Steve Stamkos?

[herman]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Detroit is the darkhorse team to sign Stamkos.

It'd really be the perfect match if they could just ditch Datsyuk's contract somehow.

I'd take Datsyuk's contract + AA + 2/3rd pick for Bozak + B/C prospect.

 

[Kin]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Detroit is the darkhorse team to sign Stamkos.

It would take a ton of cap maneuvering but wouldn't Stamkos to Columbus be just about a perfect fit?

Alternately, what about the Devils? They're desperate for offense and I think have the most cap space in the league.

 

[TBLeafer]

Not if Stamkos is sold on the Shanaplan. You remain patient and free of any further bold moves as you evaluate your team in the fall and determine who fits where.  He's just another piece of the puzzle.

It's what would I do. Not you. You actually get no say in what I would do if I were in charge.

Very true.  You could hire me to offer civilized and intellectual counterpoint though. 

 

[Kin]

Very true.  You could hire me to offer civilized and intellectual counterpoint though. 

Sure or, with the vast resources of MLSE at my disposal, I could hire an actual reggae band to play "Three Little Birds" wherever I go.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Alternately, what about the Devils? They're desperate for offense and I think have the most cap space in the league.

Both those statements are true but I feel like every reason the Leafs would have for not chasing Stamkos could also be applied to the Devils x 10. That's a pretty putrid looking organization right now, Cory Schneider not included. How that team managed 84 points this season is going to be one of the great unsolved mysteries ever.

 

[TBLeafer]

Very true.  You could hire me to offer civilized and intellectual counterpoint though. 

Sure or, with the vast resources of MLSE at my disposal, I could hire an actual reggae band to play "Three Little Birds" wherever I go.

 

[Kin]

Both those statements are true but I feel like every reason the Leafs would have for not chasing Stamkos could also be applied to the Devils x 10. That's a pretty putrid looking organization right now, Cory Schneider not included. How that team managed 84 points this season is going to be one of the great unsolved mysteries ever.

Maybe but the Devils are also in a weird situation where because of Schneider they're unlikely to bottom out and tearing down again and trying to go that route might be an issue because of:

http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

So I don't know if it'd be a smart thing for them to do but if I were going to think of who might offer him just a stupid amount of money....

 

[Frank E]

This is such a weird question because it presupposes that the team wants to make the Stamkos signing. So do I answer from that perspective or what I think is the right thing to do in terms of building a winner?

Ya. Super weird.  There's an 86 page debate about it here.  And no, you don't have to build a winner.  You're the boss in this situation, so do what you'd do next regardless of the team's hypothetical intentions.

Because if I'm of the opinion that signing Stamkos is the right move then it doesn't make sense for me to sit around and hope that my defensive prospects turn out decent.

I think there is good reason to continue to develop players, but I'm curious why you don't think you should be patient with them?

So I start making trades. I deal JVR and probably one of Marner or Nylander in the hopes that I can land a top pairing defenseman and #1 goalie then I do what I can to clear up more cap space and try signing other free agents I guess.

JVR, sure.  I think most think JVR moving is inevitable sooner or later.  Not sure why you're trading Marner or Nylander at this point, there's no hurry for a top pairing guy or a goalie, is there?

If it's what I'd do, I'd have to counter the signing I don't like by making trades I don't like to ensure the team is near the bottom of the league again. So deal JVR and probably Gardiner for picks. Think about sending Marner back to the OHL for a third year.

That's fair.  I actually agree with most of this, other than the Marner thing. 

I was actually a proponent of them moving Kadri this summer, so moving Gardiner and JVR are things that I'd agree with under the hypothetical circumstances.

With them signing Kadri, for me anyways, this whole team building thing that I thought they were doing changed. 

 

[Britishbulldog]

Arizona knocks on the Leafs door now that we have Stamkos and Matthews.  They still really want Matthews.

We say okay, you can have Matthews and we'll take OEL, Strome and your 2017 1st rounder.

Did we just improve our team with Stamkos AND shore up our D?

Now you are entering my realm TB. 

......That makes Gardiner unneeded and can be paired with a young asset(s) for a top RH dman.  Sparks and Bernier blow enough games this season that the Leafs re-sign neither and address the situation by aquiring a top goalie days before the expansion draft solidifying the Leafs for many years to come.

Too bad Phoenix is in a completely different realm.  OLE is not available for anyone not named McDavid IMHO.

My realm is so nuts that, even with Stamkos, between the rookie mistakes and horrible goal tending next season the Leafs lose enough games to end up picking 5th overall in 2017.  The Leafs management feels that they are getting a pretty good grasp on what they have for a roster and after addressing the glaring weakness in the net, they consider moving redundant pieces to fill other holes.

Back to the other realm now...also referred to as reality...

 

[Kin]

Ya. Super weird.  There's an 86 page debate about it here.  And no, you don't have to build a winner.  You're the boss in this situation, so do what you'd do next regardless of the team's hypothetical intentions.

