Steve Stamkos?

[louisstamos]

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.

Dallas has both Lehtonen and Niemi signed for the next 2 years at over $10mil combined.  The only way they're making a play for Reimer is if they buy a guy out, as I don't foresee a trade for either goalie this offseason.

 

[TBLeafer]

Circumstances Aligned For Leafs To Make a Splash

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/6/7/11840948/article

3) On a related note, the Leafs should be very careful in free agency. There is a very strong case to be made for signing Steven Stamkos, but really, outside of him, the team still has no business signing players to 4-5 year deals, because this team straight up isn't ready to start adding talent the expensive way. Remember Burke's accelerated rebuild that included signing Mike Komisarek? The Leafs should probably look for another "pump'n dump" opportunity or two to continue adding picks for the 2017 draft.

 

[TBLeafer]

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.

Dallas has both Lehtonen and Niemi signed for the next 2 years at over $10mil combined.  The only way they're making a play for Reimer is if they buy a guy out, as I don't foresee a trade for either goalie this offseason.

I didn't either as particularly untradeable.  I just thought they might need to eat a bit of cap in a deal.

 

[rdowdall]

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.

How is Dallas in a good position to make a play for Reimer?  They have two goalies signed for over $10 million combined until the end of the 2017-2018 season.

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

I think you mean "guy like Yandle", not guys.  The free agent defence list isn't filled with top 2 dmen.  Also, I think Yandle is more of a 3-4 than a 1-2, but that may be due to the team he plays for rather than his actual ability.  Finally, Dallas has to resign Alex Goligoski, their own UFA this year as well. 

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

Agreed, they are 1 or 2 pieces away, but they are the hardest one or two pieces to get outside of the draft.

 

[bustaheims]

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.

Not at all. In fact, that completely flies in the face of the hypothetical scenario you're laying out. The entire impetus for the different opinion is that, under your proposed, the Leafs are ready to contend when they're seeking a UFA to address a hole in their top 6 and push them over the top. That's not the situation now. Not by a long-shot.

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.

That's also not true. In 2 seasons, the rebuild will only been taking place for 3 years. Not having built up to contending status in 3 seasons is hardly a failure, and nowhere close to the team having "become Edmonton."

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking so is IMO is tunnel vision.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking is is IMO is tunnel vision.

That UFA should still be one that addresses your team's needs, rather than simply the best available UFA within a certain time-span. They don't have the be the final piece - and no one is saying that they have to be - but UFAs that require significant commitment in cap and term should not be brought in until A) the prospects have developed past the point of simply being prospects, and B) the team's needs at that point have been identified.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Thinking is is IMO is tunnel vision.

Is.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking is is IMO is tunnel vision.

That UFA should still be one that addresses your team's needs, rather than simply the best available UFA within a certain time-span. They don't have the be the final piece - and no one is saying that they have to be - but UFAs that require significant commitment in cap and term should not be brought in until A) the prospects have developed past the point of simply being prospects, and B) the team's needs at that point have been identified.

Disagree when that UFA is a top player in the league, in their prime and can contribute nicely to that team going forward for the foreseeable future WHILE those prospects are developing naturally, without any need of rushing things.

That's what Stamkos can provide. As long as he signs on with the Shanaplan patient approach and they don't change any other aspect with how we're approaching this rebuild, we golden.  We're just rebuilding better.

You can call it accelerated if you'd like.  I will just call it better.

 

[TBLeafer]

Thinking is is IMO is tunnel vision.

Is.

LOL, oops.  :-[

 

[Kin]

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?

It would depend on what the team looked like and whether or not Stamkos would fit well with what the team already had. The important thing is that you'd be making an informed decision on the basis of a team you'd already largely built.

Hossa was 30.

Hossa was available as a UFA at 29 and at 30. In fact, Hossa's deal with Detroit and his deal with Chicago are both good examples of how building a contending team before looking to the UFA market can be so beneficial in terms of opening up options. You don't need to rely on a player having uncritical faith in a front office, you can sell them and potentially get a team-friendly deal on the basis of already joining a good team and having a good chance at winning a Cup.

