Stamkos Debate - PostDeadline 2016

[dirk41]

Why sign Stamkos for $10 million when you can have Vrbata and Boedker combined for $11 million!

False dilemma alert.

On that note, though, I feel bad for the team that signs Boedker.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Having Stamkos on the team takes a lot of the pressure from our young forwards as well. That can be worth a lot on its own.

 

[Once]

Our young players coming up are all going to be under team control for several years. If we sign Stamkos to a long term deal at a 10 million dollar cap hit, it won't necessarily hinder our ability to keep our young core together for the duration of his contract.

I guess my issue is length of term because I doubt he will want anything less than 8 years. We are flushing out long contracts and overpaid players, why sign another.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

False dilemma alert.

On that note, though, I feel bad for the team that signs Boedker.

Does that not depend on what they sign him for?

 

[rdawg1234]

My concern with Stamkos is what he does to our roster now and 3-4 years from now, when we want to lock up our kids and we have a 30 year old center on the decline with a boat anchor of a contract hanging over us for another 3+ years.

If we draft Matthews, I really can't see Stamkos as being a fit here: three very good young centers in the fold, not to mention Bozak and Kadri that would need to be moved.

Why would Stamkos decline at the age of 30? he's an elite skilled player and does not have skating issues(the reason why some guys like dany heatley in the past few seasons have heavily declined).

There is no reason to think a player like him will decline, guy has one of the most accurate shots in league(right next to OVI who is around 30 right now!)

and your 2nd paragraph is a great problem to have, means we can trade another guy to help balance the team out on D.

 

[Gallagbi]

Hmm… useless…. well, let's examine the argument shall we?

Scoring is clearly not down across the NHL.

Your chart shows this as the lowest scoring year since "the great lockout". Most would say that's down.

Might want to alert the source that they're showing avg goals per team not GPG.

 

[Stephen]

False dilemma alert.

On that note, though, I feel bad for the team that signs Boedker.

The only false dilemma is Stamkos vs Nylander, Marner and the 2016 1st being re-signed.

 

[Pookie]

Your chart shows this as the lowest scoring year since "the great lockout". Most would say that's down.

Might want to alert the source that they're showing avg goals per team not GPG.

You saw the part where context on what 0.03 goals per game actually means right?

And the comparison to 2001-2004 or the late 1990's where it is actually "up"?

You saw that right?

BTW… Stamkos' decline started in 2013-14

 

[rdawg1234]

Im sorry guys but if you can get Stamkos at 10m you take it and run.

He wont be the guy that destroys a tank or anything, but when we start getting competitive he will be a massive piece that we'd be missing without him.

We have a massive amount of capspace now and at least for the next 2-3 seasons(unless another massive free agent wants to come here) as the majority of our team will be on their ELC's or bridge contracts for the next 3-5 seasons.

The pro's far outweigh the cons, if he does start to decline, his contract won't be long enough to affect us(it will end when he's 33, which is very young for an elite player).

Bring him home make him our leader going forward, plus having him and a coach like Babcock will just make other players want to join us even more.

 

[Grapes1]

Hmm… useless…. well, let's examine the argument shall we?

Scoring is clearly not down across the NHL.

Your hypothesis is that it is down amongst the league's top scorers as a result of the team utilizing more players across minutes and distributing the offense.

Meaning that the variance is dropping between the top players and the bottom players… presumably as a result of these systems/utilization.

Correct?

So if scoring isn't down across the NHL and scoring IS down amongst the top scorers, then presumably it is the middle of the pack player that is making up the difference.

Correct?

So if they are filling the gap… and the net apparently… why in the hell would any team load up their cap on a single player that will produce with only a slight variance to a middle of the pack player??

You don't actually believe this do you?

Elite talent trumps mediocre talent. Of course middle of the pack players help, but all the top teams have elite talent. Also, in close games, in playoffs, in OT, powerplays etc. when benches are shortened, its the elite talent you depend on.

The guy is the second best goal scorer next to Ovechkin since he has been in the league and he is only going to be 26.

 

[Pookie]

You don't actually believe this do you?

Elite talent trumps mediocre talent. Of course middle of the pack players help, but all the top teams have elite talent. Also, in close games, in playoffs, in OT, powerplays etc. when benches are shortened, its the elite talent you depend on.

