McKenzie speculates that Stamkos will end up in Buffalo

[Neo]

Talk about Maple Leaf heads spinning - "Montreal joins Buffalo as possible Stamkos destination".

[SwampD]

Talk about Maple Leaf heads spinning - "Montreal joins Buffalo as possible Stamkos destination".

I can't remember who it was last night on HNIC, but he made a really good case for Montreal.

[inkman]

I can't remember who it was last night on HNIC, but he made a really good case for Montreal.

He'd fit right in with that group of extremely soft players

[bunomatic]

I would think Monreal is looking to shake things up. That team is shite without Price.

[Huckleberry]

Would be funny if he signs  here and says he always loved watching the sabres, the Toronto headlines, can't wait for them :D

 

That being said only giving it a 10% chance he is not staying with tampa.  And I would pass if he asks more than toews and kane.

Wouldn't even pay him as much as toews and kane :p

Edited February 16, 2016 by Huckleberry

[That Aud Smell]

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. 

 

This was worth a review of the parts I'd missed.

 

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. 

 

Hear, hear.

 

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

This would certainly qualify as our Hossa.

 

I'm just not sure we're ready for a Hossa signing.

 

Then again, as others have pointed out (like Sizzle, below): The landscapes of the CBA and free agency are very different nowadays. This is a decidedly unique opportunity. A player of Stamkos's ilk will almost certainly not become available for another 5-7 years.

 

Presently, contender teams have active contracts from the old CBA. That makes it look like those shenanigans are still possible, when they aren't. 

[Rasmus_]

Montreal would have to clear quite a bit of cap to make a Stamkos hit happen.  It makes sense from an offensive perception, but their cap crunch is already tight.  

[dscrapj]

What is the max we could pay Stamkos annually?  Thoughts on giving him a shorter five year max deal in the 12 mill range, to avoid cap issues when Eichel and Rinehart need their big raises.  Stamkos would be 31 or 32 when that deal ended and he could score big again with someone else.

[sabills]

What is the max we could pay Stamkos annually?  Thoughts on giving him a shorter five year max deal in the 12 mill range, to avoid cap issues when Eichel and Rinehart need their big raises.  Stamkos would be 31 or 32 when that deal ended and he could score big again with someone else.

 

Ehhhh maybe, but if he's smart he's not going to bank on that. Look at Moulson at 32. Obviously thats an extreme situation, and Moulson has never been the player that Stamkos is, but still. He's going to want a big, long deal, because who the hell knows what happens in the next 5 years.

 

That being said, if he WAS open to it, you jump right on it if you're the Sabres.

Edited February 16, 2016 by sabills

[Hoss]

There could be an interesting debate about whether he'd be better off taking a four-year deal vs the max seven-year deal he can get in free agency. A four-year deal means he'll probably get one more good contract. A seven-hear deal likely is his final top contract.

Given injury risk and other risks, though, I probably still go seven.

[That Aud Smell]

Ehhhh maybe, but if he's smart he's not going to bank on that. Look at Moulson at 32. Obviously thats an extreme situation, and Moulson has never been the player that Stamkos is, but still. He's going to want a big, long deal, because who the hell knows what happens in the next 5 years.

There could be an interesting debate about whether he'd be better off taking a four-year deal vs the max seven-year deal he can get in free agency. A four-year deal means he'll probably get one more good contract. A seven-hear deal likely is his final top contract.

Given injury risk and other risks, though, I probably still go seven.

 

Man. Just seems like there's no way he's going to take anything but a max deal, in terms of years.

 

I'd been unaware that he had a serious injury. A guy like that should be especially sensitive to how uncertain things can be. He's going to want to maximize his earnings -- this will most likely be his last big deal.

[nfreeman]

Man. Just seems like there's no way he's going to take anything but a max deal, in terms of years.

 

I'd been unaware that he had a serious injury. A guy like that should be especially sensitive to how uncertain things can be. He's going to want to maximize his earnings -- this will most likely be his last big deal.

 

Absolutely.  Anyone who thinks he's not going for max term is kidding himself.

[That Aud Smell]

Absolutely.  Anyone who thinks he's not going for max term is kidding himself.

