In Karlsson's case, I have a hard time believing that's even close to being on the table. I doubt he'd waive to come back here even with Celebrini in the fold. We're still missing a lot of pieces with adding Karlsson for nothing to compete. I'd only consider taking Karlsson back on if we're getting paid to do it or we're dumping Vlasic in the process but I put those odds at less than 1%. Stamkos would be a free agent signing. He's also 34 so I'm capping any term for his contract at 4 years. That's the kind of contract that this team could handle. I think Stamkos would provide the sort of leadership Celebrini and the young kids can use. There's not a lot of people we have to worry about paying in that four year period and the worst case scenario is buying out the final year. I don't think I'd want anyone else at that level, including Marchessault, but I'd pay Stamkos a lot if he's willing to sign for three or four years.
Took you long enough to make this joke Nem! I was waiting for it to pop up the day Quinn was canned.
thats how you end up like buffalo and arizona. Cups arent won by simply stock piling high draft picks and winning draft picks trade charts.
And I’m not opposed to veterans at all. Just not thrilled with over priced players that are declining and are not really part of our long term plans. I consider Granlund a great addition and someone that can shelter the kids while providing veteran leadership. Same with Rutta. We didn’t have to overpay or over commit to either.
I had a feeling that this kind of came to the fore during exit interviews (I'm imagining Thrun with his Harvard smarts being the one to illuminate it most clearly) in a way that Grier hadn't even realized--like, "Oh, shit, this is my guy and the players seem to like him and everything, but damn he might ruin our young guys if they're with him for too long."
Probably not a good coach but he also had f*** all to work with.
Celebrini and Smith are much more talented than he was at the same age. Larkin is like a Hertl level fraud "1C."
