Steven Stamkos stays in Tampa Bay, 8.5mil x 8yrs

[qwksndmonster]

Well he had MacKinnon, then a loaded Lightning team, so I think questioning if he's the producer or beneficiary is justified. Plus, there's no way he's consistently putting up 70. That's up there with Tavares, Backstrome, and Ovechkin

He did fine the year after MacKinnon left. He was a year older against kids, but he still proved he can do it all by himself.

 

And yeah. He's gonna be Tarasenko good, but more skewed towards playmaking.

[...]

Which teams are they that might be a good fit but need to dump salary? Any chance we could take on a salary dumped player from a team desperate for Stamkos and win the deal?

[bob_sauve28]

If he wants "to be the man" I don't think he would want to come to our team. 

[LGR4GM]

Stamkos minus his rookie year:

 

2009/10: 0.622gpg, 1.159ppg, 82games

2010/11: 0.549gpg, 1.110ppg, 82games

2011/12: 0.731gpg, 1.183ppg, 82games

2012/13: 0.604gpg, 1.188ppg, 48games

2013/14: 0.676gpg, 1.081ppg, 37games

2014/15: 0.524gpg, 0.878ppg, 82games

2015/16: 0.468gpg, 0.831ppg, 77games

 

 

What does this all mean... idk but I figured I would post it.

[Drunkard]

I can see the argument for not wanting Stamkos because he'll command a huge contract and we'll soon have other players we need to lock up (Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, and our eventual answer at top pairing LHD) and I can see the argument for not wanting to give him a huge contract because of his recent health issues including his broken leg and blood clots. What I don't get is the arguments about not wanting him if he wants to play center or expresses an interest in being the captain.

 

Stamkos is a top 10 center in this league in his prime and some people want to pass because he wants to play his natural position? That makes no sense to me, especially since 2 of our centers (O'Reilly and Reinhart) have proven to be very effective players on the wing. Plus if we keep Reinhart at wing long enough, we may even be able to lock him up long term without having to pay the center position premium and we can always move him or O'Reilly back to center as needed for injuries and things like that. The captaincy argument is even more confusing. Who really cares about the C or A on a guys jersey? Leaders will be leaders regardless of who's wearing what letters and to pass on a guy with his goal scoring abilities because of a reason like that makes no sense. I just don't see the Captaincy as having any impact whatsoever on Murray's decision. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Drunkard

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

Am I the only one that thinks any team signing Stamkos is a huge risk for medical reasons?  He is dealing with blood clots, which is a totally different animal than a bad knee or shoulder surgery.  We just saw McCormicks career end over this in Buffalo and I'm worried Stamkos plays part of the season next year and then is forced into retirement.  I would love to have a pure goal scorer on this team, and would prefer someone proven like Stamkos than Cody Hodgson... I mean Jonathan Drouin.  :P

 

Can someone please help me jump on the "Stamkos to the Sabres" bandwagon and answer these two questions?

 

1) Is there a history of players that suffered from blood clots coming back and having a long career?

2) If Stamkos is forced into retirement due to blood clots, what would the Sabres be on the hook for per the CBA?

Edited June 2, 2016 by SHAAAUGHT!!!

[beerme1]

I will be shocked if Stamkos doesn't get max term (i.e. 7 years, or 8 if it's TB) and $10MM+ per year.

 

 

I completely agree with this so won't be the least bit surprised when it happens. Points = $$$

 

 

Which teams are they that might be a good fit but need to dump salary? Any chance we could take on a salary dumped player from a team desperate for Stamkos and win the deal?

 

 

Yesterday I brought up the Rangers as an example that fits what you're saying. Big city team that wont be spending the money on Yandle and will be looking to trade Nash. Personally I'm not sure how much Nash has left but it would be an interesting and importantly, short term concern.

If you have to pay NY State taxes where do you want to do it from? Buffalo or NYC?

 

This thought just entered my head. We still have Moulson. Sigh.

[Drunkard]

Am I the only one that thinks any team signing Stamkos is a huge risk for medical reasons?  He is dealing with blood clots, which is a totally different animal than a bad knee or shoulder surgery.  We just saw McCormicks career end over this in Buffalo and I'm worried Stamkos plays part of the season next year and then is forced into retirement.  I would love to have a pure goal scorer on this team, and would prefer someone proven like Stamkos than Cody Hodgson... I mean Jonathan Drouin.  :P

 

Can someone please help me jump on the "Stamkos to the Sabres" bandwagon and answer these two questions?

