GDT: 2017 NHL Free Agent Frenzy | July 1st, 2017 | 12:00 PM EST (18:00 CET)

[Rschmitz]

I don't want to derail this thread, but a heavy amount of the criticism for Stamkos was for his impact when he's not scoring. It was inflated due to the contract he was expected to sign, but they were fair criticisms nonetheless. He was on a hot streak when he got injured last season, so a lot of this is buried in the back of our minds, but it's definitely something we need to be weary about. I have faith that him and Kucherov will pick up on their chemistry though.

Yeah I agree. The complaints saying he wasn't playing like a #1 or deserved a massive contract were totally justified. I think having to defend that stance to other fans came across as him being in our doghouse though.

Last year, when he was playing with Kucherov consistently, he was absolutely a monster though so the reference to Stamkos having no skill when paired together is very misplaced.

 

[DFC]

Yeah I agree. The complaints saying he wasn't playing like a #1 or deserved a massive contract were totally justified. I think having to defend that stance to other fans came across as him being in our doghouse though.

Last year, when he was playing with Kucherov consistently, he was absolutely a monster though so the reference to Stamkos having no skill when paired together is very misplaced.

I think when he said Stamkos wasn't a "do it all" player, he basically meant a guy who's going to create chances for himself and his teammates. And Stamkos really isn't that guy, at least not consistently. He's more a straight-up finisher, and you get the best out of him when he's paired with someone who can single-handedly create havoc (MSL, Kucherov).

No one doubts Stamkos is skilled. But I think we have to be honest with ourselves about exactly what that skillset is. He doesn't generate offense so much as he's one of the best at finishing chances generated by someone else.

 

[Volodya Krutov]

Well, I've been one of the vocal Stamkos' critic about his narrow operating window, but the way he played those 17 games last year, he could've played with anyone and he was still going to generate offense, shoot or pass, like a true #1 center. It was SSS, sure, but dear lord did he prove me wrong when I thought he wasn't capable to make his linemates better. Let's do it for a complete season now.

 

[Rschmitz]

I think when he said Stamkos wasn't a "do it all" player, he basically meant a guy who's going to create chances for himself and his teammates. And Stamkos really isn't that guy, at least not consistently. He's more a straight-up finisher, and you get the best out of him when he's paired with someone who can single-handedly create havoc (MSL, Kucherov).

No one doubts Stamkos is skilled. But I think we have to be honest with ourselves about exactly what that skillset is. He doesn't generate offense so much as he's one of the best at finishing chances generated by someone else.

Sure I agree. I think you are being too nice though in giving him the benefit of the doubt, considering how he contextualized that.

 

[RDTBay4]

I think when he said Stamkos wasn't a "do it all" player, he basically meant a guy who's going to create chances for himself and his teammates. And Stamkos really isn't that guy, at least not consistently. He's more a straight-up finisher, and you get the best out of him when he's paired with someone who can single-handedly create havoc (MSL, Kucherov).

No one doubts Stamkos is skilled. But I think we have to be honest with ourselves about exactly what that skillset is. He doesn't generate offense so much as he's one of the best at finishing chances generated by someone else.

 

[Flat Ronnie]

This Stamkos argument is the dumbest damn thing.

Stamkos WORST season of his career: 43/72

Kucherov BEST season of his career: 40/85

Both with the same scrub linemates.

So what the hell is the point of this? Who gives a **** if Kuch is a better "do it all" player? They both play for us. Again, what's the point of this nonsense other than to do the whole typical internet, pick a side and dig your heels in debate.

 

[Todd1a]

Stamkos biggest question to me comes down to can he stay healthy? Our keys are hedman, stamkos and kucherov have to avoid major injuries or no playoffs again!

 

[Rschmitz]

This Stamkos argument is the dumbest damn thing.

Stamkos WORST season of his career: 43/72

Kucherov BEST season of his career: 40/85

Both with the same scrub linemates.

So what the hell is the point of this? Who gives a **** if Kuch is a better "do it all" player? They both play for us. Again, what's the point of this nonsense other than to do the whole typical internet, pick a side and dig your heels in debate.

It's the offseason, highlighted by a Girardi and Kunitz signing. If people want to debate with me anything Lightning related I'm all ears.

 

[Sky04]

The "Stamkos" argument is not dumb, I'd love to see anyone making an argument for building around 2014-2016 Stamkos, guy was awful at anything not scoring related and even that was inflated by having an offensive team and playing behind Palat-Johnson-Kucherov.

