Stamkos and a Finn or Matthews and 10 million in Cap Space

[The CyNick]

Everything in sports is a risk.

Stamkos MIGHT decline two years after signing a $70 million deal.

Nylander MIGHT be a bust or he MIGHT be a guy who one day commands his own $10 mil per year deal. Marner MIGHT be the same.

The ability to gain key assets without giving away your own assets other than cap space is rare in today's game. Guys like Stamkos rarely come available. If he wants to come here, I say you pull the trigger.

If we are lucky and a bunch of our prospects are so good that we have a cap crunch, then great, you move guys out and turn them into future assets. That's what Chicago has been doing for the past 5 years. It's a model we should strive for. These guys won't be getting huge dollars for another 6-7 years.

Everyone always uses the extreme example of Stamkos becoming a bum in the latter half of his deal. But what if we pass on him and he scores another 200-250 goals over that span? Not many guys will do that, but he's capable of it. What if 2 of Marner, Nylander, and the guy we draft this year never get even up to Kadri's leve of production?

 

[Snow Dog]

Matthews would be the greatest thing to happen to this organization. He will be more helpful in 2020 and 2025. This is an easy choice. You can use the $10 million after to acquire a player equivalent to Stamkos.

In 2025 Matthews would be older than Stamkos is now,doesn't that mean he would be washed up and past his prime the same way as posters are suggesting Stamkos would be.
Who's to say Matthews will wind up #1C,he hasn't played a game yet.
Why use the 10 million to aquire a player as good as Stamkos if you could get him.Players good enough to demand a 10 million salary are not available very often.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Leafs haven't had a competitive line-up since they implemented a salary cap. So how would we know they always have a 7% - 10% cap space while being competitive? Shortened season is an aberration and should be discarded and disregarded for reasons clearly shown from both before and after that aberration.

Stamkos is completely unrelated to where the Leafs draft, and has no bearing on max contracts offered to drafted players.

If Leafs win the lottery they get Matthews, if they don't they'll still get a very good player in the top 5.

Do Leafs change their thoughts on Stamkos if they win the lottery?

I think they have to sign Stamkos if he is available. I don't have a good feeling about the results though.

So I'll go with loss of 10 million in cap space regardless of where they draft.

Stamkos and one of the top 5 picks.

I fixed it. I didn't put in. "Should". My preference!

 

[Stephen]

Everything in sports is a risk.

Stamkos MIGHT decline two years after signing a $70 million deal.

Nylander MIGHT be a bust or he MIGHT be a guy who one day commands his own $10 mil per year deal. Marner MIGHT be the same.

The ability to gain key assets without giving away your own assets other than cap space is rare in today's game. Guys like Stamkos rarely come available. If he wants to come here, I say you pull the trigger.

If we are lucky and a bunch of our prospects are so good that we have a cap crunch, then great, you move guys out and turn them into future assets. That's what Chicago has been doing for the past 5 years. It's a model we should strive for. These guys won't be getting huge dollars for another 6-7 years.

Everyone always uses the extreme example of Stamkos becoming a bum in the latter half of his deal. But what if we pass on him and he scores another 200-250 goals over that span? Not many guys will do that, but he's capable of it. What if 2 of Marner, Nylander, and the guy we draft this year never get even up to Kadri's leve of production?

I think the problem is a lot of people are still haunted by the David Clarkson signing. Local boy makes good. Then the dream becomes a nightmare. They see Stamkos as a trick sniper who doesn't hold the puck in play like Tavares, and they're not comfortable about that.

 

[TMLegend]

Any suggestions?

You use that 10 million to fill out the team with adequate depth, not bargain bin scrubs like Matthias and co. There's also a day coming someday when Marner, Nylander and gang won't be making 925K per year, and will garner substantial raises. Cost controlled assets are the way of the NHL these days.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

You use that 10 million to fill out the team with adequate depth, not bargain bin scrubs like Matthias and co. There's also a day coming someday when Marner, Nylander and gang won't be making 925K per year, and will garner substantial raises. Cost controlled assets are the way of the NHL these days.

Winnik, Spaling, Mathias and Parenteau take up 8.25 mil of cap space.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

What happens if a war breaks out in Mid East that disrupts oil movement and the prices rush back up to 130 a barrel? The Canadian dollar follows a steep bounce back and achieves parity again. The cap starts rising with our dollar. New Franchises are awarded and close to a billion dollars is injected into the league to start and by year 6 the cap is close to 90-95m

What if? Whatever. You do what you need to do and what makes sense and chasing rainbows and unicorns won't get you anywhere.

Haha no just a hockey fan. Right true.

 

[Guided by Veseys]

With the existing prospects it would be exciting to sign Stamkos. I think with signing him you could have a team that might make the conference finals a few times in over the next 7 years. In order to win the cup though I think Matthews and cap space is the way to go. This team still needs to be bad for another year and take time building the best team they can through the cap. We can try to cobble together a contender or build a dynasty through efficient cap management.

 

[mashedpotato]

Everything in sports is a risk.

Stamkos MIGHT decline two years after signing a $70 million deal.

Nylander MIGHT be a bust or he MIGHT be a guy who one day commands his own $10 mil per year deal. Marner MIGHT be the same.

