Steve Stamkos?

[sneakyray]

I wonder if it were an elite dman available like suter a few years ago would there be so many people against but since stammer is a forward and it's a position of relative strength it's not a necessity.  I guess my question is if the leafs sign or trade for an upgrade on d wouldn't that also be accelerating the plan?

You're not allowed to make sense in this debate, so please stop now. 

haha...thanks for that

but I mean really theres talk about sami vatanen.  Hes 25, will cost assets in a trade and will take what...something like reilly money to sign?

say stamkos will sign for 10..who is the better deal vatanen at 6 who will score 15 goals and 45-50 points at the high end, or stamkos who will score 35 goals and 75 points on the low end.

whats the better deal for the leafs for now and in the future?  I'm not sure but I am leaning towards stammer

 

[herman]

I wonder if it were an elite dman available like suter a few years ago would there be so many people against but since stammer is a forward and it's a position of relative strength it's not a necessity.  I guess my question is if the leafs sign or trade for an upgrade on d wouldn't that also be accelerating the plan?

You're not allowed to make sense in this debate, so please stop now. 

haha...thanks for that

but I mean really theres talk about sami vatanen.  Hes 25, will cost assets in a trade and will take what...something like reilly money to sign?

say stamkos will sign for 10..who is the better deal vatanen at 6 who will score 15 goals and 45-50 points at the high end, or stamkos who will score 35 goals and 75 points on the low end.

whats the better deal for the leafs for now and in the future?  I'm not sure but I am leaning towards stammer

You kind of answered it yourself, save for the conclusion.

Adding lots of goals and expectations and expense: accelerating the plan.
Adding some points, presumably at the cost of a forward like JvR+ (subtracting lots more points, btw): a lateral move to solidify a weakness in our foundation.

 

[iwas11in67]

The Leafs biggest glaring need over the past 2-3 seasons has been a number 1 center. Stamkos fills that need.

 

[KadriFan]

The Leafs biggest glaring need over the past 2-3 seasons has been a number 1 center. Stamkos fills that need.

So will Matthews....

 

[sneakyray]

I wonder if it were an elite dman available like suter a few years ago would there be so many people against but since stammer is a forward and it's a position of relative strength it's not a necessity.  I guess my question is if the leafs sign or trade for an upgrade on d wouldn't that also be accelerating the plan?

You're not allowed to make sense in this debate, so please stop now. 

haha...thanks for that

but I mean really theres talk about sami vatanen.  Hes 25, will cost assets in a trade and will take what...something like reilly money to sign?

say stamkos will sign for 10..who is the better deal vatanen at 6 who will score 15 goals and 45-50 points at the high end, or stamkos who will score 35 goals and 75 points on the low end.

whats the better deal for the leafs for now and in the future?  I'm not sure but I am leaning towards stammer

You kind of answered it yourself, save for the conclusion.

Adding lots of goals and expectations and expense: accelerating the plan.
Adding some points, presumably at the cost of a forward like JvR+ (subtracting lots more points, btw): a lateral move to solidify a weakness in our foundation.

All fine and dandy but why trade for a guy who will probably not even be the best dman on the team when you can just sign a guy who will definitely be the best offensive player on the team.  I'll change my mind indefinitely if they can somehow trade for a clear cut, better than Reilly #1 guy but vat an en is not that.  I don't think anyone talked about right now is that guy on d.  But stamkos is that guy up front.

 

[herman]

All fine and dandy but why trade for a guy who will probably not even be the best dman on the team when you can just sign a guy who will definitely be the best offensive player on the team.  I'll change my mind indefinitely if they can somehow trade for a clear cut, better than Reilly #1 guy but vat an en is not that.  I don't think anyone talked about right now is that guy on d.  But stamkos is that guy up front.

What we've been suggesting is holding off on signing Stamkos, and holding course on drafting as high as possible, hunting for #1/2 D, #1 G, and letting the prospect pool develop. Costs us nothing more, we get to see who steps up, and we can save our money for later when maybe a #1D drops from the UFA market or a trade develops.