Using raw numbers is idiotic as well, "40 goals", "74 points", he was awful defensively and don't even get me started on those zone entries and turnovers. I'm one of his harshest critics but biggest fans, I'll admit when he sucks and when he's great. If he had finished this season with only 65 points but kept up his constant offensive pressure and awareness defensively it would've been miles better than just racking up points and doing nothing else like his 2014-2015 season.

If you want a comparable season to Lecavalier, 2014-2015 Stamkos is the 2009-2010 Lecavalier, 70 points on the year and played like a complete sack of ****, almost embrassing to see him wear the C on some nights.

 

[Flat Ronnie]

The "Stamkos" argument is not dumb, I'd love to see anyone making an argument for building around 2014-2016 Stamkos, guy was awful at anything not scoring related and even that was inflated by having an offensive team and playing behind Palat-Johnson-Kucherov.

Using raw numbers is idiotic as well, "40 goals", "74 points", he was awful defensively and don't even get me started on those zone entries and turnovers. I'm one of his harshest critics but biggest fans, I'll admit when he sucks and when he's great. If he had finished this season with only 65 points but kept up his constant offensive pressure and awareness defensively it would've been miles better than just racking up points and doing nothing else like his 2014-2015 season.

If you want a comparable season to Lecavalier, 2014-2015 Stamkos is the 2009-2010 Lecavalier, 70 points on the year and played like a complete sack of ****, almost embrassing to see him wear the C on some nights.

Well, I guess Yzerman will take you up on that argument since he signed him for 8 years after 2016.

 

[DFC]

This Stamkos argument is the dumbest damn thing.

Stamkos WORST season of his career: 43/72

Kucherov BEST season of his career: 40/85

Both with the same scrub linemates.

So what the hell is the point of this? Who gives a **** if Kuch is a better "do it all" player? They both play for us. Again, what's the point of this nonsense other than to do the whole typical internet, pick a side and dig your heels in debate.

Okay, fine. Stamkos is awesome and any conversation over what kind of player type he is is ridiculous. Because his player type can not be questioned while he is so awesome.

Sheesh, man.

 

[Sky04]

Well, I guess Yzerman will take you up on that argument since he signed him for 8 years after 2016.

He threw a lowball offer out of respect, coming off those seasons if Stamkos wanted anything higher Yzerman would've let him walk.

 

[Sky04]

Okay, fine. Stamkos is awesome and any conversation over what kind of player type he is is ridiculous. Because his player type can not be questioned while he is so awesome.

Sheesh, man.

"40 goals" "70 points" nothing wrong, he's perfect.

 

[Flat Ronnie]

He threw a lowball offer out of respect, coming off those seasons if Stamkos wanted anything higher Yzerman would've let him walk.

Guess he low balled Hedman out of respect as well then? Lower contract than Stamkos'.

Wanna put money on if he "low balls" Kucherov as well?

 

[Flat Ronnie]

"40 goals" "70 points" nothing wrong, he's perfect.

Dumb. Never said dude was perfect. Just the constant beating the him up because has not a great "do it all" player is dumb as ****. And it's old and irrelevant. Stamkos is the least of our problems - Stamkos not on the ice is a major problem.

 

[chasespace]

Dumb. Never said dude was perfect. Just the constant beating the him up because has not a great "do it all" player is dumb as ****. And it's old and irrelevant. Stamkos is the least of our problems - Stamkos not on the ice is a major problem.

This is a paradox.

 

[Sky04]

Guess he low balled Hedman out of respect as well then? Lower contract than Stamkos'.

Wanna put money on if he "low balls" Kucherov as well?

? Hedman's contract was done a year in advance means Yzerman wanted to lock him up early. He would've been fine if Stamkos left to take a higher offer, says how much he really "wanted" him here at the time.

That contract was a risk and so far that's been proven right.

 

[The Macho King]

? Hedman's contract was done a year in advance means Yzerman wanted to lock him up early. He would've been fine if Stamkos left to take a higher offer, says how much he really "wanted" him here at the time.

That contract was a risk and so far that's been proven right.

Also it kind of ignores most of the issues many had with Stamkos' expected contract before it was signed. All of the buzz was 10.5+ a year (based off of Toews/Kane contracts). Yzerman clearly wasn't going to pay that, and in fact he didn't even get close to it. Many reports had the first few offers Yzerman sent his way in the 6 year, 8 million range.

I think Yzerman was (understandably) concerned about Stamkos' play, but also understood that replacing 45 goals is not easy. So he upped the offer to 8 years, the contract is structured in a way that will let Stamkos fully take advantage of the tax rate (by being bonus heavy), but still doesn't overpay him.

