Stamkos VS Johansen (Who do you prefer?)

[Mess]

I'd take both as that is the best outcome and you could combine the free and trade assets together as the cost of acquisition.

Leafs would add Stamkos and Johansen for the trading cost of RyJo only.

If you add only Stammer then you are dealing with an extreme cap hit and without outgoing assets it makes cap management more difficult.

If you add only Ryan Johansen then you have dealt prime rebuild assets and the advantage to your team realized is the differential value only between what is going out and coming in (ie Kadri, Gardner & high pick).

So you have to go big or go home to get the best & biggest bang for your buck.

However that is all simply theoretical as the asking price for Johansen from the Leafs would require Nylander, Marner or Rielly to be included and that likely makes it a NO-Go. Stamkos would prefer to stay in TB and still a strong probability of that happening.

So NONE is the outcome I'm expecting.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

is Stamkos a better player? 71 vs 72 points last year Ryjo did some penalty killing 52% on draws better then Stammer, while Stammer didn't kill penalty's played on a vastly superior team. and this year 22 vs 25 points while one is apparently lazy and out of shape. so is Stamkos actually the better player right now? what does Stamkos do that's better then Ryjo other then his shot? and will Stamkos be better in the future, which is really the most important part. what they have been means nothing really.

That's the same logic that had the majority here slobbering to sign David Clarkson.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

Giving up the assets for this player is a huge negative.
We are not in a position to sell any core, not in the very least. They would want Nylander/Marner/Rielly/1st(tor) - none of which would/should be traded.

Anything outside of those are on the table, but would not entice.


--

Stamkos is not even close to the David Clarkson type signing. He isn't even close to the Brad Richards circus. I can't think of a more 'prime' player to hit FA? He would be worth the market rate and help build our team, I would sign him - in a heart beat, if he also "wanted" us.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

When a last place team is willing to deal a young #1 center with size, alarm bells should start ringing. Something isn't right with Johansen, clearly. I'll take the guy who doesn't cost assets and doesn't come with baggage.

That thing that is wrong with Johansen has a name, they call it Torts

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Voted Stamkos want both

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Giving up the assets for this player is a huge negative.
We are not in a position to sell any core, not in the very least. They would want Nylander/Marner/Rielly/1st(tor) - none of which would/should be traded.

Anything outside of those are on the table, but would not entice.


--

Stamkos is not even close to the David Clarkson type signing. He isn't even close to the Brad Richards circus. I can't think of a more 'prime' player to hit FA? He would be worth the market rate and help build our team, I would sign him - in a heart beat, if he also "wanted" us.

I believe you missed the point of the Clarkson comment entirely.

 

[Le Cobra]

Who is johansen

 

[ULF_55]

Giving up the assets for this player is a huge negative.
We are not in a position to sell any core, not in the very least. They would want Nylander/Marner/Rielly/1st(tor) - none of which would/should be traded.

Anything outside of those are on the table, but would not entice.
--
Stamkos is not even close to the David Clarkson type signing. He isn't even close to the Brad Richards circus. I can't think of a more 'prime' player to hit FA? He would be worth the market rate and help build our team, I would sign him - in a heart beat, if he also "wanted" us.

Why do people think the BJ's would want a Nylander or Marner when their need is defense?

Additionally, the 1st. doesn't really help them win games, and they aren't in a rebuilding phase.

Certainly, they might have interest in Rielly, but I think they really would like to see a healthy Murray for the year. Savard, Murray, Connauton, Prout all 25 and younger.

I think they need Phaneuf more than they need another kid. Check out how many 25 and younger players they've iced this year!

 

[Daisy Jane]

here are the things I would be considering.

1: Is the Ryan Johansen situation anywhere similar to the following situations:

A:Boston trading Joe Thornton or Boston trading Tyler Seguin.
Both reputed to have issues that Boston simply couldn't deal with anymore and traded them.

Joe may not have won the cup, but let's not pretend Joe Thornton is a slouch either.
And Seguin showed that he grew up (for the most part), and he is thriving in Dallas.

or is it

B: Boston Trading Phil Kessel.
who did have some issues, which quite frankly never really resolved themselves despite Kessel being very talented.

i think you need to ascertain which is which. Both are risks (because you don't really know until you've acquired them).

And then you have to factor in, (in my opinion) the Babcock factor. Whatever Johansen's issues may be, will Babcock/Lou/Shanahan be able to just get to it, and figure things out and set him a Seguin/Joe path v. Kessel. (age in my opinion does become a massive factor).

2: How much does Ryan Johansen think he's really worth?
his sitout last season? (it was last season right?) of camp because of a very public contract dispute didn't sit well with me (It NEVER sits well with me). and I would rather not trade for that headache. At the same time the situation very well could be easier for the Leafs v. for Columbus. (It was really bad and really ugly down there, and the situation now easily could be stemming from that).

3: How Much do the Leafs think he's worth?
I have seen a lot of people go "ew. no." to trading Kadri, Jake and Dion for him. (because while they are trading their potential forward star - what they SIGNIFICANTLY need is to upgrade their defense,

Is A 23/24 year old Johansen worth
A Kadri, A Jake and a Dion (or a combination of that?) I can't even really remember what Seguin went for. I know Reilly was involved and they don't have him either.

so the question is is Kadri > or < than a Johansen?
is Jake?
We already know what Dion is and more importantly, what he's costing us.


you'd also have to consider our contracts situation (and keeping in mind the players we'd be losing off waivers the next year or two, and those we'd want to sign). we can not retain "all the assets"


vs. signing Steven Stamkos

1: Steven Stamkos is worth _________ for 7 years
that's the debate we've had basically since the summer. 9.1? 10? 10.5? 11? 14? even the removal of bad contracts, etc, we're not really considering the flat Canadian dollar, which results in a low moving salary cap.