 

[TBLeafer]

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?

It would depend on what the team looked like and whether or not Stamkos would fit well with what the team already had. The important thing is that you'd be making an informed decision on the basis of a team you'd already largely built.

Hossa was 30.

Hossa was available as a UFA at 29 and at 30. In fact, Hossa's deal with Detroit and his deal with Chicago are both good examples of how building a contending team before looking to the UFA market can be so beneficial in terms of opening up options. You don't need to rely on a player having uncritical faith in a front office, you can sell them and potentially get a team-friendly deal on the basis of already joining a good team and having a good chance at winning a Cup.

If homegrown Stamkos wants to raise the Cup as a Leaf, I'm sure he is aware that they won't be equipped to do so if he cap straps them too much.

 

[Tigger]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking so is IMO is tunnel vision.

If anything, you seem to be consumed with Stamkos vision, naturally tunneled. Even you have admitted that past a certain price point, acquiring him doesn't make sense. Can I say enough already?

 

[Kin]

If homegrown Stamkos wants to raise the Cup as a Leaf, I'm sure he is aware that they won't be equipped to do so if he cap straps them too much.

Or, alternately, he's looking at this as primarily a business decision. He might let whatever fondness for the Leafs/his hometown be a tie-breaker but he might just see the Leafs' offer as one attractive possibility among many.

If I were banking a huge chunk of my team's future on signing a particular free agent, I'd be pretty damn sure I had the last and highest offer on the table no matter where he was born.

 

[TBLeafer]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking so is IMO is tunnel vision.

If anything, you seem to be consumed with Stamkos vision, naturally tunneled. Even you have admitted that past a certain price point, acquiring him doesn't make sense. Can I say enough already?

Because to some, signing Stamkos is a perceived DEVIATION from the plan put in place.  A shortcut.  They want to stay on the straight and narrow without the use of the peripheral.

Every smart team builder has a walk away price.

Yes I suppose I do have tunnel vision when it comes to Stamkos.  I don't want to deviate on the path we're on either.  I think its being done brilliantly to this point.

I just don't view Stamkos as a deviation or shortcut from the path.  I view it as getting a little heavier on the gas pedal, while sticking to the same path, just as I did with Babcock.

I never deviated from my belief of landing him, either.  Even when it seemed all hope was lost in the final 24 hours.

I made one post on that seemingly dark day when all hope seemed lost.

 

[Redleaf]

I don't think we're ever going to agree on when this rebuild started so I think its time we agree to disagree and let it lie.

Also, signing a UFA long term to help your build doesn't have to the acquired as the final piece of your rebuild.  Period.

Thinking is is IMO is tunnel vision.

That UFA should still be one that addresses your team's needs, rather than simply the best available UFA within a certain time-span. They don't have the be the final piece - and no one is saying that they have to be - but UFAs that require significant commitment in cap and term should not be brought in until A) the prospects have developed past the point of simply being prospects, and B) the team's needs at that point have been identified.

I think UFA's can and probably should be treated like draft picks for the most part. You get the best player available providing he fits into your plans and cap moving forward.

 

[bustaheims]

I think UFA's can and probably should be treated like draft picks for the most part. You get the best player available providing he fits into your plans and cap moving forward.

That's how you end up like the Rangers of the late 90s/early 2000s - loaded with names, but thin on success. The UFA market is the least efficient tool in the team building toolkit. Using it the way you suggest ends up with a team full of bloated contracts, with little room to manouver.

 

[McGarnagle]

I'm looking forward to the "John Tavares?" thread in a couple years.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I think that's next year. Good times.

 

[Kin]

Saying you should always get the best free agent possible provided he fits into your long term plans and cap is like saying you should always buy the most expensive car possible provided you can afford it and there isn't any other stuff you'd also like to buy.