McKenzie speculates that Stamkos will end up in Buffalo

[WildCard]

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.

It's already been speculated how much those guys will cost. It's a lot

 

 

Also, we overvalue out own guys. It's natural, but the only way we sniff a Cup with that roster is if they all actually pan out. The chances of all of those guys being effective NHL players is very slim

Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[musichunch]

Answered your own question.

 

I said "and we will". And frankly, I would sacrifice Reinhart for if we had to, but I don't think we will have to. 

 

I don't think salary caps are as honest as they make them out to be. I think stuff goes on behind the scenes. We'll get Stamkos if we want him and he truly wants to be here. 

It's already been speculated how much those guys will cost. It's a lot

 

I don't see the point in speculating 3-4 years ahead with contracts and salary cap. How much did Girg's contract numbers go down after this season? You never know. Eichel might tear his ACL next year and never be the same. 

 

Imagine we pass on Stamkos and he becomes a 60 goal scorer again and Eichel retires at 26. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by musichunch

[WildCard]

I said "and we will". And frankly, I would sacrifice Reinhart for if we had to, but I don't think we will have to.

 

I don't think salary caps are as honest as they make them out to be. I think stuff goes on behind the scenes. We'll get Stamkos if we want him and he truly wants to be here.

 

 

I don't see the point in speculating 3-4 years ahead with contracts and salary cap. How much did Girg's contract numbers go down after this season? You never know. Eichel might tear his ACL next year and never be the same.

Well it, I want a cap of $100m then. The salary cap is entirely legitimate

 

Well, Girgs is cheap. And your argument for injuries makes me wish I had a picture of the foot long rod of steel in Stamkos' leg

Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

Valid to this discussion: rumors the tanking Canadian dollar could actually result in a cap up to $4 million lower next season. Even if the players use the inflator, you're still looking at a stagnating cap. Just assuming cap growth year over year when handing out contracts is a mistake.

 

http://oilersnation.com/2016/2/12/could-the-edmonton-oilers-survive-a-4mm-drop-in-the-salary-cap

[musichunch]

Well ###### it, I want a cap of $100m then. The salary cap is entirely legitimate

 

Well, Girhs is cheap. And your argument for injuries makes me wish I had a picture of the foot long rod of steel in Stamkos' leg

 

How do you know it's legitimate? Because they told you it is.

 

If Pegula wants to give Stamkos and extra $10M in a bank account in the Caymen Islands in exchange for a "pay cut", then he will. 

 

My point is, if we want Stamkos and he wants to be here, he will be here. 

[WildCard]

We're all arguing possibilities but frankly, you're are much less likely.Predicitng contracts off of relative value to the other players in the league, a legitimate salary cap, and past history, is not the same as saying teams adjust the cap to fit players and we might have a career ending injury the likes of which hasn't been seen since Lindros

How do you know it's legitimate? Because they told you it is.

 

If Pegula wants to give Stamkos and extra $10M in a bank account in the Caymen Islands in exchange for a "pay cut", then he will.

 

My point is, if we want Stamkos and he wants to be here, he will be here.

You're serious :lol: Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[Randall Flagg]

Valid to this discussion: rumors the tanking Canadian dollar could actually result in a cap up to $4 million lower next season. Even if the players use the inflator, you're still looking at a stagnating cap. Just assuming cap growth year over year when handing out contracts is a mistake.

 

http://oilersnation.com/2016/2/12/could-the-edmonton-oilers-survive-a-4mm-drop-in-the-salary-cap

What the ? If that happens are they going to give teams another buyout option? That's insane.

[WildCard]

Valid to this discussion: rumors the tanking Canadian dollar could actually result in a cap up to $4 million lower next season. Even if the players use the inflator, you're still looking at a stagnating cap. Just assuming cap growth year over year when handing out contracts is a mistake.

 

http://oilersnation.com/2016/2/12/could-the-edmonton-oilers-survive-a-4mm-drop-in-the-salary-cap

Caps aren't real. Get out of here with your propaganda

[TrueBlueGED]

Caps aren't real. Get out of here with your propaganda

Cayman islands for everyone!

What the ######? If that happens are they going to give teams another buyout option? That's insane.

I'd assume the players would use the inflator to stave off a cap decrease, if those were the options. But still, could see basically zero cap increase.