Trading for someone like Vatanen or Barrie would be bolstering a weakness with someone that is still early in the development curve, while moving JvR, who is an expiring asset from a position of relative strength (we have a lot of LWers, and they're cheaper to replace).

There is no immediate need for Stamkos. No one has been able to give any compelling argument for this, other than HE's RARE AND SHINY AND WE MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS.

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly. Alternatively, as some have suggested, we could just keep Stamkos on to be a good example on the team (for $10M) and keep drafting; several posters have already pointed out how that really doesn't help the build at all and is a ridiculous waste of limited resources.

 

[sneakyray]

All fine and dandy but why trade for a guy who will probably not even be the best dman on the team when you can just sign a guy who will definitely be the best offensive player on the team.  I'll change my mind indefinitely if they can somehow trade for a clear cut, better than Reilly #1 guy but vat an en is not that.  I don't think anyone talked about right now is that guy on d.  But stamkos is that guy up front.

What we've been suggesting is holding off on signing Stamkos, and holding course on drafting as high as possible, hunting for #1/2 D, #1 G, and letting the prospect pool develop. Costs us nothing more, we get to see who steps up, and we can save our money for later when maybe a #1D drops from the UFA market or a trade develops.

Trading for someone like Vatanen or Barrie would be bolstering a weakness with someone that is still early in the development curve, while moving JvR, who is an expiring asset form a position of relative strength (we have a lot of LWers, and they're cheaper to replace).

There is no immediate need for Stamkos. No one has been able to give any compelling argument for this, other than HE's RARE AND SHINY AND WE MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS.

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly. Alternatively, as some have suggested, we could just keep Stamkos on to be a good example on the team (for $10M) and keep drafting; several posters have already pointed out how that really doesn't help the build at all and is a ridiculous waste of limited resources.

If the leafs trade jvr for a 25 year old rfa defenseman that projects as a 3-4 d then I will be upset that they don't get stamkos because they would be doing the same thing but just getting an inferior player (at less cap cost).  Giving up cap space just shuffling chairs around.  Any rfa defenseman will cost more than jvr makes and we already have enough 3-4 type dmen.  Now if we're talking about trading jvr for the next seth jones then I'm ok with that cause its an upgrade to a position of need.

However if jvr is traded for a high pick then I don't think we need to sign stamkos because it won't make sense but if they're trading for other ready-made pieces in the same age bracket then why not get the best guy (more expensive too) but probably the bigger impact player in stamkos.

I am admittedly torn on what I would like the leafs to do.  I would love to see stammer here next year but i would also rather see jvr and bozak traded for high(ish) picks and pick one of the 3 highly ranked defensemen in this draft.  I would also like to see them sign vesey and maybe buy low on someone for cap relief(maybe take nichushkin for the trouble of taking one of dallas' goalies)

basically I think whatever happens at the draft will dictate what path the leafs will take and whether or not they pursue stamkos "at all cost" or whether they just give him a token low ball offer to say they tried.  I think with all of their picks and players they can move there is the potential for alot of fireworks at the draft this year involving the leafs but we'll see.

 

[bustaheims]

There is no immediate need for Stamkos. No one has been able to give any compelling argument for this, other than HE's RARE AND SHINY AND WE MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS.

This might be my favourite thing that's been posted here ever. Definitely in a long time.

 

[herman]

There is no immediate need for Stamkos. No one has been able to give any compelling argument for this, other than HE's RARE AND SHINY AND WE MUST HAVE THE PRECIOUS.

This might be my favourite thing that's been posted here ever. Definitely in a long time.

I will treasure this post forever in my heart.

 

[Bullfrog]

The Leafs biggest glaring need over the past 2-3 seasons has been a number 1 center. Stamkos fills that need.

"And with the first overall pick, the Toronto Maple Leafs select...."

 

[sneakyray]

The Leafs biggest glaring need over the past 2-3 seasons has been a number 1 center. Stamkos fills that need.

