Let us Dream: Steven Stamkos to Toronto 2016/2017

[The_Chosen_One]

I honestly think if Stamkos doesn't resign, He is coming to Toronto. And if he does, I think that will drastically speed up our rebuild. I think they sell off a bunch of guys and pick up alot of picks for the next 2 drafts, but keep most of the core of young guys. I think that is why they haven't moved Phaneuf yet. This could be a very quick turn around if they get Stamkos.

Hypothetically, if they did land him, and have a great draft and pick up Jacob Chychrun (which they probably can do since we will likely have a top 4 pick, plus multiple other picks to trade in order to move up just in case we end up with the 4th pick overall and he goes 2nd or 3rd.

if that happens, that could attract other big name free agents. Guys likely to test free agency Imo that I could see them target if they get Stamkos. Guys like Byfuglien, maybe Backes, Hamhuis, Lucic.

Not saying we will get any of those guys but we will have tons of room, and if we could pay Byfuglien let's say 7 to 8 we would still be fine for a few years due to so many players on Elc. Yea we would to worry about that in 3 to 5 years. By then some of the prospects won't pan out and they all (Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Chychrun, Kapanen) won't be getting the Taylor Hall 6 million in restricted free agency right away. The Leafs will probably do it like they did for Kadri, and just keep giving then bridge contacts until they get close to losing them in free agency.

And I know people will get mad cuz they don't want the rebuild to be be accelerated, cuz of Burke, but with Stamkos it will. But if we get him, we honestly are only 1 or 2 pieces away from being a serious contender.

? - Stamkos - Nylander
JVR - Kadri - Marner
Kapanen - Gauthier - C. Brown

Rielly - Byfuglien
Chychrun - Phaneuf
Gardiner - Percy

Could be real good in a year or 2

If we're getting Stamkos, I doubt we'll be resigning Kadri. I also not sure if he needs to play centre, the scorer is terribly defensively so I'd like someone more steady IMO.

More importantly, Marner needs to be developed as a centre even if we end up drafting Mathews.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Who's using the straw man argument?

You're so chicken **** scared that we'll spend premium money on an elite player, but completely fail to outline where the money ought to be used.

In the past, the cap was squandered on giving out undeserved raises to pending UFAs (Kessel, Phaneuf, Lupul, Bozak, Grabovski), undeserved raises to RFAs (Gardiner) and to mediocre UFA signings (Komisarek, Blake, Finger, Clarkson).

Well, let's try something new and actually use the cap properly on elite talent for once.

You are. Are you unfamiliar with the term?

 

[Gary Nylund]

If Stamkos Signs who cares what happens to Kadri

It takes more than one player to make a team.

Get a another superstar when we should rebuild this is so kessel deja vu again, granted without giving up anything and having much better prospects in the system but still leafs should take the losses 2 years plus and go from there if stamkos does wanna come here and takes a small discount I'm all for it but if we're paying the man 11 million count me out his defense is just as bad as kessels and he's a CENTRE, not to mention I believe he's not very good at faceoffs?
If marner or nylander pan out like they should stamkos could be on the 2nd line in 5 years getting paid a kings ransom
Not saying they will score as much as him but they're two way game will be infinitely better and probably better at faceoffs too

And we don't even know if Stamkos will ever be quite as good as he was after his injury. He's still really good, maybe in the top 10-15 skaters in the league but signing him for the highest cap hit in the league is suicidal. The "logic" seems to be "the money is better spent on Stamkos then on Bozak and Lupul" as if those are the only choices available to us.

 

[Snow Dog]

Get a another superstar when we should rebuild this is so kessel deja vu again, granted without giving up anything and having much better prospects in the system but still leafs should take the losses 2 years plus and go from there if stamkos does wanna come here and takes a small discount I'm all for it but if we're paying the man 11 million count me out his defense is just as bad as kessels and he's a CENTRE, not to mention I believe he's not very good at faceoffs?
If marner or nylander pan out like they should stamkos could be on the 2nd line in 5 years getting paid a kings ransom
Not saying they will score as much as him but they're two way game will be infinitely better and probably better at faceoffs too

Did you watch the finals.Stamkos did alot more than stand at the side boards waiting for a cherry picker pass.

