Steve Stamkos?

[TBLeafer]

NHL: Why Captains Are More Important in Hockey Than Any Other Major Sport

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1326754-nhl-why-captains-are-more-important-in-hockey-than-any-other-major-sport

I agree with this article and when it comes to hockey, a good captain IS integral to the solid foundation of a good team.

 

[TBLeafer]

Cute.  I like this guy.

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/6/5/tln-presents-extreme-couponing-stamkos-savings

 

[hockeyfan1]

From the article:

The embodiment of a captain...

...[his] leadership abilities, his communication skills and his knowledge of the game and team.

Always thought so, and more so today.

Still remember the then Calgary Flames assistant captain Joel Otto, advising and 'calming' some of his younger tense & nervous teammates, during coach Terry Crisps's blowtop rantings.  Otto the veteran reassured them that Crisps's behaviour wasn't directed at them specifically,  and was just the coach's way of venting frustration.

 

[skrackle]

One of Edmonton's biggest failures in their perpetual rebuild has been a lack of timely trades.

When a high-pick prospect doesn't work out, it has to be the team that picked the player that realizes it before anyone else does. You don't wait until the whole league knows that the player is a bust.

 

[Kin]

Regardless the "If we do ____ we'll be just like Edmonton" deflection has become the single laziest cliche trotted out on the board. The only thing Edmonton proves is that incompetence wins out. Being as I don't think the Leafs have incompetent people running the show, there's not really much of a lesson to be learned there.

 

[TBLeafer]

Regardless the "If we do ____ we'll be just like Edmonton" deflection has become the single laziest cliche trotted out on the board. The only thing Edmonton proves is that incompetence wins out. Being as I don't think the Leafs have incompetent people running the show, there's not really much of a lesson to be learned there.

Which means no more tanking. This time we'll draft the player that puts us over the edge. This time we'll draft the player that puts us over the edge. THIS TIME WE'LL DRAFT THE PLAYER THAT GETS US OVER THE EDGE!

 

[Kin]

It's also, I think, a really bad misunderstanding of what went on in Edmonton to say that they ever "tanked". Edmonton has been a bad team for a long time but, again, they arrived their through incompetence rather than design.

Edmonton, at the point where they started their decline, was probably the league leader in attempting short term fixes to try to get back to competitiveness. From offer sheeting Dustin Penner to completing the Dany Heatley trade that Heatly nixed to being the only team to try to sign Jagr before he left for the KHL to being the team it was widely reported actually outbid the Maple Leafs for Clarkson.

They hung on to Hemsky and Horcoff forever, only traded Ryan Smyth when they wouldn't meet his asking price(and then, that summer, tried to replace him with Penner) and tried supplementing that core with expensive free agents like Sheldon Souray and trading younger players for vets like Lubomir Visnovsky.

Edmonton as a model for the perils of "tanking" ignores what they actually did. They didn't lose on purpose or preach patience with a process. They were just a badly managed team that made a lot of bad decisions in an attempt to hang onto the success they had briefly. They were constantly trying to rush things and it eventually led them to, and kept them at, the bottom.

 

[bustaheims]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

 

[TBLeafer]

Okay so the Shanaclan didn't do that. They bailed on old core.

They locked up a couple that will represent new core.

They prepared the cap and future cap to leave ample room to continue to improve on that new core through this summer's bumper crop of UFA'S looking to hit the market in just a few weeks time now.

They can chase Stamkos with the clear conscience that they aren't building like Edmonton.

They are building Shanahan's Leafs, which will be unique if they do so with an unheard of NHL talent hitting the open market just entering his prime years.

 

[Frank E]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

Yeah, I don't think there's much to be learned from the Edmonton situation, other than drafting first overall a bunch of times doesn't in and of itself turn your team into a strong one.  You need some serviceable talent to be acquired further into the draft.

There are some valid reasons not to sign Stamkos in this thread, but Edmonton's failures isn't one of them. 

 

[TBLeafer]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

Yeah, I don't think there's much to be learned from the Edmonton situation, other than drafting first overall a bunch of times doesn't in and of itself turn your team into a strong one.  You need some serviceable talent to be acquired further into the draft.

There are some valid reasons not to sign Stamkos in this thread, but Edmonton's failures isn't one of them.

Agreed.  Edmonton's failures is an example of why you want to be a lottery team for as little years as possible when rebuilding.

The perfect storm happened to the Leafs this season, culminating in the 1st OA lottery win.

It won't happen again at least during Shanahan's tenure.  They have already scorched the earth, jettisoned their faulty core and started to assemble a new core.  I think they're going to want to do so with the best parts available, however they are acquired.

 

[herman]

 

[bustaheims]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

Well, yeah. Smart management groups aren't going to get ahead of themselves. They'll wait until the time is right for the team, rather than basing their timing on when certain players become available.

 

[TBLeafer]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

Well, yeah. Smart management groups aren't going to get ahead of themselves. They'll wait until the time is right for the team, rather than basing their timing on when certain players become available.

So you've already determined that IF the Leafs land Stamkos, they will no longer be smart management?

 

[bustaheims]

So you've already determined that IF the Leafs land Stamkos, they will no longer be smart management?