Well, I'm the boss but I'm the boss who has to sign a huge free agent deal I think is counter-productive. Essentially, I'm Lou Lamoriello circa 2010.

I think there is good reason to continue to develop players, but I'm curious why you don't think you should be patient with them?

I think you're misreading what I'm saying there. It's not choosing whether or not to develop your players, it's about looking at the current group of defensemen/defensive prospects the team has and coming to a realistic conclusion about their ability to turn into a championship-level defense while you're hoping to get the most out of Stamkos' contract.

It's pretty common for #1 defensemen to be found at various points in the draft but what's super uncommon is for elite #1 defensemen drafted outside of the first round to reach that level quickly. So assuming you don't want to pay Stamkos 10 million dollars a year to wait around three or four years while you build that kind of defense you have to make things happen and add talent to the pool now. Otherwise you're building an entire strategy around Rielly growing into a Norris-type #1, which seems questionable at best right now, and one of Zaitsev/Dermott/Carrick/Nielsen/whoever becoming a rock-solid National Team type #2 within the next few years.

Being as I don't think that's realistic, you need to look outside the organization to try and get players like that.

JVR, sure.  I think most think JVR moving is inevitable sooner or later.  Not sure why you're trading Marner or Nylander at this point, there's no hurry for a top pairing guy or a goalie, is there?

If I'm signing someone to a 7 year deal for 1/7th or so of the cap? I'm not doing so because I don't want to be winning soon. The odds are much, much higher that you're going to be getting the best years from Stamkos near the front of his deal and if I'm not trying to turn the best years of his deal into winning and potentially a championship then it makes no sense to sign him.

That's what these 84 pages have been about. Teams like Anaheim and Chicago signed those big ticket free agents because they wanted to win in the next couple of years and managed to do it. Teams that are still putting together their core typically don't go out and sign huge money free agents because unless you're in a situation where, say, you just need that one defenseman you're about to sign then signing a big ticket free agent actually impedes the process of adding the players you need.

Signing Stamkos leaves the Leafs in need of goaltending and defense and hurts their ability to add those players through the draft because he'll hurt the draft position and eats up most of the team's available cap space so you can't plan on addressing it through free agency later. So if you're going to sign Stamkos and not plan on winning with him in his 30's you have to make moves that make winning sooner likely.

That's fair.  I actually agree with most of this, other than the Marner thing.

I don't agree with sending Marner down either but keep in mind the context of "how do you stay on the right path in spite of doing something that seems to be a major impediment towards following that path".

 

[herman]

If I'm signing someone to a 7 year deal for 1/7th or so of the cap? I'm not doing so because I don't want to be winning soon. The odds are much, much higher that you're going to be getting the best years from Stamkos near the front of his deal and if I'm not trying to turn the best years of his deal into winning and potentially a championship then it makes no sense to sign him.

That's what these 84 pages have been about. Teams like Anaheim and Chicago signed those big ticket free agents because they wanted to win in the next couple of years and managed to do it. Teams that are still putting together their core typically don't go out and sign huge money free agents because unless you're in a situation where, say, you just need that one defenseman you're about to sign then signing a big ticket free agent actually impedes the process of adding the players you need.

Signing Stamkos leaves the Leafs in need of goaltending and defense and hurts their ability to add those players through the draft because he'll hurt the draft position and eats up most of the team's available cap space so you can't plan on addressing it through free agency later. So if you're going to sign Stamkos and not plan on winning with him in his 30's you have to make moves that make winning sooner likely.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Not sure why this has been so difficult to understand.

 

[bustaheims]

If I'm signing someone to a 7 year deal for 1/7th or so of the cap? I'm not doing so because I don't want to be winning soon. The odds are much, much higher that you're going to be getting the best years from Stamkos near the front of his deal and if I'm not trying to turn the best years of his deal into winning and potentially a championship then it makes no sense to sign him.

That's just it - signing someone like Stamkos now artificially creates a timeline. For the contract to make sense, the team needs to reach contender status within a season or two, which likely means making moves that sacrifice pieces of the future to improve the present. It's really the only way to justify signing him other than it being a move that appeases fans and brings in a star player to a team that doesn't need star players at this point in the process.

 

[Redleaf]

If I'm signing someone to a 7 year deal for 1/7th or so of the cap? I'm not doing so because I don't want to be winning soon. The odds are much, much higher that you're going to be getting the best years from Stamkos near the front of his deal and if I'm not trying to turn the best years of his deal into winning and potentially a championship then it makes no sense to sign him.

That's what these 84 pages have been about. Teams like Anaheim and Chicago signed those big ticket free agents because they wanted to win in the next couple of years and managed to do it. Teams that are still putting together their core typically don't go out and sign huge money free agents because unless you're in a situation where, say, you just need that one defenseman you're about to sign then signing a big ticket free agent actually impedes the process of adding the players you need.

Signing Stamkos leaves the Leafs in need of goaltending and defense and hurts their ability to add those players through the draft because he'll hurt the draft position and eats up most of the team's available cap space so you can't plan on addressing it through free agency later. So if you're going to sign Stamkos and not plan on winning with him in his 30's you have to make moves that make winning sooner likely.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Not sure why this has been so difficult to understand.

