.

 

[nutman]

I am all for the rebuild, but if we can grab a player as good as him for 9.5 or less then I am all for it. The only cost is cash, and you have some one to take the heat off the new kids on the block. A win win in my books.

 

[TBLeafer]

Its an interesting conundrum.

When the Leafs are ready to cup compete using their existing roster and prospect pool (if all our top prospects pan out) than I'm pretty sure that a player of Stamkos' calibre and age won't be available, because players like him, at his level don't make it to free agency and if they did, we'd already be a contender, spending like a contender and not in a cap position to afford him, just like current contenders, including the team he's playing on.

Now is the time to strike, given our future cap projection.  Its okay.  We'll find a way to make it work for this once in a generation opportunity.

 

[rdowdall]

Its an interesting conundrum.

When the Leafs are ready to cup compete using their existing roster and prospect pool (if all our top prospects pan out) than I'm pretty sure that a player of Stamkos' calibre and age won't be available, because players like him, at his level don't make it to free agency and if they did, we'd already be a contender, spending like a contender and not in a cap position to afford him, just like current contenders, including the team he's playing on.

Now is the time to strike, given our future cap projection.  Its okay.  We'll find a way to make it work for this once in a generation opportunity.

I think with the cap staying flat this year, that this opportunity may happen a little more often.  Dallas may be in trouble when Seguin's contract comes up for renewal because there are a bunch of contract decisions they will need to make a couple of years prior to that.  The Oilers and Flames have a bunch of good young players that will all be renewing around the same time.  There is always the possibility that Colorado will screw up and one of Duchene or MacKinnon will shake loose.

 

[Kin]

Something else to keep in mind from Pierre Lebrun:

Crazy to think that some people looked at the success the Tampa Bay Lightning had without Steven Stamkos in the playoffs and figured the team would not even try to re-sign him. Seriously? Nothing has changed. The Lightning absolutely, positively want to re-sign their captain, and that has been communicated to him again since their season ended in a chat between GM Steve Yzerman and the star center. Now it?s a question of how that plays out the next few weeks with the clock ticking toward his unrestricted free-agent status on July 1. The Lighting want him back but obviously at a term and price that fits into everything else they?re trying to do with so many key players up for new deals over the next two years. Ultimately, it?s going to come down to Stamkos and what he truly wants: If he wants to stay, a deal will be there for him. If he wants to maximize on his UFA status, which is his right, no question a bigger offer awaits elsewhere July 1.

So if Stamkos wants to re-sign and Tampa wants him back it should be noted that Tampa actually has a ton of cap flexibility over the next two years because virtually everyone's deal is expiring. They have a couple of longer deals that would be hard to move(Callahan, Carle, Filppula) but nothing impossible and only about 25 million in total commitments past next season.

So it's not going to be hard for them to sign Stamkos if they really want to and if that means dealing Johnson or Palat or Bishop they're pretty well situated to do so. I would not count out him re-signing.

 

[McGarnagle]

I don't think too many people would think they wouldn't try to re-sign him; he did very little in their last playoff run, and they tried hard to re-sign him in the offseason, so why would anything change?

But I'd bet Yzerman has a number in mind that he's not going to deviate from, and that hasn't changed much if at all from before. And I doubt that John Cooper Mellencamp's attitude/minutes/usage of Stamkos is likely to change much either, which is another complication.

 

[TBLeafer]

Something else to keep in mind from Pierre Lebrun:

Crazy to think that some people looked at the success the Tampa Bay Lightning had without Steven Stamkos in the playoffs and figured the team would not even try to re-sign him. Seriously? Nothing has changed. The Lightning absolutely, positively want to re-sign their captain, and that has been communicated to him again since their season ended in a chat between GM Steve Yzerman and the star center. Now it?s a question of how that plays out the next few weeks with the clock ticking toward his unrestricted free-agent status on July 1. The Lighting want him back but obviously at a term and price that fits into everything else they?re trying to do with so many key players up for new deals over the next two years. Ultimately, it?s going to come down to Stamkos and what he truly wants: If he wants to stay, a deal will be there for him. If he wants to maximize on his UFA status, which is his right, no question a bigger offer awaits elsewhere July 1.

So if Stamkos wants to re-sign and Tampa wants him back it should be noted that Tampa actually has a ton of cap flexibility over the next two years because virtually everyone's deal is expiring. They have a couple of longer deals that would be hard to move(Callahan, Carle, Filppula) but nothing impossible and only about 25 million in total commitments past next season.

So it's not going to be hard for them to sign Stamkos if they really want to and if that means dealing Johnson or Palat or Bishop they're pretty well situated to do so. I would not count out him re-signing.

Him re-signing in Tampa would be the ideal situation of him not becoming a Leaf over signing elsewhere that isn't Toronto or Tampa.

