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

[nfreeman]

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

 

Well, I want Stamkos too, but I don't think you can ignore the contract issue, which is pretty much the basis for everyone's concern.  I don't think anyone here would object to him coming here at $3MM x 3 years.

[Hoss]

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.

Not even Chicago or Los Angeles' second lines have a Kopitar or Toews on it.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Hoss

[jsb]

Well, I want Stamkos too, but I don't think you can ignore the contract issue, which is pretty much the basis for everyone's concern.  I don't think anyone here would object to him coming here at $3MM x 3 years.

I do understand that but besides Eichel no-one else is going to command that type of money on this team that you couldn't work this system to keep the best available talent happy

[Thorner]

Not even Chicago or Los Angeles' second lines have a Kopitar or Toews on it.

 

And how many teams will have a talent like Eichel on line 2? Especially in a few years? We would have crazy talent. Eventually Stamkos, if at Centre, would be the #2 guy.

 

Imagine 3 years ago, when we had no centers, if someone would have said we would potentially have Stamkos, O'Reilly, Eichel, and Reinhart. Insane turnaround. 

[7+6=13]

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 get what you're saying but this team isn't close to having the type of dynamic to making a run at the cup.  Are we good enough and has enough chemistry started to be a playoff team - probably or at least close to.  In that case togetherness doesn't trump getting a player that could / could elevate you to something much different than a fringe playoff team.

 

Stamkos being a FA shouldn't be undervalued.  IMO, It would be like saying we don't want Aaron Rodgers because our receivers are really starting to gel with Tyrod Taylor.

[LGR4GM]

I get what you're saying but this team isn't close to having the type of dynamic to making a run at the cup. Are we good enough and has enough chemistry started to be a playoff team - probably or at least close to. In that case togetherness doesn't trump getting a player that could / could elevate you to something much different than a fringe playoff team.

 

Stamkos being a FA shouldn't be undervalued. IMO, It would be like saying we don't want Aaron Rodgers because our receivers are really starting to gel with Tyrod Taylor.

And you have Jameis Winston and Matt Ryan. That's your anology completed

[JohnnyK]

I'm not sure there is a forward that I would consider a playoff specialist. My point was that referring to anyone as a "specialist" infers that he is a liability to your team in other parts of the game. Guys like Stamkos and Ovechkin bring so much more to the game. Do they excel on the power play? Of course but to state that they shouldn't play 5 on 5 is, well, laughable.

See Donald Addett (not sure about the spelling!!!) former sabres winger

[pi2000]

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. 

 

 

We need a finisher because we finished 26th in the league in goal scoring last season.   Ennis, Moulson, Foligno, Girgensons all need to contribute in significant ways for this team to sniff the playoffs... last season they combined for 28 goals.    That's over $12 million for 28 goals.    Why not get rid of those contracts and pay only $10 million for a guaranteed 40 goals from Stamkos?   You'd add 12 goals and save over $2 million.

 

Ask Kobe Bryant and Shaq how much chemistry matters.    Talented players leads to winning.  Winning leads to chemistry.    

[Randall Flagg]

There's no proof for either actually.

That's what I meant to imply, poor phrasing on my part.

[LGR4GM]

There's no doubt Stamkos makes the Sabres better but what are tradeoffs and long term effects of adoing him. That's really what the counter points deal with.

[TrueBlueGED]

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

 

1) This is such a disingenuous comment. Thinking it unwise to pay Stamkos a certain price, or expressing concern about his production trend, or wondering if the fit is right, is not fairly characterized as "anti-Stamkos". 

 

2) His most common linemates were Killorn, Namestnikov, and Callahan--Palat was #5. If you're primed to pay somebody $11 million per season, that player should be the driver of his line's production, not dependent upon ideal teammates. Pre-injury Stamkos showed no meaningful drop in production away from St. Louis when moving to lesser teammates--he produced essentially the same regardless of who he was with. Post-injury Stamkos? Different story.

 

    Killorn & Stamkos    Stamkos w/o Killorn    Killorn w/o Stamkos

GF% 61.8                 51                     54

CF% 49.8                 52.4                   55.3

PDO 104.3                100.7                  100.2

 

    Callahan & Stamkos   Stamkos w/o Callahan   Callahan w/o Stamkos

GF% 64.3                 50.9                   39.5

CF% 50.1                 52.1                   51.3

PDO 105.7                100.1                  95.8

 

    Namestnikov & Stam   Stam w/o Namestnikov   Namestnikov w/o Stam

GF% 56.7                 54.7                   66.7

CF% 56                   48.8                   54.1

PDO 103.7                102.7                  103.7

Edited June 3, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[WildCard]

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.

Liger has it, though I do see your correction on it later Flagg. Maybe he does come in and gel perfectly. But we already have guys that get along very well

 

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

Your winger shouldn't be your most responsible player IMO.

 

And how many teams will have a talent like Eichel on line 2? Especially in a few years? We would have crazy talent. Eventually Stamkos, if at Centre, would be the #2 guy.

 

Imagine 3 years ago, when we had no centers, if someone would have said we would potentially have Stamkos, O'Reilly, Eichel, and Reinhart. Insane turnaround. 

I mean, it'd be really fun to watch, it really would. But depth and defense win in the postseason, not flashy talent. Penguins had all the talent in the world for years, and didn't do ######

 

I get what you're saying but this team isn't close to having the type of dynamic to making a run at the cup.  Are we good enough and has enough chemistry started to be a playoff team - probably or at least close to.  In that case togetherness doesn't trump getting a player that could / could elevate you to something much different than a fringe playoff team.

 

Stamkos being a FA shouldn't be undervalued.  IMO, It would be like saying we don't want Aaron Rodgers because our receivers are really starting to gel with Tyrod Taylor.

