Steve Stamkos?

[nutman]

Don't forget that to add him, you get someone to take the heat off the new stars we will have, and also giving them an example to learn from, thus moving them along much faster. Fast forward two seasons, and if all or most works we would be like pitt is right now, maybe even stronger.

 

[herman]

Don't forget that to add him, you get someone to take the heat off the new stars we will have, and also giving them an example to learn from, thus moving them along much faster. Fast forward two seasons, and if all or most works we would be like pitt is right now, maybe even stronger.

I'd say Lou and Babcock have already done a good job of taking the heat off the players. They also don't count against the salary cap.

 

[Deebo]

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

I've addressed it before, but I don't think Stamkos alone can effect the standings more than maybe a couple spots. If Stamkos is signed, and the Leafs see a significant improvement in the standings next season, it will be due to combination of Stamkos, adding the talented youth to the roster (Marner, Matthews, Nylander), internal development and maybe a bit of luck.

This is provided they don't go out and and make a bunch of picks/prospects for immediate help type moves, which I am against.

I understand and respect the other sides opinion on this matter and its been discussed to death. I think it's best to just agree to disagree and just see what happens.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Don't forget that to add him, you get someone to take the heat off the new stars we will have, and also giving them an example to learn from, thus moving them along much faster. Fast forward two seasons, and if all or most works we would be like pitt is right now, maybe even stronger.

Point well taken, but, would this really be a necessity?

One cannot say on account of the above, that because they don't have a veteran like Stamkos that the young players are too 'slow' to develop.  At the same time, we cannot say that having Stamkos there will speed/nurture the young players' development.

If Stamkos were to be made captain (assuming he's signed), that alone will be an asset in the sense that the captaincy will translate into a leadership role both on and of the ice in terms of communication, education, advising, etc., etc., essentially what the role of a captain should be.

Should the Leafs continue that there shall be no one captain, presently without Stamkos, then this means that they believe having a captain is no urgency at the moment, and are willing to take the time to assess for one later on in the near future.

 

[Al14]

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

I've addressed it before, but I don't think Stamkos alone can effect the standings more than maybe a couple spots. If Stamkos is signed, and the Leafs see a significant improvement in the standings next season, it will be due to combination of Stamkos, adding the talented youth to the roster (Marner, Matthews, Nylander), internal development and maybe a bit of luck.

This is provided they don't go out and and make a bunch of picks/prospects for immediate help type moves, which I am against.

I understand and respect the other sides opinion on this matter and its been discussed to death. I think it's best to just agree to disagree and just see what happens.

I agree, I think signing Stamkos now might just spoil the rebuild.  I don't want the rebuild accelerated because of having Stamkos in his prime now.

 

[Kin]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

 

[TBLeafer]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

I know this is directed at Nik, but for me, it would depend what the Leafs are as a team.  If their offence is decent and it's still the defence that is a problem, then I probably wouldn't do it.  However if there is a hole in their top six that is scoring related, then yes I would sign him.

 

[TBLeafer]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

I know this is directed at Nik, but for me, it would depend what the Leafs are as a team.  If their offence is decent and it's still the defence that is a problem, then I probably wouldn't do it.  However if there is a hole in their top six that is scoring related, then yes I would sign him.

Good than in theory, acquiring him now is one less UFA we have to worry about when this team is ready to compete in two years.  He'll be 28 and have five years left on his term.

In two years time, Lupul and Bozak's contracts will also clear, if not sooner for Bozak.  We should have assessed and evaluated and improved for two more seasons of rebuild if it is in fact a five year plan to cup contention.

We will have the room to shore up D and G at that point if we haven't already.

If we aren't ready to contend in 2 seasons with or without Stamkos, than this isn't a successful rebuild anyway and we have become Edmonton.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

I know this is directed at Nik, but for me, it would depend what the Leafs are as a team.  If their offence is decent and it's still the defence that is a problem, then I probably wouldn't do it.  However if there is a hole in their top six that is scoring related, then yes I would sign him.