 

[Stephen]

Did you watch the finals.Stamkos did alot more than stand at the side boards waiting for a cherry picker pass.

He started noticeably throwing his weight around on the forecheck. I enjoyed that energy he brought even when he wasn't productive.

 

[Peace Frog]

I am completely baffled as to how in the world any of you can debate the idea of signing Steven frankin Stamkos if he were to become a UFA. I mean seriously.... give your head a shake. If he hits the market, you do everything in your power to sign him!!! PERIOD!!!!!!

/thread.

 

[Stephen]

I am completely baffled as to how in the world any of you can debate the idea of signing Steven frankin Stamkos if he were to become a UFA. I mean seriously.... give your head a shake. If he hits the market, you do everything in your power to sign him!!! PERIOD!!!!!!

/thread.

Good way to end this.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Another way to look at it is what type of production would you expect from a $10 million Stamkos? 50 goals? 40 goals? 90 points? 80 points? 70 points?

It's possible the 50 goal, 90 point days are over, and that he may become more of a 40 goal, 70 point producer in the future. Are we ready to pay him more money based on past performance? To put in context, whereas Tampa has a 90 point scorer for $7.5 million, we would have a 70 point scorer for $10 million.

The only difference with this 70 point scorer and another 70 point scorer being we are paying for a brand name.

Not saying conclusively his best days are done, but it's possible.

 

[Peace Frog]

Another way to look at it is what type of production would you expect from a $10 million Stamkos? 50 goals? 40 goals? 90 points? 80 points? 70 points?

It's possible the 50 goal, 90 point days are over, and that he may become more of a 40 goal, 70 point producer in the future. Are we ready to pay him more money based on past performance? To put in context, whereas Tampa has a 90 point scorer for $7.5 million, we would have a 70 point scorer for $10 million.

The only difference with this 70 point scorer and another 70 point scorer being we are paying for a brand name.

Not saying conclusively his best days are done, but it's possible.

You do realize that Stammer is only 25 years old, right???

 

[BayStreetBully]

You do realize that Stammer is only 25 years old, right???

Yes but he is a Lightning until at least 26. And lots of scorers have their best years in their early and mid 20's. It happens time and time again so I wouldn't be utterly shocked if his production goes down after, say, age 27.

 

[Peace Frog]

Yes but he is a Lightning until at least 26. And lots of scorers have their best years in their early and mid 20's. It happens time and time again so I wouldn't be utterly shocked if his production goes down after, say, age 27.

Just wondering, but who do you sign to a mega contract? If 26 or 27 years old is supposedly the beginning of the decline of player production, then it doesn't make sense to give even elite players the big pay day at that age. Even though that is the earliest that a player can qualify for UFA status?? Is that what you are implying?

 

[BayStreetBully]

Just wondering, but who do you sign to a mega contract? If 26 or 27 years old is supposedly the beginning of the decline of player production, then it doesn't make sense to give even elite players the big pay day at that age. Even though that is the earliest that a player can qualify for UFA status?? Is that what you are implying?

No because some players bloom later than others. I would pay a 26 year old Jagr or Sakic a mega contract. Then there is a case like McDavid, who will be so good that even if he does decline, would still probably be worth a cap hit. So I'd sign a 26 year old McDavid to max bucks too. I'd also do it for d-men like Doughty or Keith, and goalies like Roy or Hasek.

Other players get off to a hot start early in their careers but fizzle out earlier too, at least with scoring. Like Hawerchuk, Savard, and even Gretzky who had his best scoring days by age 25. It might be due to marriage, or complacency, or being battered up over time, but it's hard to expect any player to consistency be at the top of their offensive game for so long.

In a cap world, the UFA route for the best players may just not work except in certain cases. So I ask you again, what type of production are you expecting from Stamkos? 90 points? Or will you still be happy with a $10 million Stamkos at 80 points or 70 points?

Like I said, he may or may not have his best days behind him, but it's a possibility. He has scored at a 90 point pace his entire career up to last year. That's a lot of consistent years of high production, that who knows if he still has it in him.

 

[Jerkini]

I am completely baffled as to how in the world any of you can debate the idea of signing Steven frankin Stamkos if he were to become a UFA. I mean seriously.... give your head a shake. If he hits the market, you do everything in your power to sign him!!! PERIOD!!!!!!