Should be very interesting to see what transpires in the next 3 wks or so. I would think we should come close to getting a full disclosure of the direction this management team intends on taking.

If Stamkos comes on board and guys like JVR, Kadri & Komarov don't get moved for instance, that is certainly going to have the appearance that this rebuild is pretty much done. There are so many pieces here now, and with so many more coming down the pipe in the next 2 drafts, who's to say they don't do the unexpected, and take the opportunity to turn it into a win now campaign? Trade away some picks and prospects for ready-to-win-now type players?

 

[herman]

Should be very interesting to see what transpires in the next 3 wks or so. I would think we should come close to getting a full disclosure of the direction this management team intends on taking.

If Stamkos comes on board and guys like JVR, Kadri & Komarov don't get moved for instance, that is certainly going to have the appearance that this rebuild is pretty much done. There are so many pieces here now, and with so many more coming down the pipe in the next 2 drafts, who's to say they don't do the unexpected, and take the opportunity to turn it into a win now campaign? Trade away some picks and prospects for ready-to-win-now type players?

Seeing as how it's the draft and the beginning of free agency, of course we'll see what management is thinking.

Also, what's up with people wanting to trade Kadri still? This management group is preaching patience. You said it yourself, going for the win now would be 'unexpected'.

With the looming expansion hanging overhead, why would any team in a rebuild want to burden themselves with win-now players they have to protect at the cost of picks/prospects that are exempt?

 

[ZBBM]

The odds are much, much higher that you're going to be getting the best years from Stamkos near the front of his deal

That's just it - signing someone like Stamkos now artificially creates a timeline. For the contract to make sense, the team needs to reach contender status within a season or two, which likely means making moves that sacrifice pieces of the future to improve the present.

These assumptions are the heart of the debate to me. I don't think the odds are much much higher of Stamkos declining in two or three years -- that is, declining to a level where his contract is an albatross. I think it's just as justifiable to assume he will still be very effective at 33. By which time, without rushing anything else, the Leafs ought to be contending.

 

[Deebo]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Not sure why this has been so difficult to understand.

Disagreeing isn't the same an not understanding.

 

[herman]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Not sure why this has been so difficult to understand.

Disagreeing isn't the same an not understanding.

Fair point. Which part do you (or others) disagree with?

 

[rdowdall]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Not sure why this has been so difficult to understand.

Disagreeing isn't the same an not understanding.

The disagreement though fails to address the concerns that those have with signing Stamkos to the degree that it leaves this team in a bad position moving forward to strengthen themselves.  There's been a lot of hand-wavey "We'll find some goalies or d-men somewhere" explanations of what the plan would be moving forward. 

If the Leafs aren't signing Stamkos because they want to win now and because they are afraid that in 2 or 3 years time they might "need" a player like him, then they are making the decision based on incomplete data, because they don't know what this team will need in 2-3 years time so it seems like a poor decision to make.

It the Leafs are signing Stamkos because they want to win now, then that seems ill advised because they are missing key pieces on defence and in goal and therefore aren't really in a position to win now, and that would be no different to the past where the Leafs have made free agent signings in an attempt to build their team quicker in order to compete sooner.

 

[Deebo]

Fair point. Which part do you (or others) disagree with?

I disagree with idea that signing him creates an artificial timeline or the need to accelerate things by trading futures. I think he's young enough that he can be an impact player for the majority of his contract.

 

[herman]

Fair point. Which part do you (or others) disagree with?

I disagree with idea that signing him creates an artificial timeline or the need to accelerate things by trading futures. I think he's young enough that he can be an impact player for the majority of his contract.

I completely agree he can be an impact player for the majority of his contract. The question I have is what are the ramifications of his impact on the rebuild? Even if we continue to build diligently and patiently with Stamkos in the fold, developing Nylander, Marner, and 2016 guy, at what point can we assuredly say we have the pieces to contend?

From my point of view, adding Stamkos does the following:
- Adds a crap-ton of goals, which leads to more wins
- More wins leads to higher final standing
- higher final standing leads to lower draft picks

We're still looking for defensemen (hopefully a #1 minute-muncher, or a #2 that can push Rielly into #1 levels). We're still looking for a #1 goalie that can stop pucks from the red line. Granted, those can be found deeper in the draft; however, they have longer development timelines than forwards. If all goes well, we're looking at competing at the tail end of Stamkos' contract.

Alternatively, with Stamkos in the fold, we could push earlier to take advantage of his prime years. Presuming we hang onto Kadri, Gardiner, Rielly, Nylander, Marner, 2016 guy, how are we going to get the #1G and #1/2D most would say are necessary for Stanley Cup contention?

I wish I could make a histogram of this, but Stamkos skews the player peak chart up. Komarov and JvR are at their peaks now, but not really anyone else. To win, we have to line up as many peaking players as possible, in all the positions.