Good than in theory, acquiring him now is one less UFA we have to worry about when this team is ready to compete in two years.  He'll be 28 and have five years left on his term.

In two years time, Lupul and Bozak's contracts will also clear, if not sooner for Bozak.  We should have assessed and evaluated and improved for two more seasons of rebuild if it is in fact a five year plan to cup contention.

We will have the room to shore up D and G at that point if we haven't already.

If we aren't ready to contend in 2 seasons with or without Stamkos, than this isn't a successful rebuild anyway and we have become Edmonton.

But it isn't one less UFA to worry about.  As I said, it would depend on where the team is.  I don't pretend to know what this team will look like in two years time.  Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

 

[herman]

Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

The only way I can see signing Stamkos to help prevent goals is that he would be scoring for us, rather than against us

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

0. I'd also throw Philadelphia and Minnesota and Vancouver into this middling pile. Maybe even Detroit.

 

[rdowdall]

Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

The only way I can see signing Stamkos to help prevent goals is that he would be scoring for us, rather than against us

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

0. I'd also throw Philadelphia and Minnesota and Vancouver into this middling pile. Maybe even Detroit.

Well for me, it wasn't so much as middling as their makeup of the team.  They are all teams that have one or two superstars, but then don't have the pieces around them to put them over the top.  If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, then I would say that they would be most like Dallas in that list.  There is a team that has a great offence, but can't prevent goals.  Their problem is going to be how do they make that better?  It's possible that they hit on a 5th round draft choice again, like the did on Klingberg, but you can't really bank on that happening again.  That would only take care of the defence issue, and it would still leave a problem in net, which they will have to address sooner rather than later.  They are constructed this way because of the path they went down.  They didn't want to build through the draft anymore and wanted to start winning now, most likely due to financial pressure.

 

[TBLeafer]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

I know this is directed at Nik, but for me, it would depend what the Leafs are as a team.  If their offence is decent and it's still the defence that is a problem, then I probably wouldn't do it.  However if there is a hole in their top six that is scoring related, then yes I would sign him.

Good than in theory, acquiring him now is one less UFA we have to worry about when this team is ready to compete in two years.  He'll be 28 and have five years left on his term.

In two years time, Lupul and Bozak's contracts will also clear, if not sooner for Bozak.  We should have assessed and evaluated and improved for two more seasons of rebuild if it is in fact a five year plan to cup contention.

We will have the room to shore up D and G at that point if we haven't already.

If we aren't ready to contend in 2 seasons with or without Stamkos, than this isn't a successful rebuild anyway and we have become Edmonton.

But it isn't one less UFA to worry about.  As I said, it would depend on where the team is.  I don't pretend to know what this team will look like in two years time.  Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

I don't have an answer for you, given only 1 team does each year.  Of the teams mentioned, I would say Dallas is closest.

As a Leafs fan, I would also HOPE the answer for the Habs and Sens is ZERO. 

 

[rdowdall]

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.

There is a slight problem with that though within the context of what we've been talking about. Throughout this thread the loudest voices that were pro-signing Stamkos weren't doing so on the basis of "Stamkos is likely to be good throughout his contract and, when the Leafs are ready to contend in three or four years, then a 29 or 30 year old Stamkos will still be a valuable piece worth 10+ million a year".

What seems like forever ago I made a point about how elite free agents are actually fairly frequently available. Once every year or so on average provided you include free agents who were elite but fell off a little after signing or every other year if you just include free agents who were elite when available and then lived up to their contracts. Because of that, I said, signing Stamkos seemed unnecessary because you were going to be in a position to try and sign top notch free agents when the team was closer to contending and so you'd have the added bonus of knowing where and how that free agent money was best spent when the shape of your contender was a little formed. That would be in addition to the bonuses of whatever effect not having Stamkos would have on the draft and that of then being able to sign that elite free agent for longer(because as a rule I agree. Elite players don't age like other players. See Chara/Hossa/Niedermayer).