I don't see Toronto offering the biggest offer on the UFA market, either so if I'm Stamkos I'm either:

1. Loyal to the team that drafted me.
2. Loyal to the team I grew up with in my hometown.
3. Loyal to my present and future family and biggest payday, even though I'm filthy rich now and won't ever have to worry about money in the future even if I go with options 1 or 2.

 

[Kin]

I don't think too many people would think they wouldn't try to re-sign him; he did very little in their last playoff run, and they tried hard to re-sign him in the offseason, so why would anything change?

But I'd bet Yzerman has a number in mind that he's not going to deviate from, and that hasn't changed much if at all from before. And I doubt that John Cooper Mellencamp's attitude/minutes/usage of Stamkos is likely to change much either, which is another complication.

Maybe but I remember a few years ago when the whole league was stunned that Montreal would let things with Subban actually get to arbitration and said they had a number they'd stick to and then caved when the actual prospect of losing him rose its head.

If I were a betting man I'd probably agree Stamkos seems free agency bound but it's important to draw a distinction between an actual cap crunch like the ones that have forced Chicago to make changes and a team having all sorts of options, looking at Stamkos and deciding that the cap hit that would represent his asking price is better spent elsewhere. I know that if I were in Yzerman's shoes and I thought Stamkos as crucial a player as some people here do I would fire a coach 100 times over before I let him be the reason a franchise player left in free agency.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think too many people would think they wouldn't try to re-sign him; he did very little in their last playoff run, and they tried hard to re-sign him in the offseason, so why would anything change?

But I'd bet Yzerman has a number in mind that he's not going to deviate from, and that hasn't changed much if at all from before. And I doubt that John Cooper Mellencamp's attitude/minutes/usage of Stamkos is likely to change much either, which is another complication.

Pretty much, yeah.  its been clear for a while that Yzerman favours coach over captain.

Nobody imagined for years that Stamkos would ever be put out on the wing position he doesn't want to be put out on until Cooper became coach.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think too many people would think they wouldn't try to re-sign him; he did very little in their last playoff run, and they tried hard to re-sign him in the offseason, so why would anything change?

But I'd bet Yzerman has a number in mind that he's not going to deviate from, and that hasn't changed much if at all from before. And I doubt that John Cooper Mellencamp's attitude/minutes/usage of Stamkos is likely to change much either, which is another complication.

Maybe but I remember a few years ago when the whole league was stunned that Montreal would let things with Subban actually get to arbitration and said they had a number they'd stick to and then caved when the actual prospect of losing him rose its head.

If I were a betting man I'd probably agree Stamkos seems free agency bound but it's important to draw a distinction between an actual cap crunch like the ones that have forced Chicago to make changes and a team having all sorts of options, looking at Stamkos and deciding that the cap hit that would represent his asking price is better spent elsewhere. I know that if I were in Yzerman's shoes and I thought Stamkos as crucial a player as some people here do I would fire a coach 100 times over before I let him be the reason a franchise player left in free agency.

I think his status there as THAT team's FUTURE franchise player is getting Drouined by the Triplets.

 

[McGarnagle]

I think his status there as THAT team's FUTURE franchise player is getting Drouined by the Triplets.

That's definitely a fair point that should even further strengthen Yzerman's resolve regarding a team friendly cap/contribution hit; Drouin really wasn't part of the equation up until the last few months, and he looked extremely impressive.

 

[Kin]

That's definitely a fair point that should even further strengthen Yzerman's resolve regarding a team friendly cap/contribution hit; Drouin really wasn't part of the equation up until the last few months, and he looked extremely impressive.

Again that might be true but that does serve as a pretty telling counterpoint to everyone saying that free agents of Stamkos' caliber never come along(although as we discussed many moons ago that's not really factually accurate). If someone like Stamkos is rarely a free agent it's because teams very rarely decide to let a franchise player walk. You can read what you want into that but there's really no denying that the Lightning this year did about as well without Stamkos as they ever did with him.

 

[TBLeafer]

That's definitely a fair point that should even further strengthen Yzerman's resolve regarding a team friendly cap/contribution hit; Drouin really wasn't part of the equation up until the last few months, and he looked extremely impressive.

Again that might be true but that does serve as a pretty telling counterpoint to everyone saying that free agents of Stamkos' caliber never come along(although as we discussed many moons ago that's not really factually accurate). If someone like Stamkos is rarely a free agent it's because teams very rarely decide to let a franchise player walk. You can read what you want into that but there's really no denying that the Lightning this year did about as well without Stamkos as they ever did with him.

Its the problem you run into when you have TOO MANY high picks and/or top players.  When you now have the forward firepower of Kucherov and Drouin, its MORE important to re-up Hedman over Stamkos.

 

[McGarnagle]

It's also a telling counterpoint to those that under-emphasize the importance of future cap management. If you can foresee having to move some of your 1B players to keep your 1A players under contract, You'd better be damn sure your 1A players can carry your team.