[musichunch]

Caps aren't real. Get out of here with your propaganda

 

 

Cayman islands for everyone!

 

Whatever. You guys still think professional sports is a fair playing field. No point in arguing with you. 

[Hoss]

Stamkos was injured on November 11, 2013. Since then he has 75 goals in 155 games. That's 40 goals over 82 games. Prior to the injury he had 222 goals in 390 games. That's 47 goals over 82 games.

[#freejame]

Whatever. You guys still think professional sports is a fair playing field. No point in arguing with you. 

Every owner has millions and millions of dollars. If they were all bribing everyone what's the point of a cap? It's not like we have the only loaded owner

[WildCard]

Whatever. You guys still think professional sports is a fair playing field. No point in arguing with you.

So, we respond legitimately to your points, with rationale predictions and examples, and your response is 'But the entire system is fake, so I can bend the rules to make my argument' Nice

 

Seriously, what is the point of a debate if we can get to a point where we completely bust out of the established construct?

Stamkos was injured on November 11, 2013. Since then he has 75 goals in 155 games. That's 40 goals over 82 games. Prior to the injury he had 222 goals in 390 games. That's 47 goals over 82 games.

Good information. Are you not worried about that leg? Edited February 13, 2016 by WildCard

[Hoss]

Good information. Are you not worried about that leg?

I'm not worried about his leg. I was worried about his mental state after he made comments about possibly never feeling right about his leg again, but he put up 43 goals last year.

I think he's having a down year because all of Tampa is having a down year. I think the dynamic there is miserable.

[TrueBlueGED]

It's not just about goals, to me. His overall point production is way down, and that was true last year when Tampa was lethal offensively. His possession stats are all on a lengthy slide as well. I posted the numbers somewhere on the forum awhile back, so no, I won't look them up again :)

 

It's no one thing to me in isolation, it's everything put together that has me gun shy. Lower production two years in a row, worse possession stats multiple years in a row, griping over position played, injury, age, cap, contract structures, our homegrown stars, roster holes we have to fill with no cap room, how much he'll cost and role he'll want. Each of these things alone and I wouldn't be as hesitant as I am; even a couple of them and whatever. But I have like 6 things concern me.

 

I expect this'll be my last post on this for awhile, as I'm just getting agitated at the misrepresentation of the argument. I think he's a great player and a great scorer and we desperately need some scoring. I would happily pay him as a great scorer, but if he wants to be paid like Toews/Kane or more, I think I can build a better team long term without paying him that than if I cough it up because I really don't think he's in that class. And that's really it. There are reasons to disagree. You're not nuts if you want to pay him. I and others don't, and I think we've presented well thought out reasons for that position. Disagree all you want, but at least have the decency to disagree with the arguments that are actually being made.

[WildCard]

Bingo. Bango. Bongo. We have a winner. It's a ton of things, not just one.

 

You should definitely dig up those stats again though. I tried to last night after remembering your post and couldn't find it

[...]

After that compelling segment, I believe I am on the side of taking him if the price is right. He is definitely not an at-all-costs acquisition.

[WildCard]

After that compelling segment, I believe I am on the side of taking him if the price is right. He is definitely not an at-all-costs acquisition.

So what would you take him for? Price wise

[Neo]

Whatever. You guys still think professional sports is a fair playing field. No point in arguing with you.

 

Respectfully ... don't argue with them, show them evidence. I tend to see the world as it is until the moment someone shows me it isn't. Edited February 13, 2016 by N'eo

[calti]

McDavid 19 games 24 pts.

[#freejame]

McDavid 19 games 24 pts.

I don't think there is a person here who doesn't know that, no matter how much they love Eichel

[inkman]

McDavid 19 games 24 pts.

[Hoss]

Stamkos with a nasty slapper from the point to tie the game with 26.6 seconds tonight and then assisted on the OT winner.

[dudacek]

Remember when I did the Blackhawks comparison and somebody pointed out we still needed our Hossa?

This would certainly qualify as our Hossa.

[...]

WildCard, on 12 Feb 2016 - 9:11 PM, said:

So what would you take him for? Price wise

 

I think TBphD makes a good point about Stamkos wanting Toews/Kane money, but not deserving it.  If the $8.5m/8 year offer by Tampa is considered a low ball offer, then I don't think we should bother with him.