But what the people who were very much pro the signing said to the idea that elite free agents are pretty commonly available was was that a significant portion of Stamkos' value, what separated him from all other free agents who had come before him, was that he was 26. That being 26 made him in a separate class. 26 year old elite free agents, we were told, are one of a kind and likely to be in the future.

Now, if you're of the opinion that signing Stamkos doesn't artificially set a timeline and that it's a not a sign that winning is crucial within the next few years then I think you have to agree that Stamkos' age vs. the age of the other elite free agents available doesn't matter terribly if we're not expecting the team to contend until Stamkos is their age anyway. Right? There's no real difference between adding a 30 year old year old Stamkos to the 2020-2021 Maple Leafs and adding a 30 year old Hossa to the 2009-2010 Blackhawks.

So I appreciate where you're coming from but in fairness, if you've been following this thread to the point where you seem tired of it, you'd have to admit that the people who are very pro-Stamkos have not typically been on the "If we sign Stamkos, it's either likely or acceptable that the team isn't good for a few years" train. If you are that's great but then it raises the previous issue of what the advantages are of signing him this summer vs. not doing so and looking to sign a comparable free agent when the Leafs are already contending because in that scenario "He's 26" is meaningless.

So for argument's sake, if the Leafs were ready to contend in two years and Stamkos became available as the best UFA to sign at 28 years old, would you pull the trigger then on a seven year deal that would take him to 35?

Hossa was 30.

I know this is directed at Nik, but for me, it would depend what the Leafs are as a team.  If their offence is decent and it's still the defence that is a problem, then I probably wouldn't do it.  However if there is a hole in their top six that is scoring related, then yes I would sign him.

Good than in theory, acquiring him now is one less UFA we have to worry about when this team is ready to compete in two years.  He'll be 28 and have five years left on his term.

In two years time, Lupul and Bozak's contracts will also clear, if not sooner for Bozak.  We should have assessed and evaluated and improved for two more seasons of rebuild if it is in fact a five year plan to cup contention.

We will have the room to shore up D and G at that point if we haven't already.

If we aren't ready to contend in 2 seasons with or without Stamkos, than this isn't a successful rebuild anyway and we have become Edmonton.

But it isn't one less UFA to worry about.  As I said, it would depend on where the team is.  I don't pretend to know what this team will look like in two years time.  Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

I don't have an answer for you, given only 1 team does each year.  Of the teams mentioned, I would say Dallas is closest.

As a Leafs fan, I would also HOPE the answer for the Habs and Sens is ZERO. 

Right, but when you think about teams year in and year out, you can get a picture of who is a contender and who isn't.  Chicago is going to be on peoples lists, as well as LA.  More than likely the Captials, and the Penguins.  Some people may add Anahiem.  Those are the teams that always seem to be in the mix.  At some point you have to think that the awesomeness of McDavid outweighs the Oilers stupidity.

Those 4 teams that I listed don't seem to be in the mix.  I would say Dallas is the furthest away because their defence is in rough shape, and I think it is going to be tough for them to fix their goaltending issues, and do it on a time frame where Spezza is still a really good 2nd line centre.  Of all of those teams, I would say that the Islanders have the best chance of getting to the finals and winning a cup, but they are missing secondary scoring, and that problem may become even worse if Okposo leaves. 

 

[herman]

Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

The only way I can see signing Stamkos to help prevent goals is that he would be scoring for us, rather than against us

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

0. I'd also throw Philadelphia and Minnesota and Vancouver into this middling pile. Maybe even Detroit.

Well for me, it wasn't so much as middling as their makeup of the team.  They are all teams that have one or two superstars, but then don't have the pieces around them to put them over the top.  If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, then I would say that they would be most like Dallas in that list.  There is a team that has a great offence, but can't prevent goals.  Their problem is going to be how do they make that better?  It's possible that they hit on a 5th round draft choice again, like the did on Klingberg, but you can't really bank on that happening again.  That would only take care of the defence issue, and it would still leave a problem in net, which they will have to address sooner rather than later.  They are constructed this way because of the path they went down.  They didn't want to build through the draft anymore and wanted to start winning now, most likely due to financial pressure.