"And with the first overall pick, the Toronto Maple Leafs select...."

auston matthews...their 2018/2019 first line centre.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I felt that way as well until 1998.  Felix Potvin was setting or tying various record for 5 years.  The Leafs then signed Cujo.  I was surprised.  But then they flipped Potvin for Berard and the Leafs were much better than before.  Since then I have been open to signing a top UFA, even if it doesn't directly address a weakness, since another team player can then be flipped to address the weakness.

I'd argue that goaltending was a strong need for that Leafs team, as they were among the worst teams in the league in terms of goals against for the previous two seasons. Potvin wasn't getting the job done anymore. He hadn't been the goalie that we like to remember him as.

And, now that we're in the cap era, it's not so easy to flip players to address weaknesses. Trades are much more complicated than they were when Milbury made a typically dumb move and let the Leafs have Berard.

Gonna need a trigger warning here busta.

 

[nutman]

Adding Stamkos would be a very good move, but at a good cost not crazy numbers. The leafs do have if all goes well a very awesome looking forward group, and adding Stamkos would no doubt help bring this forward group to the top. he would shelter the young as well as bring much needed leadership.

I keep hearing arguments about its too soon for him. well he is only 26, so does this mean Kadri, JVR, Bozak, and any other of our very young core are here to soon. According to the rebuild plan its from 2-5 yrs to contend. Well as I see it we are for sure in year two, so this makes him 28 when we are solid enough to compete game in and game out. I would spend 10 mil for him at 28 any day, and what he gives us now is just as valuable.

I also hear he could bring us up to quick, hence us not getting a top five pick next year. Well lets put it this way, looking at the injurys and bad season we had in net, coupled with the fact the team was learning a new system, and we were dumping garbage and giving tryouts. we were not making the bottom five this season anyways, because we will be much better than last years team.

Enter our defence, most of you can remember the great defence we had a few yrs back that six pack with kabs, well I think we almost have that again, and by the end of the upcoming season you will all see that six forming. like we did with kabs group.

As for our goalies, I am not worried as that will work out. we have lots of time for that.

Back to Stamkos..... I say sign him for the right price because he is going to be a big difference maker now and down the road. As well this will not alter the rebuild in any way other then give it a boost. all I see is one more bad season, and then we will start a rapid climb up. During this draft and next our talent pool will be right where it needs to be.

Enter not having Stamkos.... everything slows down, and we have no one to take the heat off our new young guns, this may cause the edmonton effect. all them forwards with no confidence.

 

[ZBBM]

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly.

And if we don't ... uh, we still have a need for a #1D and G.

Getting or not getting Stamkos doesn't affect that in the slightest.

The core argument for signing any UFA is that he makes the team better.  I trust no one in the anti-Stamkos camp denies that signing him would immediately make the Leafs better.

All the rest of this long, and now pretty tedious argument, has boiled down to chess hypotheticals, trying to look 10 moves into the future and figure out what the board will be.  But this isn't chess; there are no rules for building a successful team.

To argue that signing Stamkos would prevent us from becoming a contender simply because the current configuration of the roster isn't ripe enough is a pretty long look into a pretty dark glass IMO.  All these decisions involve imponderables but some of these arguments against signing him are daisy chains of them.

The real arguments against signing him should revolve around his current health status and whether he's the same player after the broken leg.  At least those imponderables are right in front of you.

 

[TBLeafer]

I say for posterity's sake we now close this thread. Its obvious nobody's changing anybody's mind one way or the other and see where the chips fall in just three weeks time.

91 pages of discussion for #91.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly. Alternatively, as some have suggested, we could just keep Stamkos on to be a good example on the team (for $10M) and keep drafting; several posters have already pointed out how that really doesn't help the build at all and is a ridiculous waste of limited resources.

I mean, regardless of whether or not Stamkos is signed there is a need for a #1D and a #1G - they aren't going without attempting to obtain those over the next 7ish years.  At the very least a #1G is required regardless.

But Pittsburgh is also 1 win away from the Cup with a pretty underwhelming defense.  I don't think you necessarily NEED any specific thing if you make up for it elsewhere.  Teams have won the Cup recently with underwhelming goaltending going into the playoffs as well (see Niemi).