 

1) Is there a history of players that suffered from blood clots coming back and having a long career?

2) If Stamkos is forced into retirement due to blood clots, what would the Sabres be on the hook for per the CBA?

 

The injury concerns still give me pause but if he ends up out long term or retiring early it wouldn't really impact us too negatively because:

 

1) We have Daddy Warbucks footing the bill and since he has no problem raising ticket prices consistently, I have no problem with him paying somebody to not play

 

2) Players on LTIR don't count against the cap so if it is something serious or long term it won't affect our ability to replace him

 

The only real issue stems from nagging lesser health issues that could either have him miss time but not enough for us to put him on LTIR or replace him or if his injuries allow him to play but his production suffers. That would be the worst case scenario.

[Weave]

The injury concerns still give me pause but if he ends up out long term or retiring early it wouldn't really impact us too negatively because:

 

1) We have Daddy Warbucks footing the bill and since he has no problem raising ticket prices consistently, I have no problem with him paying somebody to not play

 

2) Players on LTIR don't count against the cap so if it is something serious or long term it won't affect our ability to replace him

 

The only real issue stems from nagging lesser health issues that could either have him miss time but not enough for us to put him on LTIR or replace him or if his injuries allow him to play but his production suffers. That would be the worst case scenario.

In my mind, the biggest issue regarding a potential Stamkos long term injury is the opportunity cost. Who didnt we sign to sign him?

 

Having said that, it wouldnt stop me from signing him.

[WildCard]

Stamkos minus his rookie year:

 

2009/10: 0.622gpg, 1.159ppg, 82games

2010/11: 0.549gpg, 1.110ppg, 82games

2011/12: 0.731gpg, 1.183ppg, 82games

2012/13: 0.604gpg, 1.188ppg, 48games

2013/14: 0.676gpg, 1.081ppg, 37games

2014/15: 0.524gpg, 0.878ppg, 82games

2015/16: 0.468gpg, 0.831ppg, 77games

 

 

What does this all mean... idk but I figured I would post it.

League wide scoring droughts. Although earlier in this thread I posted 2 very well written articles detailing the decline of Stamkos relative to those around him. It's not good

 

I can see the argument for not wanting Stamkos because he'll command a huge contract and we'll soon have other players we need to lock up (Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, and our eventual answer at top pairing LHD) and I can see the argument for not wanting to give him a huge contract because of his recent health issues including his broken leg and blood clots. What I don't get is the arguments about not wanting him if he wants to play center or expresses an interest in being the captain.

 

Stamkos is a top 10 center in this league in his prime and some people want to pass because he wants to play his natural position? That makes no sense to me, especially since 2 of our centers (O'Reilly and Reinhart) have proven to be very effective players on the wing. Plus if we keep Reinhart at wing long enough, we may even be able to lock him up long term without having to pay the center position premium and we can always move him or O'Reilly back to center as needed for injuries and things like that. The captaincy argument is even more confusing. Who really cares about the C or A on a guys jersey? Leaders will be leaders regardless of who's wearing what letters and to pass on a guy with his goal scoring abilities because of a reason like that makes no sense. I just don't see the Captaincy as having any impact whatsoever on Murray's decision. 

Top 10 center and wants to be paid like a top 3 player. Stamkos skill set fits a winger anyways, not a center IMO. There's a reason even TB has him on the wing

 

Am I the only one that thinks any team signing Stamkos is a huge risk for medical reasons?  He is dealing with blood clots, which is a totally different animal than a bad knee or shoulder surgery.  We just saw McCormicks career end over this in Buffalo and I'm worried Stamkos plays part of the season next year and then is forced into retirement.  I would love to have a pure goal scorer on this team, and would prefer someone proven like Stamkos than Cody Hodgson... I mean Jonathan Drouin.  :P

 

Can someone please help me jump on the "Stamkos to the Sabres" bandwagon and answer these two questions?

 

1) Is there a history of players that suffered from blood clots coming back and having a long career?

2) If Stamkos is forced into retirement due to blood clots, what would the Sabres be on the hook for per the CBA?

The blood clot has been found to be a freak thing, and not inherent in his genetics at all; it's not going to end his career like Dupuis. 

 

 

In my mind, the biggest issue regarding a potential Stamkos long term injury is the opportunity cost. Who didnt we sign to sign him?