That's what I was guessing you used to come up with those teams. I called them middling because that's just where their build gets them. Plus, it is easier to say than Flawed Builds with One or Two Superstars Who Can't Do it All teams. There are a lot of teams in that boat: not good enough to win, but not willing to, or not allowed to do what it takes to rebuild with stronger pieces. Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA did; Florida is almost there. Edmonton did it incidentally but without a patient build plan.

 

[TBLeafer]

Right, but when you think about teams year in and year out, you can get a picture of who is a contender and who isn't.  Chicago is going to be on peoples lists, as well as LA.  More than likely the Captials, and the Penguins.  Some people may add Anahiem.  Those are the teams that always seem to be in the mix.  At some point you have to think that the awesomeness of McDavid outweighs the Oilers stupidity.

Those 4 teams that I listed don't seem to be in the mix.  I would say Dallas is the furthest away because their defence is in rough shape, and I think it is going to be tough for them to fix their goaltending issues, and do it on a time frame where Spezza is still a really good 2nd line centre.  Of all of those teams, I would say that the Islanders have the best chance of getting to the finals and winning a cup, but they are missing secondary scoring, and that problem may become even worse if Okposo leaves.

I'd have put the Islanders 2nd on my list due to that lack of secondary scoring.

Both are middling teams in terms of available cap and both have the ability in the offseason to address areas of need.

 

[rdowdall]

Stamkos might make sense in two years time and he might not.  I would definitely sign him if goal scoring in the top 6 was an issue.  However, if that is covered, and the Leafs can't prevent goals, then I don't think Stamkos is going to help with that.

The only way I can see signing Stamkos to help prevent goals is that he would be scoring for us, rather than against us

I have question for you.  Tell me how many cups you think each of these teams will win over the next 10 years:

1.  Dallas
2.  Ottawa
3.  Montreal
4.  Islanders

0. I'd also throw Philadelphia and Minnesota and Vancouver into this middling pile. Maybe even Detroit.

Well for me, it wasn't so much as middling as their makeup of the team.  They are all teams that have one or two superstars, but then don't have the pieces around them to put them over the top.  If the Leafs were to sign Stamkos, then I would say that they would be most like Dallas in that list.  There is a team that has a great offence, but can't prevent goals.  Their problem is going to be how do they make that better?  It's possible that they hit on a 5th round draft choice again, like the did on Klingberg, but you can't really bank on that happening again.  That would only take care of the defence issue, and it would still leave a problem in net, which they will have to address sooner rather than later.  They are constructed this way because of the path they went down.  They didn't want to build through the draft anymore and wanted to start winning now, most likely due to financial pressure.

That's what I was guessing you used to come up with those teams. I called them middling because that's just where their build gets them. Plus, it is easier to say than Flawed Builds with One or Two Superstars Who Can't Do it All teams. There are a lot of teams in that boat: not good enough to win, but not willing to, or not allowed to do what it takes to rebuild with stronger pieces. Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA did; Florida is almost there. Edmonton did it incidentally but without a patient build plan.

Sorry, I thought you were going in a different direction.  Philly will be interesting.  They've got the forwards.  Ghost Bear looks great, and I though that Ivan Provorov looked really good at the world Juniors.  If he turns out, then Philly may have a chance to rise up, but then their problem will always come back to goaltending.  I agree on the other 3 for sure.  I think Vancouver especially is going down a very bumpy road.

 

[rdowdall]

Right, but when you think about teams year in and year out, you can get a picture of who is a contender and who isn't.  Chicago is going to be on peoples lists, as well as LA.  More than likely the Captials, and the Penguins.  Some people may add Anahiem.  Those are the teams that always seem to be in the mix.  At some point you have to think that the awesomeness of McDavid outweighs the Oilers stupidity.