Considering, on a number of occasions, they've said things that basically echo my position, I'm pretty confident the only way Stamkos ends up a Leaf this summer is if he basically falls into their lap at well below market value. At that point, it's no longer about the timing of him being available, but, about the bargain he'd represent. Basically, Stamkos only becomes a Leafs if it's on a contract that it would be poor management to not sign him to - and, really, what are the odds of that happening?

 

[TBLeafer]

So you've already determined that IF the Leafs land Stamkos, they will no longer be smart management?

Considering, on a number of occasions, they've said things that basically echo my position, I'm pretty confident the only way Stamkos ends up a Leaf this summer is if he basically falls into their lap at well below market value. At that point, it's no longer about the timing of him being available, but, about the bargain he'd represent. Basically, Stamkos only becomes a Leafs if it's on a contract that it would be poor management to not sign him to - and, really, what are the odds of that happening?

They've said plenty that allude to EITHER possibility.  You've merely taken what you wanted to support your position, just as I have.

 

[herman]

So you've already determined that IF the Leafs land Stamkos, they will no longer be smart management?

Considering, on a number of occasions, they've said things that basically echo my position, I'm pretty confident the only way Stamkos ends up a Leaf this summer is if he basically falls into their lap at well below market value. At that point, it's no longer about the timing of him being available, but, about the bargain he'd represent. Basically, Stamkos only becomes a Leafs if it's on a contract that it would be poor management to not sign him to - and, really, what are the odds of that happening?

They've said plenty that allude to EITHER possibility.  You've merely taken what you wanted to support your position, just as I have.

Thank you for using allude instead of elude.

While I don't have a comprehensive dossier of every public word uttered by management this past year or two, my general sense is that they'd do exactly as busta (and others) have outlined: kick tires with a palatable number for due diligence, and then move on when that number is deemed too low for Stamkos.

As a fun exercise, TBLeafer, can you find me what they've said alluding to them NOT signing Stamkos?

 

[Kin]

As Nik explains, but doesn't state explicitly, the most important lesson to be learned from the Oilers is to not declare the rebuild to be over, and, subsequently, go out and make the kinds of moves rebuilding teams typically should not be making before your prospects and young players have formed a team that produces results that show that the rebuild is over.

Or just don't have dumb people running your franchise.

I think that if I were going to try to distill the lessons of Edmonton down into a single thing it would probably just be about the importance of patience. Regardless of what the ultimate goal is you have to accept that things don't always go by your ideal time table, especially the things that are outside of your control. Any sort of suggestion that Edmonton was in any way patient with the process of rebuilding or "okay" with their bottom place finishing is easily disputed by their record with hiring and firing coaches. You don't give a team of young players something like 4 coaches in 6 years and then pretend you were patient with getting where you needed to be.

We can talk about Edmonton being "dumb" I guess and it's certainly something I've thrown around but the more I think about the less I think where they erred was on the smart/dumb line and more that they had serious deficits in flexibility and adapability. They had to show X improvement by X time or they were going to get really mad and fire their coach and put themselves back at square one. Obviously their poor drafting/developing record played into that as it hampered their ability to show the progress they wanted but I still think it's that lack of flexibility that hurt them. The idea of drafting Yakupov, for instance, over a player at a position they really needed seems emblematic of that.

Which is why I think the Stamkos thing is ultimately so secondary to what the team actually has cooking. Signing Stamkos can't be some big, crucial element of what they have planned because any day during the season or any day even now Stamkos could re-sign with Tampa. Or he could sign somewhere else. Either way the idea of a "plan" as a singular notion can't really exist or at least it can't exist with a specific notion like signing Stamkos because you don't plan for things like that. You might be open to taking advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself but it's certainly not going to be the sort of thing a smart and adaptable team will count on as being essential to what they're doing.

 

[TBLeafer]

So you've already determined that IF the Leafs land Stamkos, they will no longer be smart management?

Considering, on a number of occasions, they've said things that basically echo my position, I'm pretty confident the only way Stamkos ends up a Leaf this summer is if he basically falls into their lap at well below market value. At that point, it's no longer about the timing of him being available, but, about the bargain he'd represent. Basically, Stamkos only becomes a Leafs if it's on a contract that it would be poor management to not sign him to - and, really, what are the odds of that happening?

They've said plenty that allude to EITHER possibility.  You've merely taken what you wanted to support your position, just as I have.

Thank you for using allude instead of elude.

While I don't have a comprehensive dossier of every public word uttered by management this past year or two, my general sense is that they'd do exactly as busta (and others) have outlined: kick tires with a palatable number for due diligence, and then move on when that number is deemed too low for Stamkos.

As a fun exercise, TBLeafer, can you find me what they've said alluding to them NOT signing Stamkos?

Provide my own counterpoint.  Interesting.

The now famous Babcock quote, which I don't think I have to restate, but it comes down to how you interpret the use of the term "usually".

This article which again has Lou saying things in the beginning of the interview where on their own can lead one to think they aren't going to pursue Stamkos, but then goes on to say things about there being no hesitation about adding a player that makes the team better if that player becomes available.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gm-lou-lamoriello-sees-promise-maple-leafs/

I can come up with more I'm sure, but when you look at the "whole" there is NOTHING definitive one way or another.  There are no closed doors.

You show me where anyone from the Leafs management definitively utters the words: "We will not be pursuing Stamkos if he becomes a free agent as he is not in our future team building plans at this time." 

I will end the debate for signing Stamkos.