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

[pi2000]

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. 

 

We do?  Buffalo missed the playoffs last time I checked, ranking 26th in goals for, 16th in goals against.    

 

To take the next step they need goal scorers, Stamkos is legit top 3 scorer in the league and he's only 26.    I don't see him on any sort of decline, in fact, I believe he has significant upside playing with guys like Eichel and Reinhart, instead of Namestnikov, Palat or Callahan who he's played with the past few season.

[qwksndmonster]

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. 

We're hurting for goal scorers.  I don't see how signing Stamkos makes our team a collection of talent.

[Norcal]

I think Murray should tell Stamkos he will be primarily a wing with the occasional game situation or injury moving him to center. Be honest with him right up front and don't give in to his demands(if Stamkos is not open to wing) If he balks, move on.

[WildCard]

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.

We do?  Buffalo missed the playoffs last time I checked, ranking 26th in goals for, 16th in goals against.    

 

To take the next step they need goal scorers, Stamkos is legit top 3 scorer in the league and he's only 26.    I don't see him on any sort of decline, in fact, I believe he has significant upside playing with guys like Eichel and Reinhart, instead of Namestnikov, Palat or Callahan who he's played with the past few season.

Flagg I believe had a stat in the other thread where we were very near tops in the league with under 25 goal scorers. 1/2 of our top 4 scorers are rookies. They will get better, and score more. We also lost Ennis for a long time. And, let's not forget that you can't score if your stuck in your own end. The last of which I maintain is the crux of the issue

 

We're hurting for goal scorers.  I don't see how signing Stamkos makes our team a collection of talent.

I don't believe we are. If the team does not gel, and players can't play well together, it's simply a collection of talent. It's not about getting the best players, it's about getting the right ones. You may believe Stamkos is the right one, I do not

[qwksndmonster]

I don't believe we are. If the team does not gel, and players can't play well together, it's simply a collection of talent. It's not about getting the best players, it's about getting the right ones. You may believe Stamkos is the right one, I do not

Sam, Jack, and O'Reilly are all capable of putting the puck in the net, but they're all playmakers first.  Nobody on our roster currently fits the role of a pure goal scorer. Even if Ennis returns to form, he's more of a playmaker as well. Zemgus, Bailey, and Fasching might be able to develop into capable finishers.  Kane is more of a volume scorer than a finisher.  

 

I think our forwards ranks are currently a mismatched combination of mostly playmakers.  We're in need of a Kessel/Stamkos type to round it out.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm not convinced we'd do any damage to the "team development" versus having just a bunch of players by adding Stamkos. Like freeman was saying, the "team chemistry" didn't do much for us this year. I'm willing to bet Steve could find some friends and get some chemistry with Sam or ROR. The only thing I worry about with Stamkos is cap hit.

[nfreeman]

I think Murray should tell Stamkos he will be primarily a wing with the occasional game situation or injury moving him to center. Be honest with him right up front and don't give in to his demands(if Stamkos is not open to wing) If he balks, move on.

 

Why not have Stamkos as the #1 center, Eichel as #2 center and Reino and ROR on the wings, along with Ennis and Kaner to complete the top 6?  Are we really going to say no to Stamkos just because we want to keep ROR at center?

 

Sam, Jack, and O'Reilly are all capable of putting the puck in the net, but they're all playmakers first.  Nobody on our roster currently fits the role of a pure goal scorer. Even if Ennis returns to form, he's more of a playmaker as well. Zemgus, Bailey, and Fasching might be able to develop into capable finishers.  Kane is more of a volume scorer than a finisher.  

 

I think our forwards ranks are currently a mismatched combination of mostly playmakers.  We're in need of a Kessel/Stamkos type to round it out.

 

Not sure what this means.  I'm kinda hoping to see a lot of volume scoring from Kaner.

[qwksndmonster]

Meaning Kane takes a lot of shots rather than frequently cashing in on dangerous scoring chances.

Edited June 2, 2016 by qwksndmonster

[dudacek]

Why on earth do people think Stamkos will demand to be captain?

I have never seen any evidence of that degree of douchiness from him.

Of course we wouldn't want him if he is that kind of teammate.

[TrueBlueGED]

We do? Buffalo missed the playoffs last time I checked, ranking 26th in goals for, 16th in goals against.

 

To take the next step they need goal scorers, Stamkos is legit top 3 scorer in the league and he's only 26. I don't see him on any sort of decline, in fact, I believe he has significant upside playing with guys like Eichel and Reinhart, instead of Namestnikov, Palat or Callahan who he's played with the past few season.

The Sabres have to score more goals, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to add scoring forwards.

[Thorner]

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

 

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. 

 

We don't know this. 

 

Sam, Jack, and O'Reilly are all capable of putting the puck in the net, but they're all playmakers first.  Nobody on our roster currently fits the role of a pure goal scorer. Even if Ennis returns to form, he's more of a playmaker as well. Zemgus, Bailey, and Fasching might be able to develop into capable finishers.  Kane is more of a volume scorer than a finisher.  

 

I think our forwards ranks are currently a mismatched combination of mostly playmakers.  We're in need of a Kessel/Stamkos type to round it out.