 

Having said that, it wouldnt stop me from signing him.

I mean, it's a catch-22, right? Ultimately I don't like that approach, simply because we won't know what the future holds. It is, however, applicable when viewing our current roster core, just not FA and UFA that may or may not come along. Still, if in this offseason, his acquisition prevents us from addressing our blue line, then I'll lose it. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by WildCard

[LGR4GM]

I can see the argument for not wanting Stamkos because he'll command a huge contract and we'll soon have other players we need to lock up (Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, and our eventual answer at top pairing LHD) and I can see the argument for not wanting to give him a huge contract because of his recent health issues including his broken leg and blood clots. What I don't get is the arguments about not wanting him if he wants to play center or expresses an interest in being the captain.

 

Stamkos is a top 10 center in this league in his prime and some people want to pass because he wants to play his natural position? That makes no sense to me, especially since 2 of our centers (O'Reilly and Reinhart) have proven to be very effective players on the wing. Plus if we keep Reinhart at wing long enough, we may even be able to lock him up long term without having to pay the center position premium and we can always move him or O'Reilly back to center as needed for injuries and things like that. The captaincy argument is even more confusing. Who really cares about the C or A on a guys jersey? Leaders will be leaders regardless of who's wearing what letters and to pass on a guy with his goal scoring abilities because of a reason like that makes no sense. I just don't see the Captaincy as having any impact whatsoever on Murray's decision. 

I don't think that playing center and being captain would be my Alamo or Little Big Horn, I wouldn't fight to the last man over that, but they certainly would be part of the final picture. As to the bolded, I disagree in part. Ryan O'Reilly has said how getting the A and being a go-to guy on the team has shaped him into being more vocal and more of a leader. Some good leaders don't lead when not in that position because they are following like they should. I think it would have a small impact on Murray's decision because if Stamkos enters talks and says I want to be the #1 center and the Captain or no deal, that is something for Murray to consider. This team suffered through a lot this year and they came out the other side stronger as a group. Remember all those scraps like in Phoenix where everyone on the ice defended teammates? Those things do matter and bringing in an outsider and proclaiming him Captain could impact the team. Should it be the straw breaking the back? No, but it should be considered just like his scoring. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by LGR4GM

[WildCard]

Teams are not just collections of talent. It never, ever works when you do that. They have to fit together and have a dynamic. We already have that, we saw it all last season. Throwing in a giant new piece isn't a good move IMO. 

[LGR4GM]

Teams are not just collections of talent. It never, ever works when you do that. They have to fit together and have a dynamic. We already have that, we saw it all last season. Throwing in a giant new piece isn't a good move IMO. 

I would say it could or could not be a good move. Depends on what Stamkos wants his role to be and where he wants to fit in. 

[WildCard]

I would say it could or could not be a good move. Depends on what Stamkos wants his role to be and where he wants to fit in. 

True, and we'll never know until much later on. However, I think I can make a reasonable assumption on it, although I know others disagree. The risk does outweighs the benefits IMO

Edited June 2, 2016 by WildCard

[Drunkard]

I don't think that playing center and being captain would be my Alamo or Little Big Horn, I wouldn't fight to the last man over that, but they certainly would be part of the final picture. As to the bolded, I disagree in part. Ryan O'Reilly has said how getting the A and being a go-to guy on the team has shaped him into being more vocal and more of a leader. Some good leaders don't lead when not in that position because they are following like they should. I think it would have a small impact on Murray's decision because if Stamkos enters talks and says I want to be the #1 center and the Captain or no deal, that is something for Murray to consider. This team suffered through a lot this year and they came out the other side stronger as a group. Remember all those scraps like in Phoenix where everyone on the ice defended teammates? Those things do matter and bringing in an outsider and proclaiming him Captain could impact the team. Should it be the straw breaking the back? No, but it should be considered just like his scoring. 

 

I just don't think it matters. If it did then O'Reilly should have used that A on his chest to find the courage to stick up for Reinhart early in the season when he got knocked on his ass with absolutely no response from us. At least get in the guys face and start a shoving contest like an 8 year old. Hell, even Tyler Myers was good for that much.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Drunkard

[Hoss]

Where do you put him in this lineup though? I feel like he has to play wing

 

Given the choice, Stamkos or top 4 defender, which do you target first?

Eichel is a center regardless. After that it depends on Stamkos and/or O'Reilly's willingness to play wing. If Stamkos is willing then he goes to the wing.

