McKenzie speculates that Stamkos will end up in Buffalo

[Randall Flagg]

Sorry, but you lost me at Top 5 player of this generation and in his prime.

Top 5 forward is certainly in the discussion.

[Doohicksie]

Really? 

 

60 goals dude. 60. 

 

He's in the middle of a down year. Unhappy in Tampa in his last contract year. 

 

50 goals next year and everybody will be back on the Stamkos train. 

 

He should be playing for his next contract and showing what he can do.  (Think Stafford.)  He's not showing anything.

[WildCard]

Top 5 forward is certainly in the discussion.

Would you really take him top 5 in forwards? It's arguable, but I would not

[Randall Flagg]

Would you really take him top 5 in forwards? It's arguable, but I would not

Not for certain, but I wouldn't be opposed to putting him 5th. It also depends on what we're defining as "this generation"

[WildCard]

Really?

 

60 goals dude. 60.

 

He's in the middle of a down year. Unhappy in Tampa in his last contract year.

 

50 goals next year and everybody will be back on the Stamkos train.

60 goals 5 yeas ago :lol: Followe by 3/4 sub 30 goals seasons and one 41 goal season. He is declining, majority.

Not for certain, but I wouldn't be opposed to putting him 5th. It also depends on what we're defining as "this generation"

Very true

[Hoss]

Remember how down on Ovechkin everybody got when he had just 32 goals in a season? Imagine if teams had said "meh, he's not that good anymore" then.

[musichunch]

He should be playing for his next contract and showing what he can do.  (Think Stafford.)  He's not showing anything.

 

He doesn't need to show anything and he knows it.

 

 

60 goals 5 yeas ago :lol: Followe by 3/4 sub 30 goals seasons and one 41 goal season. He is declining, majority.

Very true

 

Yeah, one was a lockout year and the other one he played 37 games.

 

Let's not make Stamkos look like a chump.

Remember how down on Ovechkin everybody got when he had just 32 goals in a season? Imagine if teams had said "meh, he's not that good anymore" then.

 

People completely gave up on Ovechkin. They were talking about him in the past tense. 

 

How many times do you need to say "buy low, sell high" before people listen. 

[WildCard]

Remember how down on Ovechkin everybody got when he had just 32 goals in a season? Imagine if teams had said "meh, he's not that good anymore" then.

Still had better production, pretty sure he was younger, and he didn't have a major leg injury in his history

He doesn't need to show anything and he knows it.

 

 

 

Yeah, one was a lockout year and the other one he played 37 games.

 

Let's not make Stamkos look like a chump.

 

 

People completely gave up on Ovechkin. They were talking about him in the past tense.

 

How many times do you need to say "buy low, sell high" before people listen.

Let's not also act like he's 22 Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

Remember how down on Ovechkin everybody got when he had just 32 goals in a season? Imagine if teams had said "meh, he's not that good anymore" then.

The difference was Ovechkin's decline coincided with a drastic shift in usage (and he's still not the same player he was, even after the usage was corrected). Stamkos has had no such drastic shift, and just so happens to have slowed down when a 16" rod was fused to his leg.

 

And seriously, if I see one more person take "overrated" or "in decline" to mean "sucks" or "no longer useful" I'm going to lose my mind. Stamkos doesn't sniff my top-5 players or forwards, but it's not like a top-25 player is somehow bad.

[musichunch]

Still had better production, pretty sure he was younger, and he didn't have a major leg injury in his history

Let's not also act like he's 22

 

Let's not act like he's 32. 

 

I'll take the leg injury into consideration. But it could be mental as much as physical. I don't see him straining too hard out there. In the 5 or so games I've seen him play this year he was circling around looking for a snipe all game. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Let's not act like he's 32.

 

I'll take the leg injury into consideration. But it could be mental as much as physical. I don't see him straining too hard out there. In the 5 or so games I've seen him play this year he was circling around looking for a snipe all game.

Thanks for helping the case against backing up the truck for him.

[musichunch]

The difference was Ovechkin's decline coincided with a drastic shift in usage (and he's still not the same player he was, even after the usage was corrected). Stamkos has had no such drastic shift, and just so happens to have slowed down when a 16" rod was fused to his leg.

 

And seriously, if I see one more person take "overrated" or "in decline" to mean "sucks" or "no longer useful" I'm going to lose my mind. Stamkos doesn't sniff my top-5 players or forwards, but it's not like a top-25 player is somehow bad.

 

It wasn't just a usage problem with Ovechkin back then. He wasn't motivated and it was obvious. Just like Stamkos now. 

 

And of course he's not the same player he was, he's 5 years older. 

[TrueBlueGED]

It wasn't just a usage problem with Ovechkin back then. He wasn't motivated and it was obvious. Just like Stamkos now.

 

And of course he's not the same player he was, he's 5 years older.

So you agree players decline by the time they're 30? Thanks for continuing to help the cause!

[musichunch]

Thanks for helping the case against backing up the truck for him.

 

Don't try too hard to declare yourself a winner. 

 

Did he slow down because he's lazy and unmotivated in Tampa? Or because his leg injury has completely changed him physically?

 

You seem to be saying the latter. I suspect it's the former. 

[#freejame]

He doesn't need to show anything and he knows it.

 

 

 

Yeah, one was a lockout year and the other one he played 37 games.

 

Let's not make Stamkos look like a chump.

 

People completely gave up on Ovechkin. They were talking about him in the past tense. 

 

How many times do you need to say "buy low, sell high" before people listen. 

