• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Steve Stamkos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nik the Trik said:
Except they're not really. I get the idea that 4 high level prospects is "a good base to build around" but the reality is that the likelihood is that one of those guys won't turn out to be what we want them to be. We're not talking about four #1 or #2 picks here. We're talking about 4 guys picked #8, #5, #4 and wherever. As optimistic as I am about these guys individually, there's not a surefire top of the league guy among them(and the guy we know the most about, Rielly, is showing us mixed things about his ability to ever get there.)
Click to expand...

I mean, I think I'm with you here for the most part. As much as I like Rielly/Marner/Nylander, none of them are that franchise-type player that every team needs. And unless we win the lottery the 2016 draft pick won't have that attribute either. So maybe I shouldn't have said that they're a good base to build around, but that them, plus Stamkos, would be a good base to build around. And that of course leads into your next point...

Nik the Trik said:
So basically by building around the core you're suggesting you're either wagering heavily on at least one of the guys in the system to be an elite, top of the league sort of player, which the odds aren't good on, or you're expecting Stamkos to be that for the length of the deal which is also a mixed bag considering where he is right now.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I've picked option number 2 here. Although I'm definitely not closing the door on one of those prospects (either Marner or Nylander) getting pretty close to joining Stamkos in that category down the line. I guess I understand the reservations about Stamkos being an elite talent, I just don't share them. I think his "struggles" (and remember, he scored 43 goals last season) are more tied to his surroundings than his talent. So yes, I'm comfortable in Stamkos being that elite/franchise player for this group for at least a good portion of his deal. I only go that far because nobody can say what a player or a team or even the league will look like 6-7 years from now. But I'd still be comfortable enough to take the Stamkos-plunge.

I suppose my biggest issue is that I don't really see how the alternative is that much better. Say we don't sign Stamkos and we have 2 more years of high-draft picks to select from. Well now we've got 6 high level prospects, decent chance that neither of the extra 2 will be franchise type players because even if we continue to be a bottom-3/5 team, which will start getting more difficult, the new lottery rules change everything. And then we would need to consider that 2 of them might not pan out how we'd like them to. I don't hate that alternative, I don't think signing Stamkos is the ONLY way for this team to contend, I'm just not convinced it's a better way.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Patrick said:
People not wanting to pick up a 25-year-old star for no asset cost, in the hope that we can be bad and maybe get a star via the draft is absolutely puzzling, even when you consider the "gunshy due to the past" stuff.
Click to expand...

That's only if you assume that there's a strict(and short) timetable  where the Leafs have to be competitive in a year or two. Because if the actual plan is to rebuild properly it's not "be bad and maybe get a star in the draft" it's "be bad until you get a star in the draft".
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a case of making assumptions, have you heard absolutely anything from the coach or management that make you think they would be fine "being bad" for the next, say five years?

Everything I've heard them say and everything those in the media with sources have indicated, seems to point to them expecting to be a relatively good team in short order(17-18), while still maintaining a smart draft and development strategy.

I don't think the plan was ever to nosedive ala the Oilers till you "get a star".
 
bustaheims said:
But, even if Kadri and JvR aren't moved, there's still Bozak, Lupul, Phaneuf, Gardiner and Komarov who could all be traded, and the rest of the team are basically pending UFAs.
Click to expand...

Pending a Stamkos signing, Bozak's role as 2C would be replaced by Kadri anyway, so I don't think trading Bozak would really hurt the teams playoff chances. Lupul would be easy enough to replace, especially when you factor in a replacement could probably play a whole season. Losing Phaneuf would hurt short-term, definitely. Although it would help alleviate some of the long-term salary cap concerns I have. But even with his improved play I don't see a team biting on him so he's staying put anyway. I'd add Gardiner into the same group as Kadri and JVR. And while Komarov is an appealing trade option I think he's playing his way into being an organizational favourite that they'll likely want to hang on to as well long-term.

I do get what you're saying and where you're coming from. If the teams plans include trading most or all of Kadri, JVR, Gardiner, and Komarov for futures, that would change how I feel about Stamkos. I just don't think that's in the teams plans.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
I mean, I think I'm with you here for the most part. As much as I like Rielly/Marner/Nylander, none of them are that franchise-type player that every team needs. And unless we win the lottery the 2016 draft pick won't have that attribute either. So maybe I shouldn't have said that they're a good base to build around, but that them, plus Stamkos, would be a good base to build around. And that of course leads into your next point...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe to reel it in a little because like I said I am pretty optimistic about these young guys and I certainly don't want to rule out their being great either I think it's maybe fairer to say that we don't know what Rielly/Nylander/Marner/2016 guy are and I think when you're talking about guys you build around you really need to either be talking about guys you're sure about or McDavid type prospects.