 

There is a rationale that could lead to that sort of decision (e.g., factoring in a sliding Loonie, etc.) ... but, it's just too much risk.

[Hoss]

Absolutely. Anyone who thinks he's not going for max term is kidding himself.

This is obnoxious.

There is a rationale that could lead to that sort of decision (e.g., factoring in a sliding Loonie, etc.) ... but, it's just too much risk.

This is not obnoxious and I agree. As my post indicates, I don't think he does it. I think there's definitely a rationale to it, though, as you say.

[DeleteThisAccount]

 

JW's original "report" was this tweet:

 

John Wawrow ‏@john_wawrow  55m55 minutes agoBuffalo, NY

As it was told to me, @TSNBobMcKenzie has a good overview of the lay of the land regarding #Sabres/Stamkos discussion.

 

Then, when McKenzie pointed out that he's not reporting anything on Stamkos/Sabres, JW changed it to him being told it's "not out of the realm of possibility."

 

So he went from saying he's been told McKenzie has a good 'lay of the land' in saying that Buffalo would be Stamkos' first choice in free agency to saying "it's not out of the realm of possibility."

 

Then, as mediocre public figures often do, he kept quote tweeting some Toronto fan who was clearly a bit of a fool himself and tore him apart for thinking that Wawrow was reporting that McKenzie knew what he was talking about. Essentially bullied the guy into backing down.

 

Wawrow, if you're reading this: why must you be such a dick? The right move here would've been to admit that his first tweet was poorly worded because, at the very least, it was. Either that or he was blowing smoke and knows nothing.

 

 

How convenient it is of you to fail to include the first tweet in all of this:

 

John Wawrow ‏@john_wawrow Feb 13 Buffalo, NY

On the surface, #Sabres and Stamkos do make sense. Far from saying it is or isn't gonna happen.

 

at no point did i say this was a done deal. at no point did i change my version or back down.

as noted throughout the exchange, the only reason i credited Bob was because he prompted the discussion i had with the person I spoke to. i never once wrote that Bob reported anything. i have only said is that Bob's comments prompted the discussion that took place.

 

since there's more room here than on Twitter, i can say that the discussion went something like this:

Me: "What do you make of what Bob McKenzie said about Stamkos and Buffalo. Seems like he might have been blowing smoke up Stamkos' agent."

Person (paraphrasing) said: Not so. Bob has a good lay of the land. ...

 

Funny that you use the phrase "blowing smoke," as it was the same phrase I used in my conversation.

coincidental or not, i'll repeat that you, as many, misrepresent yourself by failing to include both of my initial tweets on the matter.

 

jw

I do know and if that rule were applied to JW he would've been banned.

 

really. why would i be banned?

 

jw

[That Aud Smell]

thanks for stopping by, john.

 

hoss, i'd missed your original comments directed toward JW. some of what you said was intemperate and needlessly ad hominem.

 

that said: there was a lot of chatter here (and elsewhere), john, about how mckenzie had laid out a case for stamkos to the sabres. for a while, we were lacking context on the how, why, where those statements were made. eventually, someone here pointed out that bob was essentially asked to take the position and support it. that pumped the brakes quite a bit, obviously.

 

it looks like your tweet came at a time when people were susceptible to being further inflamed on the "stamkos to sabres a strong possibility!"

 

add in the fact that mckenzie had said something about it, and the internet was off to the races. for a while.

 

were i you, i would've issued a mild mea culpa for inadvertently adding to any momentum that the misinformation had gained.

[rickshaw]

Stamkos would be nice for sure, but they've got to be able to keep the young guys going forward and his huge contract may make that very difficult to do down the road. But Reinhart to Stamkos sure would look good on the stat sheet every other night.

[Hoss]

How convenient it is of you to fail to include the first tweet in all of this:

 

John Wawrow ‏@john_wawrow Feb 13 Buffalo, NY

 

On the surface, #Sabres and Stamkos do make sense. Far from saying it is or isn't gonna happen.

 

at no point did i say this was a done deal. at no point did i change my version or back down.

as noted throughout the exchange, the only reason i credited Bob was because he prompted the discussion i had with the person I spoke to. i never once wrote that Bob reported anything. i have only said is that Bob's comments prompted the discussion that took place.