The guy is the second best goal scorer next to Ovechkin since he has been in the league and he is only going to be 26.

Before things get all twisted as they do here… I'm challenging the notion that goals are down league wide and that explains his production decline.

The rebuttal to that was that goals for top scorers are down. So, my post was meant as a challenge point to that.

As for your comments about him and Ovechkin… I guess if we are paying for past performance then yeah. Ok. Elite. If you are looking at him now though… you've had 3 seasons of steadily decline that can't be explained away as a goals are down across the league.

They aren't. His points are. He's in the Top 25, not Top 2.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

And need to resign kadri, Rielly, a goalie, carrick,Holland or equvilant, and potentially vet defenseman.

Tighter than it looks.

Outside of Rielly, none of these guys should be of concern or deserve precedence when it comes to the possibility of signing Stamkos. Really, Carrick and Holland?

For me, you sign Stamkos and work the cap around him, not sign the likes of Carrick, Holland and fillers on D and in net and then see if you can fit Stamkos in. You're trying to build the best and most talented team possible. Stamkos achieves that, then you fill the holes with plugs.

 

[Ovate]

Hmm… useless…. well, let's examine the argument shall we?

Scoring is clearly not down across the NHL.

Your hypothesis is that it is down amongst the league's top scorers as a result of the team utilizing more players across minutes and distributing the offense.

Meaning that the variance is dropping between the top players and the bottom players… presumably as a result of these systems/utilization.

Correct?

So if scoring isn't down across the NHL and scoring IS down amongst the top scorers, then presumably it is the middle of the pack player that is making up the difference.

Correct?

So if they are filling the gap… and the net apparently… why in the hell would any team load up their cap on a single player that will produce with only a slight variance to a middle of the pack player??

The marginal production of top players (how many more points they create than their replacement) is just as high as ever, if not more so, it's just reflected in their point totals less.

Imagine you have a 1st line that scores 100 goals a season and a 2nd line that scores 50. Take a player off that top line and swap them with a player on the 2nd line. You now have a a 1st line that scores 85 goals and a 2nd line that scores 70. But the top line players who were getting 80 points a year on the top line are now scoring 70 a year instead. That player who went down lines went from scoring 80 points to scoring 60, even though he's creating five more goals on his new line than he was on the old one.

Scoring is constant league wide, but the top scorers are scoring less while lesser players are scoring more. The top scorers are just as good as they were before, and are creating just as many goals. They're just having fewer goals created for them. It means their point totals go down, but they're just as valuable as they've always been.

 

[Babcocks Marner]

They haven't emerged, and may not ever emerge.

I really don't like when pro-Stamkos people use this argument. Mostly because if Stamkos is going to be effective, you better be counting on players like Marner, Nylander, etc.

If they bust, Stamkos can't help us anymore. So when we talk about signing Stamkos, I have in my mind that Nylander/Marner will be studs, and feeding him sweet passes.

If we had the prospect pool of Pittsburgh(without the team), Stamkos would be a horrible fit imo.

 

[cookie]

Man...can't we sign Stamkos to a cap circumventing contract like the Hawks management did with Hossa?

 

[Gallagbi]

You saw the part where context on what 0.03 goals per game actually means right?

Sure did, which is why I didn't say down dramatically. Still, saying its "down" is accurate. I'd also say scoring has been trending down for years.

That'd be .06 GPG, correct? Still a small down from last year and every one post lockout.

And the comparison to 2001-2004 or the late 1990's where it is actually "up"?

Doesn't sound like anyone is comparing it to pre lockout/salary cap times, where it was a known issue and the NHL took steps to improve scoring (and is now doing the same).

 

[Grapes1]

Before things get all twisted as they do here… I'm challenging the notion that goals are down league wide and that explains his production decline.

The rebuttal to that was that goals for top scorers are down. So, my post was meant as a challenge point to that.

As for your comments about him and Ovechkin… I guess if we are paying for past performance then yeah. Ok. Elite. If you are looking at him now though… you've had 3 seasons of steadily decline that can't be explained away as a goals are down across the league.

They aren't. His points are. He's in the Top 25, not Top 2.

I don't know how you can say 3 seasons of steady decline. He had 43 goals last year, second in the league to OVI, and this was after the leg break. He is 8th in goals this year.. a few away from 3rd.