/thread.

i've been repeating the exact same thing for 40 pages. It truly is astounding that anyone could argue against bringing on a player like Stamkos.

 

[MLG Ghost]

I am more concerned with what he'll be like in 3-4 years when he's 28-29 years old. Hopefully, at that point we'll have turned the corner and starting to compete, and, guys like Nylander, Marner and Rielly and progressing good; atleast that's the dream right? Can we all agree on that?

That's when we'll need Stamkos to still be the player most of us think he is now!!!!!!! The question some are asking is, while being paid 12 million a year, will he be that player? Or, will he be starting a slow steady decline just as the team hopes to be on an upward trajectory?

If it's the first, then all great, we're off to the races!!!! Conversely, if it's the second, that's a bad situation to be in, because his salary won't be starting a slow steady decline at the same time.

I haven't seen anyone here disrespect Steven Stamkos, just the opposite actually, we all like him. That said, I don't see anything wrong with asking the question of what happens if it turns out that he's not the player we need/want him to be when we're ready to compete.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Just wondering, but who do you sign to a mega contract? If 26 or 27 years old is supposedly the beginning of the decline of player production, then it doesn't make sense to give even elite players the big pay day at that age. Even though that is the earliest that a player can qualify for UFA status?? Is that what you are implying?

It is an interesting question. It does seem like times are changing. The UFA frenzy was less of a frenzy than it has been in previous years and we are starting to see a trend of players being signed long term many years before they reach UFA status. Perhaps teams are starting to question the value of paying big bucks long-term to 27 year olds and starting to clue in to how important cap issues are in general?

One thing is for sure, if we were to sign Stamkos to 12m for 7 years on a NTC then we are stuck with that contract no matter what. If we decide say 3 years from now that we would rather spend that money on locking up Marner, Nylander, Rielly, Kapanen and perhaps another player or two (the same way guys like Keith, Doughty and Seguin were signed years before reaching UFA status) then it will be too late. The result might well be that we won't have the money to sign some of these guys until the Stamkos deal expires and by then the price will have gone up and we won't be able to afford them all anyway.

Overpaying Stamkos means losing a ton of flexibility. Since we're nowhere close to contender status it seems like a dumb move to me.

Like I've said many times before, if Stamkos wants to "come home" to be our hero, the only way it makes sense is to not ask for the world in salary. If he wants to be mercenary about it, the smart move seems to be to let someone else pay him.

 

[BayStreetBully]

i've been repeating the exact same thing for 40 pages. It truly is astounding that anyone could argue against bringing on a player like Stamkos.

Emotions aside (because I am also a massive Stamkos fan), what type of production are you expecting from Stamkos to justify a $10 million contract? Does he need minimum 80 points to keep you happy? Or is the sight of Stamkos in a Leaf jersey worth the price no matter the production? I know he's free and all, but you must have some idea of what you expect out of him. Otherwise, you are arguing based on emotion and not logic.

 

[Peace Frog]

I am more concerned with what he'll be like in 3-4 years when he's 28-29 years old. Hopefully, at that point we'll have turned the corner and starting to compete, and, guys like Nylander, Marner and Rielly and progressing good; atleast that's the dream right? Can we all agree on that?

That's when we'll need Stamkos to still be the player most of us think he is now!!!!!!! The question some are asking is, while being paid 12 million a year, will he be that player? Or, will he be starting a slow steady decline just as the team hopes to be on an upward trajectory?

If it's the first, then all great, we're off to the races!!!! Conversely, if it's the second, that's a bad situation to be in, because his salary won't be starting a slow steady decline at the same time.

I haven't seen anyone here disrespect Steven Stamkos, just the opposite actually, we all like him. That said, I don't see anything wrong with asking the question of what happens if it turns out that he's not the player we need/want him to be when we're ready to compete.

When you sign a player, you give him that contract based on what he's already done and what he can potentially do. I wish we could sign superstars on what they have done and what they could potentially NOT do, but that's not how it goes.

 

[MLG Ghost]

When you sign a player, you give him that contract based on what he's already done and what he can potentially do. I wish we could sign superstars on what they have done and what they could potentially NOT do, but that's not how it goes.