Those 4 teams that I listed don't seem to be in the mix.  I would say Dallas is the furthest away because their defence is in rough shape, and I think it is going to be tough for them to fix their goaltending issues, and do it on a time frame where Spezza is still a really good 2nd line centre.  Of all of those teams, I would say that the Islanders have the best chance of getting to the finals and winning a cup, but they are missing secondary scoring, and that problem may become even worse if Okposo leaves.

I'd have put the Islanders 2nd on my list due to that lack of secondary scoring.

Both are middling teams in terms of available cap and both have the ability in the offseason to address areas of need.

Both have the ability, but will they actually be able too.  It's not like they can go to the #2 defencemen isle in the hockey player store and just pick one up.  They could target a guy like Trouba, but what would they have to give up for him?  How much of their core are they going to have to give up?  Tyson Barrie would make a lot of sense for them, and they may be able to get him on the cheap because Roy and Sackic  seem to think it's still 1997, but you have to think there are other teams in the mix there, and they may not want him to go to a team in the West. 

Then there is the goaltending.  They could go after one of the goalies in Anahiem, but even if Anahiem wants to deal within the conference, they are probably going to have to pay premium to deal with them. 

Dallas has a really tough haul in front of them to address the needs on their team.  It's not going to be easy, and the chances are that they are going to be closer to failing than they are succeeding.

 

[TBLeafer]

Right, but when you think about teams year in and year out, you can get a picture of who is a contender and who isn't.  Chicago is going to be on peoples lists, as well as LA.  More than likely the Captials, and the Penguins.  Some people may add Anahiem.  Those are the teams that always seem to be in the mix.  At some point you have to think that the awesomeness of McDavid outweighs the Oilers stupidity.

Those 4 teams that I listed don't seem to be in the mix.  I would say Dallas is the furthest away because their defence is in rough shape, and I think it is going to be tough for them to fix their goaltending issues, and do it on a time frame where Spezza is still a really good 2nd line centre.  Of all of those teams, I would say that the Islanders have the best chance of getting to the finals and winning a cup, but they are missing secondary scoring, and that problem may become even worse if Okposo leaves.

I'd have put the Islanders 2nd on my list due to that lack of secondary scoring.

Both are middling teams in terms of available cap and both have the ability in the offseason to address areas of need.

Both have the ability, but will they actually be able too.  It's not like they can go to the #2 defencemen isle in the hockey player store and just pick one up.  They could target a guy like Trouba, but what would they have to give up for him?  How much of their core are they going to have to give up?  Tyson Barrie would make a lot of sense for them, and they may be able to get him on the cheap because Roy and Sackic  seem to think it's still 1997, but you have to think there are other teams in the mix there, and they may not want him to go to a team in the West. 

Then there is the goaltending.  They could go after one of the goalies in Anahiem, but even if Anahiem wants to deal within the conference, they are probably going to have to pay premium to deal with them. 

Dallas has a really tough haul in front of them to address the needs on their team.  It's not going to be easy, and the chances are that they are going to be closer to failing than they are succeeding.

Dallas is also in a good position to make a play for Reimer and not needing to give up valuable assets for a goalie. He would also take up less cap than a more proven one.

Guys like Yandle can be had to help at the back end....

Either of these teams might just be 1 or 2 pieces away like Pittsburgh, Chicago and LA before them.

 

[herman]

Sorry, I thought you were going in a different direction.  Philly will be interesting.  They've got the forwards.  Ghost Bear looks great, and I though that Ivan Provorov looked really good at the world Juniors.  If he turns out, then Philly may have a chance to rise up, but then their problem will always come back to goaltending.  I agree on the other 3 for sure.  I think Vancouver especially is going down a very bumpy road.

NP. It's not like I was spelling it out precisely myself.

Philly is interesting indeed. They have 2 forwards at 8M+ until '22/4 in Giroux and Voracek, backed up by Couturier and Simmonds, due for new contracts soon. Konecny looks like a great piece too (Eberlesque?). Gostisbehere and Provorov are definitely intriguing and need to get paid eventually. I think they still middle out because Philly's been a bit of a goalie graveyard and a place of weird trade decisions.