 

And it depends on the defender, innit? Top four is a pretty wide net to cast. If it's Stamkos vs a true top-pairing defender it's a tougher decision. Except the part where we'll have to give up assets and cash for that and can just get Stankos for cash. So right now my eyes are all over Stamkos. We can still pickup a top-four defender on top of Stamkos.

 

Let it be known: I won't be heartbroken if we don't get Stamkos and I think we're on track to winning a cup regardless of where he ends up.

[rakish]

... Although earlier in this thread I posted 2 very well written articles detailing the decline of Stamkos relative to those around him. It's not good

 

 

Liger helped with the comparables.

 

[LGR4GM]

I just don't think it matters. If it did then O'Reilly should have used that A on his chest to find the courage to stick up for Reinhart early in the season when he got knocked on his ass with absolutely no response from us. At least get in the guys face and start a shoving contest like an 8 year old. Hell, even Tyler Myers was good for that much.

The key here is early in the season, also I don't think ROR getting in a guys face equals courage or in some cases leadership. 

Liger helped with the comparables.

 

 

What's the Y axis represent, Time?

[rakish]

Y is my raw valuation.  rule of thumb is that 1000 is an NHL player.  I screwed up and cropped off the age, which is the x axis, I'll post it again

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by rakish

[Drunkard]

The key here is early in the season, also I don't think ROR getting in a guys face equals courage or in some cases leadership.

 

 

What's the Y axis represent, Time?

I didn't see O'Reilly sticking up for his teammates later in the season either, but that play will always stick in my craw. I prefer leaders who will stick up for their teammates, especially ones who aren't known for being tough guys. You can still be a good captain/leader without that trait but I think it still has value, especially during playoff time when things get more chippy and the refs start to swallow their whistles.

[WildCard]

Liger helped with the comparables.

 

(awesome graph)

I've seen nearly that exact same graph; it's very telling IMO. Thanks for that

 

Eichel is a center regardless. After that it depends on Stamkos and/or O'Reilly's willingness to play wing. If Stamkos is willing then he goes to the wing.

 

And it depends on the defender, innit? Top four is a pretty wide net to cast. If it's Stamkos vs a true top-pairing defender it's a tougher decision. Except the part where we'll have to give up assets and cash for that and can just get Stankos for cash. So right now my eyes are all over Stamkos. We can still pickup a top-four defender on top of Stamkos.

 

Let it be known: I won't be heartbroken if we don't get Stamkos and I think we're on track to winning a cup regardless of where he ends up.

I think it depends on Stamkos willingness, to be honest. ROR is a better center than Stamkos, he should be there. Stamkos needs to be on ROR; we can't put Stamkos with Jack

 

True, it does depend on the defender. I really think we need two, something like Goligoski and company. I would rather get two defenders like that, and either trade for someone the Avs will screw up with or sign a FA like Eriksson. 

[LGR4GM]

The Chart is interesting. I wonder if Stamkos continues to decline or just had a rough couple of years?

[WildCard]

Here's a good place to start for looking at Stamkos stats

http://ownthepuck.blogspot.ca/2016/01/warrior-charts-forwards.html

And 2 good articles on his worth and status

 

http://thehockeywriters.com/steven-stamkos-the-term-elite-might-be-an-understatement/

 

(Hey, Flagg, who's that guy up in the top right? Right below Seguin, and miles above Kopitar?

 

TBF with that line of reasoning, we have Kadri > ROR, and Eric Staal > Kopitar 

http://www.si.com/nhl/2016/01/08/steven-stamkos-tampa-bay-lightning-contract-advanced-analytics

So exactly what we thought; decline, so much decline. He's not going to get any better with age, folks

 

*points* AND YOU GET FREE STAMKOS GRAPHS! *points* AND YOU GET FREE STAMKOS GRAPHS! 

Read the article, guys, it's a good one and will help explain the graphs

 

 

The Chart is interesting. I wonder if Stamkos continues to decline or just had a rough couple of years?

[LGR4GM]

So buyer beware

[nfreeman]

Teams are not just collections of talent. It never, ever works when you do that. They have to fit together and have a dynamic. We already have that, we saw it all last season. Throwing in a giant new piece isn't a good move IMO. 

 

Well, I like what is developing too, but let's not forget that the Sabres finished tied for 25th in scoring last year.  They certainly haven't arrived at a spot where they don't need a guy like Stamkos.