If it weren't for a fax machine the Sabres would *allegedly*  have him right now  :wallbash:   

[musichunch]

So you agree players decline by the time they're 30? Thanks for continuing to help the cause!

 

He just turned 26. I don't know what you're arguing. Of course goal scorers decline after 30. Every great scorer has the past 50 years. Very few exceptions. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by musichunch

[TrueBlueGED]

Don't try too hard to declare yourself a winner.

 

Did he slow down because he's lazy and unmotivated in Tampa? Or because his leg injury has completely changed him physically?

 

You seem to be saying the latter. I suspect it's the former.

You're acting as if a team captain that stopped trying for two years should be ignored. If that's happening, that's another negative.

[musichunch]

You're acting as if a team captain that stopped trying for two years should be ignored. If that's happening, that's another negative.

 

I don't want Stamkos here in order to be a team captain. That's for O'Reilly, Girgs, or Eichel one day. 

 

Guy was the #1 or #2 goal scorer in the league in his 2nd-5th years in the league. On pace for a 600 goal career. Then he breaks his leg. Comes back and scores 43 goals. This year he's on pace for 30 and fans of the worst team in the league for the past 3 years are saying "thanks but no thanks". 

 

Whatever. 

His 43 goals during his "decline" at age 25 would be tied with Vanek as the best goal output by a Sabres player in 20-25 years. 

 

No thank you. 

[WildCard]

I don't want Stamkos here in order to be a team captain. That's for O'Reilly, Girgs, or Eichel one day.

 

Guy was the #1 or #2 goal scorer in the league in his 2nd-5th years in the league. On pace for a 600 goal career. Then he breaks his leg. Comes back and scores 43 goals. This year he's on pace for 30 and fans of the worst team in the league for the past 3 years are saying "thanks but no thanks".

 

Whatever.

 

His 43 goals during his "decline" at age 25 would be tied with Vanek as the best goal output by a Sabres player in 20-25 years.

 

No thank you.

Please, point to where we say he is bad. He is good, we get that. But he's not what we need or can afford.

Let's not act like he's 32.

 

I'll take the leg injury into consideration. But it could be mental as much as physical. I don't see him straining too hard out there. In the 5 or so games I've seen him play this year he was circling around looking for a snipe all game.

If I'm giving a pure scorer a massive contract that will last until he's 35, I'm going to care about half of it Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't want Stamkos here in order to be a team captain. That's for O'Reilly, Girgs, or Eichel one day.

 

Guy was the #1 or #2 goal scorer in the league in his 2nd-5th years in the league. On pace for a 600 goal career. Then he breaks his leg. Comes back and scores 43 goals. This year he's on pace for 30 and fans of the worst team in the league for the past 3 years are saying "thanks but no thanks".

 

Whatever.

 

His 43 goals during his "decline" at age 25 would be tied with Vanek as the best goal output by a Sabres player in 20-25 years.

 

No thank you.

I feel like you have either not read, or not comprehended, the arguments being made against signing him. Because "we don't want a 30-40 goal scorer" is decidedly NOT the argument against.

[musichunch]

Please, point to where we say he is bad. He is good, we get that. But he's not what we need or can afford.

If I'm giving a pure scorer a contract that will last until he's 35, I'm going to care about half of it

 

Nobody stays 8 or 9 years on those big contracts. He would be gone or traded by the time he's 31 or 32. 

[WildCard]

Nobody stays 8 or 9 years on those big contracts. He would be gone or traded by the time he's 31 or 32.

If we could do that, that'd be great. But nobody is taking a 32 year old Stamkos for 4X8. If they do, we're getting peanuts back. Not too mention he'll have an insane NTC. If we get him and that's the plan, your plan is to win a Cup in 4 years, and I don't think Stamkos solves the plethora of other issues we have.

 

I honestly can't think of a mega deal that where there was a parting 1/2 way through

Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[musichunch]

I feel like you have either not read, or not comprehended, the arguments being made against signing him. Because "we don't want a 30-40 goal scorer" is decidedly NOT the argument against.

 

If we find a way to fit Reinhart, Eichel, ROR and Risto (and we will) then I don't see any problems with it. 

 

This team sucks right now. We're overpaying at least 5 or 6 players who are providing very little. I don't care about losing Kane obviously. I also think Bogosian is overrated. Gionta is old. Moulson has quit. Gorges is getting old. I can't stand Franson. That's 20M right there. 

 

I just don't see what's so sacred on this crappy Sabres team that we can't take a risk to bring in one of the best goal scorers in ages who's having a down year. 

[WildCard]

If we find a way to fit Reinhart, Eichel, ROR and Risto (and we will) then I don't see any problems with it

 

This team sucks right now.

 

I just don't see what's so sacred on this crappy Sabres team that we can't take a risk to bring in one of the best goal scorers in ages who's having a down year.

Answered your own question.

[musichunch]

If we could do that, that'd be great. But nobody is taking a 32 year old Stamkos for 4X8. If they do, we're getting peanuts back. Not too mention he'll have an insane NTC. If we get him and that's the plan, your plan is to win a Cup in 4 years, and I don't think Stamkos solves the plethora of other issues we have.

 

I honestly can't think of a mega deal that where there was a parting 1/2 way through

 

In 3-4 years Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, McCabe, Psysk, Fasching, Bailey, Baptiste and Girgs will be established NHL players and will solve a lot of our plethora of issues. 

 

Let's not forget starting a bunch of developing 18 and 19 year olds is one of the reasons we suck.