Re: Hedman - I think Hedman wanted to stay here, and Yzerman didn't want to dick around with him. Yzerman let Stamkos go until the day before FA before finally signing him - he re-signed Hedman on the first day he was eligible.

 

[Sky04]

Also it kind of ignores most of the issues many had with Stamkos' expected contract before it was signed. All of the buzz was 10.5+ a year (based off of Toews/Kane contracts). Yzerman clearly wasn't going to pay that, and in fact he didn't even get close to it. Many reports had the first few offers Yzerman sent his way in the 6 year, 8 million range.

I think Yzerman was (understandably) concerned about Stamkos' play, but also understood that replacing 45 goals is not easy. So he upped the offer to 8 years, the contract is structured in a way that will let Stamkos fully take advantage of the tax rate (by being bonus heavy), but still doesn't overpay him.

Re: Hedman - I think Hedman wanted to stay here, and Yzerman didn't want to dick around with him. Yzerman let Stamkos go until the day before FA before finally signing him - he re-signed Hedman on the first day he was eligible.

Agreed, also played into a factor with his "discount". If Hedman wanted to force Yzerman's hand he very well could've and Yzerman would've folded. Stamkos got a fair contract if not an overpayment for his play in the recent years leading to the extension, had he tried to force anything higher Yzerman would've let him go.

It was a "we'd like to have you back but we're not breaking bank on you" despite the fact that some people on here insisted on Stamkos getting a blank check (still hilarious).

 

[RegularSznAllStars]

The "Stamkos" argument is not dumb, I'd love to see anyone making an argument for building around 2014-2016 Stamkos, guy was awful at anything not scoring related and even that was inflated by having an offensive team and playing behind Palat-Johnson-Kucherov.

Using raw numbers is idiotic as well, "40 goals", "74 points", he was awful defensively and don't even get me started on those zone entries and turnovers. I'm one of his harshest critics but biggest fans, I'll admit when he sucks and when he's great. If he had finished this season with only 65 points but kept up his constant offensive pressure and awareness defensively it would've been miles better than just racking up points and doing nothing else like his 2014-2015 season.

If you want a comparable season to Lecavalier, 2014-2015 Stamkos is the 2009-2010 Lecavalier, 70 points on the year and played like a complete sack of ****, almost embrassing to see him wear the C on some nights.

People who argue against stamkos sucking that year by saying "BUT 40 GOALZZZ!" clearly didn't watch him or don't know what they are watching. He was horrid that year.

 

[DFC]

Dumb. Never said dude was perfect. Just the constant beating the him up because has not a great "do it all" player is dumb as ****. And it's old and irrelevant. Stamkos is the least of our problems - Stamkos not on the ice is a major problem.

Nobody's beating him up. Your thunderbuddying is out of control.

(With all due respect to Nick. I just find it a funny term, and I hope you--Nick--can see the humor.)

 

[Leonardo87]

Nobody's beating him up. Your thunderbuddying is out of control.

(With all due respect to Nick. I just find it a funny term, and I hope you--Nick--can see the humor.)

Meh I don't mind. I sometimes get into my old ways but for the most have accepted the situation but just remain optimistic for the best outcome.

Btw do you know the origin of Thunder Buddy? Lol

 

[DFC]

Meh I don't mind. I sometimes get into my old ways but for the most have accepted the situation but just remain optimistic for the best outcome.

Btw do you know the origin of Thunder Buddy? Lol

haha, No, I don't.

But it's such a good Lightning-oriented word for when a fan clings hard to a certain player. It's a word that actually describes its definition.

We all thunderbuddy somebody. I'm pretty down over the Drouin trade. I don't want to see a Johnson trade either.

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

haha, No, I don't.

But it's such a good Lightning-oriented word for when a fan clings hard to a certain player. It's a word that actually describes its definition.

We all thunderbuddy somebody. I'm pretty down over the Drouin trade. I don't want to see a Johnson trade either.

It's from the movie Ted.

 

[Leonardo87]

haha, No, I don't.

But it's such a good Lightning-oriented word for when a fan clings hard to a certain player. It's a word that actually describes its definition.

We all thunderbuddy somebody. I'm pretty down over the Drouin trade. I don't want to see a Johnson trade either.

Lol, It's from the movie Ted but it's funny there is a guy that I saw a couple of times at Amalie dressed in a Ted bear suit with the name Thunder Buddy on the back. Also I realized you were upset with the Drouin trade and was not trying to be insensitive about him not wanting to be here and it's for the best. I honestly think it was for the best for him and Tampa ,not being here playing for Coop and having to worry about being benched for every little mistake he makes. Not sure how Julien is going to be though.