 

since there's more room here than on Twitter, i can say that the discussion went something like this:

Me: "What do you make of what Bob McKenzie said about Stamkos and Buffalo. Seems like he might have been blowing smoke up Stamkos' agent."

Person (paraphrasing) said: Not so. Bob has a good lay of the land. ...

 

Funny that you use the phrase "blowing smoke," as it was the same phrase I used in my conversation.

coincidental or not, i'll repeat that you, as many, misrepresent yourself by failing to include both of my initial tweets on the matter.

 

jw

 

 

really. why would i be banned?

 

jw

This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up...

But your report makes absolutely no sense. You say McKenzie has a good lay of the land regarding the Sabres/Stamkos discussion. Bob comes back DIRECTLY TO YOU and tells you he isn't saying anything about a Sabres/Stamkos discussion. It was essentially a game show. Based on your brief breakdown of the discussion a more appropriate tweet would've excluded any connection from the Sabres to Stamkos as nothing related to the Sabres was being reported by McKenzie. Your tweet indicates that what he said on TSN was an example of his grasp on the situation surrounding Stamkos AS IT RELATES TO THE SABRES.

 

I'm sure Bob McKenzie has as good a grasp on Stamkos as anybody outside of Stamkos' life and Tampa Bay.

 

Also nobody here said you said it was a done deal. Don't get your Twitter battles mixed up with what's going on here. The person that persistently claimed you did was a fool for doing so and your badgering/quote tweet bullying of him only made him look more foolish.

 

The initial tweet is irrelevant to the discussion because the discussion is specifically about the Bob McKenzie tweet. And you say you only credited Bob because he started the conversation but then the conversation you represented in your post is exclusively about Bob McKenzie.

 

I think you missed on this one.

 

 

And your long attack on GoDD probably would've gotten a suspension at least for many. But I don't actually think you'd be banned. My comment was about somebody saying my post about you could be ban worthy. Neither of us should be banned for our comments, but if one of us would be the other certainly crossed whatever imaginary line is drawn.

 

 

I value you as a reporter in Buffalo sports. One of the very select few I think has legitimate sources and is willing to go to the dirty places for a small scoop (I know this to be true). But I think you're just as grumpy as the rest and far too condescending/defensive with those who know far less than you. It's a big world with a lot of people. There are few shared experiences between certain people so shaming them on twitter by making their ignorance public instead of just ignoring it is wrong.

[Eleven]

This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up...

But your report makes absolutely no sense. You say McKenzie has a good lay of the land regarding the Sabres/Stamkos discussion. Bob comes back DIRECTLY TO YOU and tells you he isn't saying anything about a Sabres/Stamkos discussion. It was essentially a game show. Based on your brief breakdown of the discussion a more appropriate tweet would've excluded any connection from the Sabres to Stamkos as nothing related to the Sabres was being reported by McKenzie. Your tweet indicates that what he said on TSN was an example of his grasp on the situation surrounding Stamkos AS IT RELATES TO THE SABRES.

 

I'm sure Bob McKenzie has as good a grasp on Stamkos as anybody outside of Stamkos' life and Tampa Bay.

 

Also nobody here said you said it was a done deal. Don't get your Twitter battles mixed up with what's going on here. The person that persistently claimed you did was a fool for doing so and your badgering/quote tweet bullying of him only made him look more foolish.

 

The initial tweet is irrelevant to the discussion because the discussion is specifically about the Bob McKenzie tweet. And you say you only credited Bob because he started the conversation but then the conversation you represented in your post is exclusively about Bob McKenzie.

 

I think you missed on this one.

 

 

And your long attack on GoDD probably would've gotten a suspension at least for many. But I don't actually think you'd be banned. My comment was about somebody saying my post about you could be ban worthy. Neither of us should be banned for our comments, but if one of us would be the other certainly crossed whatever imaginary line is drawn.

 

 

I value you as a reporter in Buffalo sports. One of the very select few I think has legitimate sources and is willing to go to the dirty places for a small scoop (I know this to be true). But I think you're just as grumpy as the rest and far too condescending/defensive with those who know far less than you. It's a big world with a lot of people. There are few shared experiences between certain people so shaming them on twitter by making their ignorance public instead of just ignoring it is wrong.