 

[bustaheims]

I felt that way as well until 1998.  Felix Potvin was setting or tying various record for 5 years.  The Leafs then signed Cujo.  I was surprised.  But then they flipped Potvin for Berard and the Leafs were much better than before.  Since then I have been open to signing a top UFA, even if it doesn't directly address a weakness, since another team player can then be flipped to address the weakness.

I'd argue that goaltending was a strong need for that Leafs team, as they were among the worst teams in the league in terms of goals against for the previous two seasons. Potvin wasn't getting the job done anymore. He hadn't been the goalie that we like to remember him as.

And, now that we're in the cap era, it's not so easy to flip players to address weaknesses. Trades are much more complicated than they were when Milbury made a typically dumb move and let the Leafs have Berard.

Gonna need a trigger warning here busta.

Back in my day, we didn't have trigger warnings and we turned out just fine!

 

[Tigger]

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly.

And if we don't ... uh, we still have a need for a #1D and G.

Getting or not getting Stamkos doesn't affect that in the slightest.

The core argument for signing any UFA is that he makes the team better.  I trust no one in the anti-Stamkos camp denies that signing him would immediately make the Leafs better.

All the rest of this long, and now pretty tedious argument, has boiled down to chess hypotheticals, trying to look 10 moves into the future and figure out what the board will be.  But this isn't chess; there are no rules for building a successful team.

To argue that signing Stamkos would prevent us from becoming a contender simply because the current configuration of the roster isn't ripe enough is a pretty long look into a pretty dark glass IMO.  All these decisions involve imponderables but some of these arguments against signing him are daisy chains of them.

The real arguments against signing him should revolve around his current health status and whether he's the same player after the broken leg.  At least those imponderables are right in front of you.

There are some rules in the cap era, build and develop through the draft, not free agency, especially when bottoming out and not just kicking tires on a rebuild. Sign free agents that address your specific needs when it is the timely thing to do and at your price. The Leafs are closer to needing the 'sign and flip' deals then they are the other end of the spectrum. I don't think anyone is saying don't sign Stamkos only due to the callow nature of the team, more that in confluence with his impact on the cap, the potential draft position and team needs it could be a mistake, even if he's still a goal scoring machine.

I said somewhere before that getting him at 9.5 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, so, there's that, just that I don't think that's what he's going to get and even then it seems troublesome for where the Leafs are at.

 

[herman]

If we spring for Stamkos, then we create a need for #1D, #1G to maximize Stamkos' tenure here and that will cost us dearly.

And if we don't ... uh, we still have a need for a #1D and G.

Getting or not getting Stamkos doesn't affect that in the slightest.

The core argument for signing any UFA is that he makes the team better.  I trust no one in the anti-Stamkos camp denies that signing him would immediately make the Leafs better.

All the rest of this long, and now pretty tedious argument, has boiled down to chess hypotheticals, trying to look 10 moves into the future and figure out what the board will be.  But this isn't chess; there are no rules for building a successful team.

To argue that signing Stamkos would prevent us from becoming a contender simply because the current configuration of the roster isn't ripe enough is a pretty long look into a pretty dark glass IMO.  All these decisions involve imponderables but some of these arguments against signing him are daisy chains of them.

You're absolutely right we would still need #1D and #1G without Stamkos. The issue is that with Stamkos, the Leafs will be pressured to get those pieces right away (with 10M+ cap consumed). Without Stamkos, the Leafs have the freedom to assess their internal depth and make those moves with more information, more cap space, more flexibility, more freedom to build the team in whatever way is opportune.

Getting him certainly makes us better right away. What's the point of that at this early stage of the rebuild though? Do you want the Leafs to be immediately better? at such a cost? Is it not better to bide our time and build the cap space to spring for a heavy hitter when everyone in the system is at their peak?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I say for posterity's sake we now close this thread. Its obvious nobody's changing anybody's mind one way or the other and see where the chips fall in just three weeks time.

91 pages of discussion for #91.

You heard the man, 91 pages for #91 John Tavares.