 

100% agreed.

[Norcal]

Why not have Stamkos as the #1 center, Eichel as #2 center and Reino and ROR on the wings, along with Ennis and Kaner to complete the top 6? Are we really going to say no to Stamkos just because we want to keep ROR at center?

 

I just feel RORs career 53% face off is better than Stamkos 48% and ROR has a little better all around game. If anything i'd like to see Stamkos share faceoffs with Jack and play LW with him and Reinhart. IMO Stamkos will have the biggest impact on the Sabres by finding creases in his shooting lanes and receiving feeds from the wonder twins. Edited June 2, 2016 by Murray's Rats

[Thorner]

Why on earth do people think Stamkos will demand to be captain?

I have never seen any evidence of that degree of douchiness from him.

Of course we wouldn't want him if he is that kind of teammate.

 

Exactly.

 

Sorry, don't have much to add of my own to these points. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Why not have Stamkos as the #1 center, Eichel as #2 center and Reino and ROR on the wings, along with Ennis and Kaner to complete the top 6? Are we really going to say no to Stamkos just because we want to keep ROR at center?

While this would be my lineup if we landed Stamkos, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about the lack of two-way play with them as your top two forwards. Stamkos is average at best, and Eichel is flat awful. While Pittsburgh is showing it can be done, they're the exception when it comes to not having a stud two-way center getting big minutes.

[...]

TrueBlueGED, on 02 Jun 2016 - 3:58 PM, said:

While this would be my lineup if we landed Stamkos, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about the lack of two-way play with them as your top two forwards. Stamkos is average at best, and Eichel is flat awful. While Pittsburgh is showing it can be done, they're the exception when it comes to not having a stud two-way center getting big minutes.

 

Not picking on you TB (GED...giggle), but your comment sparked a thought: it seems this time of year, every year, we're talking about what the exceptions to the norm are for the teams in the big dance.  Maybe one of you focused people with the time will find the point interesting enough to dig up the info, but I think it would be interesting to collate those exceptions over the past 10 years or so.

The hypothesis being that there's the accepted way it ought to be done, then there is the way the winners have done it.

And that, there really is no particular formula that transcends each season; that the end result ultimately winds up being best described as "chemistry".

... or "alchemy".

[TrueBlueGED]

Not picking on you TB (GED...giggle), but your comment sparked a thought: it seems this time of year, every year, we're talking about what the exceptions to the norm are for the teams in the big dance. Maybe one of you focused people with the time will find the point interesting enough to dig up the info, but I think it would be interesting to collate those exceptions over the past 10 years or so.

 

The hypothesis being that there's the accepted way it ought to be done, then there is the way the winners have done it.

 

And that, there really is no particular formula that transcends each season ; that the end result ultimately winds up being best described as "chemistry".

 

... or "alchemy".

Puck possession statistics.

 

*ducks*

 

Just off the top of my head: Toews x3, Kopitar x2, Bergeron. The last six winners have had that two-way stud center in their top-6. Detroit had Datsyuk and Zetterberg both filling that role. Pittsburgh is seriously the only one without it, so it's not like this is some obscure thing.

 

I don't think it's the case you can't run three scoring lines like this incarnation of the Pens (their last winner had Staal beasting it), but it's really quite a bit harder to assemble that much firepower as opposed to a more balanced or defensive approach. Basically, I think the availability of the right talent drives it more than any group think or follow the leader stuff.

[WildCard]

Sam, Jack, and O'Reilly are all capable of putting the puck in the net, but they're all playmakers first.  Nobody on our roster currently fits the role of a pure goal scorer. Even if Ennis returns to form, he's more of a playmaker as well. Zemgus, Bailey, and Fasching might be able to develop into capable finishers.  Kane is more of a volume scorer than a finisher.  

 

I think our forwards ranks are currently a mismatched combination of mostly playmakers.  We're in need of a Kessel/Stamkos type to round it out.

I don't know why you even need a pure goal scorer on your roster. You don't, IMO. Jack, Reinhart, and ROR can all finish, and as much as we give Kane crap, he still scored 20 while missing a ton of time. Ennis can score 20, so can Zemgus. Why do we need a finisher?

 

I'm not convinced we'd do any damage to the "team development" versus having just a bunch of players by adding Stamkos. Like freeman was saying, the "team chemistry" didn't do much for us this year. I'm willing to bet Steve could find some friends and get some chemistry with Sam or ROR. The only thing I worry about with Stamkos is cap hit.

We saw team chemistry matter all year. It matters. Ask the 2004 Red Sox, the Eagles Dream Team, and any Yankees team assembled when they bought players. 

 

The Sabres have to score more goals, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to add scoring forwards.

exactly

 

We don't know this. 

 

 

100% agreed.

I think we do, for the reasons True denotes below. They're terrible/average defensively. They'd never get out of their own end. Even when they did, who controls the flow of the game?

 

While this would be my lineup if we landed Stamkos, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about the lack of two-way play with them as your top two forwards. Stamkos is average at best, and Eichel is flat awful. While Pittsburgh is showing it can be done, they're the exception when it comes to not having a stud two-way center getting big minutes.