That's not how it goes? Gee I didn't know that!!!!!!!!

How about this????????? We resist the urge to give into the temptation of the quick fix for once in fifty years???????? Build through the draft, like we all said we wanted about six months ago.

 

[BayStreetBully]

When you sign a player, you give him that contract based on what he's already done and what he can potentially do. I wish we could sign superstars on what they have done and what they could potentially NOT do, but that's not how it goes.

I get the "what he can potentially do" part. What are we expecting him to do?

I don't get the "for what he had done" part. I mean, I get it, but I don't think it's smart. He didn't even "do" it in a Leafs uniform. Even if he had "done" it in a Leafs uniform, it's still not smart money. Yes, lots of teams are willing to pay for past performance, but doesn't mean the Leafs should.

But it's not even about what he's done. What can he do? What numbers do you expect from him? Don't you have any idea? I mean, he's a pure scorer, so it's all about the numbers for Stamkos. You can't tell me you'd be happy with a 70 point pure scorer taking up $10-12 million of our money?

 

[Peace Frog]

Emotions aside (because I am also a massive Stamkos fan), what type of production are you expecting from Stamkos to justify a $10 million contract? Does he need minimum 80 points to keep you happy? Or is the sight of Stamkos in a Leaf jersey worth the price no matter the production? I know he's free and all, but you must have some idea of what you expect out of him. Otherwise, you are arguing based on emotion and not logic.

I would expect him to produce at an elite level for a good 3-4 years, and slowly begin to decline in production after that. What he would bring to this franchise, is far more than just stats. though. He will attract other top end talent to want to play for the Leafs, he will be the Captain of this team and will help make it "safe for players to play here".

By the time his production starts to decline, I wonder what the salary cap will be? Will his contract still be considered to be possibly too much then? Even if he were to demand max salary from us, which I'm not entirely sure he would in the first place, what will the max be in 4-5 years?

 

[Gary Nylund]

When you sign a player, you give him that contract based on what he's already done and what he can potentially do. I wish we could sign superstars on what they have done and what they could potentially NOT do, but that's not how it goes.

If you're paying players based on what they could potentially do, then it would be prudent to spend some time considering how likely it is the player plays up to that potential, and how likely it is he doesn't. Would you not agree?

 

[MLG Ghost]

If you're paying players based on what they could potentially do, then it would be prudent to spend some time considering how likely it is the player plays up to that potential, and how likely it is he doesn't. Would you not agree?

Yes. Good common sense would dictate that consideration to be a must.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I would expect him to produce at an elite level for a good 3-4 years, and slowly begin to decline in production after that. What he would bring to this franchise, is far more than just stats. though. He will attract other top end talent to want to play for the Leafs, he will be the Captain of this team and will help make it "safe for players to play here".

By the time his production starts to decline, I wonder what the salary cap will be? Will his contract still be considered to be possibly too much then? Even if he were to demand max salary from us, which I'm not entirely sure he would in the first place, what will the max be in 4-5 years?

That's a very strong argument for not signing him. Unless of course you think our goal is something other than to win the cup. And if we sign him, it doesn't matter if other top end talent want to play here or not, we won't have the money to pay them. Players will want to play here if they see a smart organization building towards winning the cup. Us paying 12m to a declining 30 year old Stamkos would have the opposite effect.

 

[Peace Frog]

If you're paying players based on what they could potentially do, then it would be prudent to spend some time considering how likely it is the player plays up to that potential, and how likely it is he doesn't. Would you not agree?

I agree with that train of thought, and as a result, I believe Steven Stamkos is worth the investment it would take to bring him to Toronto.

 

[Stephen]

Emotions aside (because I am also a massive Stamkos fan), what type of production are you expecting from Stamkos to justify a $10 million contract? Does he need minimum 80 points to keep you happy? Or is the sight of Stamkos in a Leaf jersey worth the price no matter the production? I know he's free and all, but you must have some idea of what you expect out of him. Otherwise, you are arguing based on emotion and not logic.

Keep in mind, Stamkos isn't Kessel, and we could reasonably expect an evolving player who rounds out his game as he hovers at PPG or slightly below. Keep in mind he had a 43 goal year on a very down year coming off a broken leg.