 

I'm staying out of this but I will say that your last sentence resonates with me.  Not necessarily with respect to jw, because I don't see him do that a lot, but just generally.

 

EDIT:  That goes for the other side of the interaction, too.  No need to tweet a reporter or a player or whatever and call them names.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Eleven

[That Aud Smell]

This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up...

 

this sort of stuff should stop.

 

also: i wasn't backing him up, per se. at least not in all respects. and certainly not because of he's a publicly known journalist.

[Hoss]

hoss, i'd missed your original comments directed toward JW. some of what you said was intemperate and needlessly ad hominem.

 

that said: there was a lot of chatter here (and elsewhere), john, about how mckenzie had laid out a case for stamkos to the sabres. for a while, we were lacking context on the how, why, where those statements were made. eventually, someone here pointed out that bob was essentially asked to take the position and support it. that pumped the brakes quite a bit, obviously.

 

it looks like your tweet came at a time when people were susceptible to being further inflamed on the "stamkos to sabres a strong possibility!"

 

add in the fact that mckenzie had said something about it, and the internet was off to the races. for a while.

 

were i you, i would've issued a mild mea culpa for inadvertently adding to any momentum that the misinformation had gained.

I agree with everything you said here. Hopefully my follow up above makes my position more clear instead.

this sort of stuff should stop.

 

also: i wasn't backing him up, per se. at least not in all respects. and certainly not because of he's a publicly known journalist.

Again, agreed. I wasn't really saying you were backing him up. Thanking him for being here is a little fanboyish but you followed up with a legitimate criticism of his actions.

I should stop talking like that. I'm an emotional person. It takes time for me to get to a more level-headed speaking arrangement. I purposefully left that in the post because I felt it was important to show the progression of my thoughts while I was making that post. I'm a work in progress as is everybody here.

I'm staying out of this but I will say that your last sentence resonates with me. Not necessarily with respect to jw, because I don't see him do that a lot, but just generally.

 

EDIT: That goes for the other side of the interaction, too. No need to tweet a reporter or a player or whatever and call them names.

Your edit is certainly spot on. If the ignorance is destructive prior to any further provoking then expose those idiots to the masses. If it's mild and in disagreement then a more personal direct response without "quote tweeting" is more fair (for those that don't know a response to a tweet will ONLY show to people that follow both individuals whereas a QUOTE TWEET will show to everybody who follows the person quote tweeting. A more well-known individual quote tweeting will instantly draw attention to the tweet quoted).

I feel as though public figures should just block people more often than they engage in public banter with them. Nobody ends up looking good there.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Hoss

[That Aud Smell]

I'm an emotional person. It takes time for me to get to a more level-headed speaking arrangement. I purposefully left that in the post because I felt it was important to show the progression of my thoughts while I was making that post. I'm a work in progress as is everybody here.

 

Self-awareness is an awesome thing. 

 

You should not, under any circumstances, seek to be someone other than who you are. That passion will make you effective at what you do. You've done real work around here at harnessing and managing that energy.

Edited February 16, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[tom webster]

I'm staying out of this but I will say that your last sentence resonates with me.  Not necessarily with respect to jw, because I don't see him do that a lot, but just generally.

 

EDIT:  That goes for the other side of the interaction, too.  No need to tweet a reporter or a player or whatever and call them names.

I agree with this completely and have told Mr. Wawrow as much. I group up having a tremendous amount of respect for local writers and AP writers especially. I can't imagine how it would feel to be continuously attacked by people who either can't comprehend what was written or just plain don't agree with it but I wish people like JW and Tim Graham would stay out of the fray. It does nothing to enhance their standing and usually just turns off people like myself.

That being said, JW is my go to guy when it comes to intelligent, insightful and connected opinions and information, I just wish I could filter out the rest.

[That Aud Smell]

Thanking him for being here is a little fanboyish

 

Arguably. I only intend that to be a recognition that he's an AP journo with actual sources who's appearing here under his real-life identity. It's a value-add to the community. 

[WildCard]

Never read JW, but I do like Tye Dunn. Still, I think Hoss has made his point pretty well. Good on him for not backing down when JW came to defend himself.

Curious, JW, how often do you visit us?

Edited February 16, 2016 by WildCard