[...]

TrueBlueGED, on 02 Jun 2016 - 4:22 PM, said:

Puck possession statistics.

 

*ducks*

 

 

 

No ducking needed, that's a good one.  Actually, then you can say whatever the team does, the principle metric it should address is puck possession.  Yes?  I would assume possession begets all other positive stats.

 

Have Stamkos possession stats been posted in this thread?  I guess I should look...

[TrueBlueGED]

No ducking needed, that's a good one. Actually, then you can say whatever the team does, the principle metric it should address is puck possession. Yes? I would assume possession begets all other positive stats.

 

Have Stamkos possession stats been posted in this thread? I guess I should look...

We're at 15 pages, I'm sure it's here somewhere :lol:

[nfreeman]

While this would be my lineup if we landed Stamkos, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned about the lack of two-way play with them as your top two forwards. Stamkos is average at best, and Eichel is flat awful. While Pittsburgh is showing it can be done, they're the exception when it comes to not having a stud two-way center getting big minutes.

 

But if ROR is on Stammer's line, who's to say that ROR won't handle center defensive responsibilities in the defensive zone?  I'd guess that if Stammer really does have issues with preferring center to wing, those issues are related to offensive zone play, not defensive zone play.

 

ROR-Stamkos-Ennis

Kane-Eichel-Reino

 

I'll admit that the 2nd line doesn't have a Kopitar or Toews, but how many 2nd lines do?

 

And I want to see that top 6 on opening night real bad.

[Randall Flagg]

I don't know why you even need a pure goal scorer on your roster. You don't, IMO. Jack, Reinhart, and ROR can all finish, and as much as we give Kane crap, he still scored 20 while missing a ton of time. Ennis can score 20, so can Zemgus. Why do we need a finisher?

 

We saw team chemistry matter all year. It matters. Ask the 2004 Red Sox, the Eagles Dream Team, and any Yankees team assembled when they bought players.

 

exactly

 

I think we do, for the reasons True denotes below. They're terrible/average defensively. They'd never get out of their own end. Even when they did, who controls the flow of the game?

Team chemistry matters, but there's as much proof that Stamkos would torpedo ours as there is that he'd come in and be the most liked guy, and would make our forwards click and lead us to a cup. I don't get how you could say one or the other would happen without seeing what adding a Stamkos does first.

[TrueBlueGED]

But if ROR is on Stammer's line, who's to say that ROR won't handle center defensive responsibilities in the defensive zone? I'd guess that if Stammer really does have issues with preferring center to wing, those issues are related to offensive zone play, not defensive zone play.

 

ROR-Stamkos-Ennis

Kane-Eichel-Reino

 

I'll admit that the 2nd line doesn't have a Kopitar or Toews, but how many 2nd lines do?

 

And I want to see that top 6 on opening night real bad.

Stamkos' preference for center is certainly rooted in the offensive zone--I've read some articles out of Tampa that he enjoys the space it provides him to operate. However, I'm pretty certain Cooper's preference for him on the wing has everything to do with defensive zone play.

 

Like I said though, O'Reilly on his wing is definitely how I'd play it to start with. I think it could definitely work, just pointing out it's an abnormal structure compared to every non-Pittsburgh Cup winner.

[LGR4GM]

Team chemistry matters, but there's as much proof that Stamkos would torpedo ours as there is that he'd come in and be the most liked guy, and would make our forwards click and lead us to a cup. I don't get how you could say one or the other would happen without seeing what adding a Stamkos does first.

There's no proof for either actually.

[jsb]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are anti-Stamkos posters. 

No playoffs for several years and not even sniffing them lately by this team. 

Stamkos at worst is a top 10 center..... Lets see, that makes him top line C for over 2/3 of the teams in the league including this one

Stamkos scored 36 goals in a down year.... that was tied for 8th in the league and tied for 2nd for Centers

Stamkos scored 8 GW goals..... tied for 4th in the league

He's been the leader of the team that has been to the EC Finals 2 years in a row and he's only 26... with a 7 year contract he'll be 33

And we don't want this guy?????? He'll hurt ROR's feelings or something??? 

 

As for his TBay line mates.... Palat and Callahan, they combined for 64 points, not exactly great scorers, either of them, so was he carrying them or were they carrying him???

You have nfreeman's lines or you have Stamkos-Eichel-ROR as the Centers for your 3 lines in whatever order DB prefers, a no lose scenario IMO

[Thorner]

I don't know why you even need a pure goal scorer on your roster. You don't, IMO. Jack, Reinhart, and ROR can all finish, and as much as we give Kane crap, he still scored 20 while missing a ton of time. Ennis can score 20, so can Zemgus. Why do we need a finisher?

 

We saw team chemistry matter all year. It matters. Ask the 2004 Red Sox, the Eagles Dream Team, and any Yankees team assembled when they bought players. 

 

exactly

 

I think we do, for the reasons True denotes below. They're terrible/average defensively. They'd never get out of their own end. Even when they did, who controls the flow of the game?

 

I think it would work fine with ROR on his left. Nothing saying he can't handle the tough matchups on D.