The ability to gain key assets without giving away your own assets other than cap space is rare in today's game. Guys like Stamkos rarely come available. If he wants to come here, I say you pull the trigger.

If we are lucky and a bunch of our prospects are so good that we have a cap crunch, then great, you move guys out and turn them into future assets. That's what Chicago has been doing for the past 5 years. It's a model we should strive for. These guys won't be getting huge dollars for another 6-7 years.

Everyone always uses the extreme example of Stamkos becoming a bum in the latter half of his deal. But what if we pass on him and he scores another 200-250 goals over that span? Not many guys will do that, but he's capable of it. What if 2 of Marner, Nylander, and the guy we draft this year never get even up to Kadri's leve of production?

Thanks for the obvious that there is a risk to everything.

We know that there's a risk to acquiring assets with the possibility of decline. it's not whether it's going to happen, but when.

The point that you've missed, is Should we acquire assets that are on decline.

I think Stamkos is a player that would be good for the dressing room and sets a standard that younger players should want to reach; that presence is worth the weight of the contract as the players that flourish under him can set standards for the players after them ... and so on.

Having said that, I think I think it's a lot of money and will definitely put a dent in our cap spending for the life of the contract.

We should avoid spending to the cap for long terms and having a stamkos contract at his age seems like something I would want to avoid.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Because lots of players become available along the lines of Stamkos?

Free agency doesn't end in 2016. There will be others in the future. If it there aren't, you still have $10 million to use however you see fit.

I'll even say that Matthews could be producing like Stamkos within 3 years, and will be outproducing him shortly after that, whether due to talent or age. At the same time, he'd be making nowhere near that of Stamkos. So even if you didn't acquire another player of Stamkos' calibre with that extra $10 million, you're still better off with Matthews' production in the near future.

 

[BayStreetBully]

In 2025 Matthews would be older than Stamkos is now,doesn't that mean he would be washed up and past his prime the same way as posters are suggesting Stamkos would be.
Who's to say Matthews will wind up #1C,he hasn't played a game yet.
Why use the 10 million to aquire a player as good as Stamkos if you could get him.Players good enough to demand a 10 million salary are not available very often.

Depends how Matthews continues to produce when he's 26 and 27. If he's washed up and past his prime, wouldn't that mean we got the best of him in his prime at a steal of a price?

And even if he is washed up, won't he still be more helpful to us than Stamkos in 2025? When it might actually matter?

And if Stamkos and Matthews have the same prime from ages 19-27 like you suggest in your hypothetical, then we wouldn't even get to benefit from Stamkos' prime anyway.

 

[Jerkini]

I think the problem is a lot of people are still haunted by the David Clarkson signing. Local boy makes good. Then the dream becomes a nightmare. They see Stamkos as a trick sniper who doesn't hold the puck in play like Tavares, and they're not comfortable about that.

Stamkos scored more goals in his first three seasons in the NHL than Clarkson has in his entire career. Stamkos scored more goals last season than Clarkson has scored in his last 4 seasons combined. If people are still haunted by that signing, they need to spend a few minutes perusing Stamkos' resume. It'll put their minds at ease.

 

[thewave]

Haha no just a hockey fan. Right true.

I am just pointing out there are no certainties in life and when you see an opportunity available to get ahead in the present, take it if you can work the numbers(and we can with Stamkos).

Betting on a huge decline from a player like that is a huge gamble. Net size could increase, cap could go way up and all kinds of other things could happen.

We blew that article about decline away before because it really didn't account for Elite talents. I believe they play a better game for more years. You can also point to things like Ovi not seeing eye to eye with a coach and his numbers going down, seems pretty good now I'd say.

Is there risk? Yes. But how about the Reward? Do we discount the reward completely? There is also risk in assuming Marner and Nylander will be 80pt getters as well.

 

[darrylsittler27]

How can Toronto not offer Stamkos?

We have Horton on IRC(flex cap.) and a slew of 1 year fillers and Kessel,Grabovski and Gleason will mostly burn off before the kids are due their raise. Bell/Rogers are in the business of making money and Stamkos means playoffs plus elite veteran support for all these kids. We can afford him at $10M just playing the kids more and getting rid of a few vets. When you finish last with Babcock at the helm you need critical measures.Not all the kids will be on this team and some will be traded as we have too much of the same thing.

Nylander,Marner,Brown,Kappanen,Bracco,Johnson and Timashov, not much size there and some don't suit bottom 6 duty.Like it or not some of our kids are assets to be traded later for what we need to win i.e Goalie etc. Stamkos is a free wallet that allows us to move some assets we now are starting to have in abundance.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Any suggestions?

We could almost get both of David Clarkson and Dave Bolland for those funds. Can't wait

 

[BayStreetBully]

We could almost get both of David Clarkson and Dave Bolland for those funds. Can't wait

Ridiculous as you are trying to be, that would be a comparison between Matthews/Clarkson/Bolland and Stamkos/Laine over the next 10 years. Unless you believe one of the Finns can surpass Matthews, Matthews would be far more valuable to us than any other player in mention.

The whole point of this thread is you can have only one of Matthews or Stamkos, right? How is this even a question of who would help the team more in the future.