2: Steven Stamkos actually signing with us.

3: the ability to continue to build a team around Stamkos with his cap hit without wasting his prime years (this isn't really a debate that "omg he'll suck at 30" just... the acknowledgement that he'll be his very best between the ages of 26-30. Maybe the whole "decline in abilities" doesn't really rank for superstars etc, but I think we can all can agree his very best is right now, right?

i'd really have to think about it.

 

[Punch Drunk Loov]

Making this decision in 2015 is really difficult. It would appear that a UFA Stamkos is a way better option than losing assets for Ryan.

Judging by my perception of our management group, we won't consider trading for Ryan anyways so I believe they would prefer Stamkos.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

I believe you missed the point of the Clarkson comment entirely.

Might have - My point was focusing on making a huge FA splash, and Leaf fans thinking that signing the most sought after fish, is the means to success. In the past there has been a ton of failures; and I may be ignorant to think Stamkos is not one of them. But I really think this is a different dog, not comparable to other high-end FAs. That is why I didn't want to quote you, moreso just as an overview.

Why do people think the BJ's would want a Nylander or Marner when their need is defense?

Additionally, the 1st. doesn't really help them win games, and they aren't in a rebuilding phase.

Certainly, they might have interest in Rielly, but I think they really would like to see a healthy Murray for the year. Savard, Murray, Connauton, Prout all 25 and younger.

I think they need Phaneuf more than they need another kid. Check out how many 25 and younger players they've iced this year!

I don't think Phaneuf would be sought after in any deal for RyJo, but hey; if he is, great.
I didn't dig into their team needs. If it is for a ready now Dman; outside of Rielly, who shouldn't be moved, we really don't make sense in trade.

IMO, at the draft if we are in a position for one of the Finn wingers - I think their GM would be the one calling around.

Now is Phaneuf + Laine/Puji for RyJo + Rychel - something we may consider?

 

[Buds17]

Good question! Stamkos. Still might have to move assets for cap reasons, but moving assets for that reason is one thing, and moving assets for a player that doesn't necessarily have to be dealt is another.

 

[Stephen]

I like Stamkos better and I think it would be the bigger splash but I'm actually leaning towards Johansen as more of a better building block. You can get a lot done with a big body skilled centerman in this league. The real question is what he would cost in a trade, because Stammer would only cost money.

 

[Mess]

2014-15 Stats

Stamkos (age 24) ... 82 games 43 goals 29 assists 72 points

Johansen (age 22) .. 82 games 26 goals 45 assists 71 points

Point differential last season +1 for Stamkos (but 2 years older).

 

[gabeliscious]

2014-15 Stats

Stamkos (age 24) ... 82 games 43 goals 29 assists 72 points

Johansen (age 22) .. 82 games 26 goals 45 assists 71 points

Point differential last season +1 for Stamkos (but 2 years older).

whats the differential for character issues, health issues, contract issues, career stats, and upside?

hard to argue that johansen isn't an amazing young center however he does seem to have some question marks around him. inversely stamkos also has some question marks - is he a 60 goal scorer or a 35 goal scorer? is he looking for $11 million???

at the end of the day I think both are pipedreams however stamkos is a slight possibility in that he could become a ufa. johansen on the other hand is an rfa and we simply don't have the assets that we would part with to get a deal done.

 

[tolwyn]

Making this decision in 2015 is really difficult. It would appear that a UFA Stamkos is a way better option than losing assets for Ryan.

Judging by my perception of our management group, we won't consider trading for Ryan anyways so I believe they would prefer Stamkos.

I agree. I'd definitely love to see what Johansen could bring to our team, but we shouldn't be giving up assets to acquire guys like that - at least, not the assets I'm sure Columbus wants in return (As mentioned already, likely one of Rielly/Nylander/Marner plus others) If we could somehow swing a deal around some lesser assets like Phaneuf&Kadri++, sure... Other teams will have better offers though.

Stamkos is the only realistic guy they should be looking at. Don't want him for $10+ mil. We just hope he gains a step back in his game being under Babcock and becomes a better centerman than he is now (Faceoffs and a bit of defensive play please). I certainly do think he'd give us a huge boost all around. He's got great work ethic and he'd only have 5(?) years left after Marner/Nylander/etc are off their ELCs.

I believe the pros outweight the cons for Stamkos for the most part, especially taking into consideration we'd be giving up zero assets.

 

[Darkside Blue]

I'd love RJ, but aren't there health questions? I'd hate to get him and then have another Luca Cereda on our hands.

 

[TheProspector]

Obviously, it would depend on what assets go back in a RyJo trade. But signing Stamkos as a UFA should be the Leafs' #1 priority, whether they make any more trades here, or not. Sign and trade for great players, and worry about jiggering the cap space later. We can shed cap to accommodate it.

 

[Mystifo]

Well not going to lie from the poll/responses I find it odd how so many people are just instantly saying "Stamkos no question." I mean I get it I like Stamkos too but Johansen is not just some tweener.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Well not going to lie from the poll/responses I find it odd how so many people are just instantly saying "Stamkos no question." I mean I get it I like Stamkos too but Johansen is not just some tweener.

It's pretty simple: one requires giving up no assets.

Unless you can land Ryjo for assets you plan to get rid of anyway, it makes no sense.

 

[Advanced stats]

in all honesty...neither. Both options will bite you in the a$$ later.

 

[Menzinger]

I'd feel safer with Stamkos.

Though I might choose "neither" if given the option.

 

[Peace Frog]

This is a no brainer. Geesh!

 

[BertCorbeau]

Poll results are pretty clear on this one. Closed.