Are his points down? yes, but but I'm willing to attribute that to his situation in TB... You put him with elite talent like some of the other players at the top, I'm confident his assists go back up... Bottom line is this guy knows how to score goals.. and he proved it the year after his leg break, he is heating up again this year as well, and he is only 26.... the guy has not forgotten how to put the puck in the net... and from watching him closely the other night, he looks fast.. the leg does not seem to be a problem.

 

[cookie]

For one thing, powerplays are down. If the NHL were to increase scoring, I'd look there as the first place to get patched up.

 

[Swervin81]

Man...can't we sign Stamkos to a cap circumventing contract like the Hawks management did with Hossa?

Nope.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I don't know how you can say 3 seasons of steady decline. He had 43 goals last year, second in the league to OVI, and this was after the leg break. He is 8th in goals this year.. a few away from 3rd.

Are his points down? yes, but but I'm willing to attribute that to his situation in TB... You put him with elite talent like some of the other players at the top, I'm confident his assists go back up... Bottom line is this guy knows how to score goals.. and he proved it the year after his leg break, he is heating up again this year as well, and he is only 26.... the guy has not forgotten how to put the puck in the net... and from watching him closely the other night, he looks fast.. the leg does not seem to be a problem.

There you go.

 

[Grapes1]

There you go.

To be fair, Pookie was talking "Goals are down"... but nice cherry picking.

 

[Menzinger]

Why would Stamkos decline at the age of 30? he's an elite skilled player and does not have skating issues(the reason why some guys like dany heatley in the past few seasons have heavily declined).

There is no reason to think a player like him will decline, guy has one of the most accurate shots in league(right next to OVI who is around 30 right now!)

and your 2nd paragraph is a great problem to have, means we can trade another guy to help balance the team out on D.

Most players tend to decline at 30.

It doesn't mean they turn into bad players, just that they're best days are behind them. I can still see a guy like Stamkos putting up 70+ points at 30. I just don't think he'll put up a 90 point season.

 

[Stephen]

I really don't like when pro-Stamkos people use this argument. Mostly because if Stamkos is going to be effective, you better be counting on players like Marner, Nylander, etc.

If they bust, Stamkos can't help us anymore. So when we talk about signing Stamkos, I have in my mind that Nylander/Marner will be studs, and feeding him sweet passes.

If we had the prospect pool of Pittsburgh(without the team), Stamkos would be a horrible fit imo.

The big picture argument is we are in an accumulation phase of the rebuild, using any means necessary to accumulate talent. Drafting, developing, using financial advantage to take on bad contracts and UFAs and trades are all valid methods.

Everyone has high hopes for all of our kids, but it isn't likely they all pan out as $10 million players. So instead of worrying that your hypothetical 2020 cap is bursting with future hall of famers because Kapanen pulled one toe drag, and thus can't afford one Stamkos in 2016, consider the possibility of signing Stamkos to an intelligently structured contract (i.e. to a front loaded contract that tapers off so you have an easier time with the option of moving him after year 5), and keep building. Keep drafting high, keep developing, and see what sticks, and move strength for weakness down the road.

 

[thewave]

Outside of Rielly, none of these guys should be of concern or deserve precedence when it comes to the possibility of signing Stamkos. Really, Carrick and Holland?

For me, you sign Stamkos and work the cap around him, not sign the likes of Carrick, Holland and fillers on D and in net and then see if you can fit Stamkos in. You're trying to build the best and most talented team possible. Stamkos achieves that, then you fill the holes with plugs.

Discards

Lupul 5.25m 2y >>> Leivo
Laich 4.5m 1y >>> Leipsic
Bozak 4.2m 2y >>> Nylander
Michalek 4m 1y >>> Kapanen
Greening 2.65m 1y >>> Hyman
Robidas 3m 1y >>> Carrick
Bernier 4.15m 1y >>> Sparks + ???
Cowen 3.1m 1y >>> NA (BO)
-----------------------
30.9 Million (7m for potential replacements)

I think we will be OK for cap.

 

[Ovate]

Most players tend to decline at 30.

It doesn't mean they turn into bad players, just that they're best days are behind them. I can still see a guy like Stamkos putting up 70+ points at 30. I just don't think he'll put up a 90 point season.

Star players, especially strong skaters, tend to last longer before seeing a decline.

With Stamkos's shot, I would expect him to be at least an Iginla like player past the point where his next contract ends.