Or let me use a different hypothetical. Let's say Nylander and Marner are everything we want them to be. Heck, let's say we also add Matthew Tkachuk and he's a superstar. Then you add Stamkos and he's everything he was of a few years ago and...well, you've got four superstar forwards. If Rielly ends up being more of a #2 type where do you go. Yes, you can draft elite defensemen outside of the top 5 but the odds there are you're talking 5 or 6 years before they reach that level. Trade? I'm guessing Florida would turn down any offer for Ekblad.

Right? We talk about the key to Chicago's success being their ability to draft well outside of the top five but a lot of that had to do with when they drafted well outside of the top five. They were hitting bullseyes four and five years before Toews and Kane.

If they'd drafted Duncan Keith in the second round of the 2007 draft or Corey Crawford in 2008...how many cups do they win? Those guys took the better part of a decade to become the players that Chicago ultimately needed.
 
Patrick said:
Well, it's not a case of making assumptions, have you heard absolutely anything from the coach or management that make you think they would be fine "being bad" for the next, say five years?

Everything I've heard them say and everything those in the media with sources have indicated, seems to point to them expecting to be a relatively good team in short order(17-18), while still maintaining a smart draft and development strategy.

I don't think the plan was ever to nosedive ala the Oilers till you "get a star".
Click to expand...

Well, two things. One, you're right, I haven't heard anyone say "The plan is to be terrible until we have the right pieces in place". What I might say in response to that is there are two other sports franchises I didn't hear that from that I think are relevant. One is the Philadelphia 76ers. They said a lot of the same stuff Babcock did about there being a "short process" and "short-term pain" and then they went out and tanked so egregiously that it looks like the NBA eventually stepped in to put a stop to it. So even if it's true, it's not something you announce.

The other team who didn't say their plan was to suck like the Oilers until they got McDavid? The Oilers. As the late, great Mike Tyson once said, everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face.

The second thing, and this is a shorter point, is that I didn't say I was speaking for the team's stated goals. I'm just saying that the counterpoint to the Stamkos argument has to do with an alternate plan, not necessarily fitting into the existing plan. If, as you say, Shanahan's plan is to give it a couple of tough years and then, if the right pieces still aren't in place, he damns the torpedoes and goes full speed ahead anyway I can't really answer for that but what I think is the right course of action isn't dictated by it either.
 
So my plan is to tank the hell out of this year, win the lottery, draft Matthews, and sign Stamkos.

Now, for the defense....
 
Stamkos signs a 4 year deal with the Leafs, claims it's a dream to wear the blue and white.

Stamkos then requests a trade to help the Leafs stockpile more picks and young talent, with the personal objective of coming back four years later when the prospect pool has matured into bona fide NHLers/stars.

Can't/won't happen but would be nice!
 
Patrick said:
From 85 to 89 he absolutely was great, probably the greatest..
Click to expand...

I think he sort of made his bones demolishing what was a pretty thin heavyweight division. Who was the best fighter he ever beat? A past his prime Larry Holmes? Michael Spinks?

That's really neither here nor there, I suppose I meant that he is not someone I would describe as a great figure or person even if he was a champion boxer.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Patrick said:
From 85 to 89 he absolutely was great, probably the greatest..
Click to expand...

I think he sort of made his bones demolishing what was a pretty thin heavyweight division. Who was the best fighter he ever beat? A past his prime Larry Holmes? Michael Spinks?

That's really neither here nor there, I suppose I meant that he is not someone I would describe as a great figure or person even if he was a champion boxer.
Click to expand...

I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.
 
Patrick said:
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.
Click to expand...

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic
 
Nik the Trik said:
Patrick said:
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.
Click to expand...

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic
Click to expand...

Not at all.  Rumor has it that Leafs have been thinking about signing Tyson to replace Clune.
 
L K said:
Nik the Trik said:
Patrick said:
I think he was the greatest boxer and a deeply flawed person.

I also think the Heavyweight division looked very thin because he absolutely destroyed everyone, we've never really seen a boxer absolutely dominate and physically annihilate a division for a four year stretch like that.
Click to expand...

We could chicken and egg that all day but it's not like he was an old man when he fought Holyfield. He was 30. Got two cracks at him. Lost both. I'm happy going with Ali as my GOAT.

Although there's a slight possibility we've gone off topic
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with Ali as the best. Although I think that like most elite boxers that in his early prime that Tyson could have beaten anyone including Ali.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd argue with any of this. That was more were I was going with my from 85-89 comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top