We waited 3 years to get where we are, I'm not trying to win it all next year. I don't see the point of blowing our wad on one guy because we're impatient when we've already been so patient. 

 

We need a finisher because we finished 26th in the league in goal scoring last season.   Ennis, Moulson, Foligno, Girgensons all need to contribute in significant ways for this team to sniff the playoffs... last season they combined for 28 goals.    That's over $12 million for 28 goals.    Why not get rid of those contracts and pay only $10 million for a guaranteed 40 goals from Stamkos?   You'd add 12 goals and save over $2 million.

 

Ask Kobe Bryant and Shaq how much chemistry matters.    Talented players leads to winning.  Winning leads to chemistry.    

Well, a lot of this just isn't fair. I've said it before and will harp it again, our lack of goal scoring isn't due to our lack of finishers. Not even remotely close. It's our depth and terrible transitional defense

 

You picked one guy that missed the entire year and a career 3rd/4th liner. Not exactly a fair comparison. We all know Moulson has ###### the bed, and Grigs had an extremely slow start but picked it up a ton during the second half on Eichel's wing. Ennis will be better, Girgs will be better, and Foligno will Foligno. You know what happens if you get rid of 4 players like that? Two of those are on your top two lines, and the 3rd plays a pivotal role on your defense 3rd line. Ship them out all you want, the math isn't as simple as EFMG(goals) < Stamkos(goals). Who are you even going to replace all of those guys with? 4 rookies? That's not taking you anywhere

 

I get the chemistry isn't the end all be all. I still think it matters. 

1) This is such a disingenuous comment. Thinking it unwise to pay Stamkos a certain price, or expressing concern about his production trend, or wondering if the fit is right, is not fairly characterized as "anti-Stamkos". 

 

2) His most common linemates were Killorn, Namestnikov, and Callahan--Palat was #5. If you're primed to pay somebody $11 million per season, that player should be the driver of his line's production, not dependent upon ideal teammates. Pre-injury Stamkos showed no meaningful drop in production away from St. Louis when moving to lesser teammates--he produced essentially the same regardless of who he was with. Post-injury Stamkos? Different story.

 

    Killorn & Stamkos    Stamkos w/o Killorn    Killorn w/o Stamkos

GF% 61.8                 51                     54

CF% 49.8                 52.4                   55.3

PDO 104.3                100.7                  100.2

 

    Callahan & Stamkos   Stamkos w/o Callahan   Callahan w/o Stamkos

GF% 64.3                 50.9                   39.5

CF% 50.1                 52.1                   51.3

PDO 105.7                100.1                  95.8

 

    Namestnikov & Stam   Stam w/o Namestnikov   Namestnikov w/o Stam

GF% 56.7                 54.7                   66.7

CF% 56                   48.8                   54.1

PDO 103.7                102.7                  103.7

Exactly. I feel like this is the same mistake as going out and paying Kessel to carry a line (we all saw how that worked out). Stamkos for reasonable money is fine, I don't think $10m+ is reasonable at all

Edited June 3, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

Exactly. I feel like this is the same mistake as going out and paying Kessel to carry a line (we all saw how that worked out). Stamkos for reasonable money is fine, I don't think $10m+ is reasonable at all

 

I'd have no qualms about $10M+ if I was confident I'd be getting 2009-2013 Stamkos--I'll figure out a way to make it work. My fear is we'd be paying for 2009-2013 Stamkos only to get 2014-16 Stamkos. 

[WildCard]

I'd have no qualms about $10M+ if I was confident I'd be getting 2009-2013 Stamkos--I'll figure out a way to make it work. My fear is we'd be paying for 2009-2013 Stamkos only to get 2014-16 Stamkos.

True, and it's not going to get any better. He deserved that contract last time around, not now. We'll be paying for 2009-2013 Stamkos, briefly getting 2014-2016 Stamkos, and then have a whole different version for the last 3/4 years of that deal, or when Jack and Reinhart are in their prime

[dudacek]

Re: the remarks about patience.

I don't believe attempting to add a star player like Stamkos reflects a lack of patience.

It was always part of the plan to be in a position like we are now: loaded with a talented young core, upwardly mobile, with plenty of money under the cap to add crucial pieces, whether they are available in free agency or through trade.

 

I think we have been patient in order to add a player like Stamkos.

Whether he is the right player, or at what contract he becomes a liability, those are legitimate questions.

But not to investigate an opportunity like this when it presents itself?

That would be patience wasted.

[TrueBlueGED]

True, and it's not going to get any better. He deserved that contract last time around, not now. We'll be paying for 2009-2013 Stamkos, briefly getting 2014-2016 Stamkos, and then have a whole different version for the last 3/4 years of that deal, or when Jack and Reinhart are in their prime

 

Well, to be completely fair, I think there are arguments for why he can get back to that 50-60 goal player--I'm not positive he'll never get back there--nor do I think it's especially likely he declines from the past two seasons. However, I do think his future performance is more uncertain than many around here believe, hence my reluctance to offer something tantamount to a blank check. 

 

Trying to set parameters for continuing discussion, I ask those of you who are of the "he's scored 60 goals, pay him and figure out the rest"...is there a number up to the 20% limit (assuming the players enact the escalator, that'd be about $14.8 million next season) where you say it's not worth it? 

Re: the remarks about patience.

I don't believe attempting to add a star player like Stamkos reflects a lack of patience.

It was always part of the plan to be in a position like we are now: loaded with a talented young core, upwardly mobile, with plenty of money under the cap to add crucial pieces, whether they are available in free agency or through trade.

 

I think we have been patient in order to add a player like Stamkos.

Whether he is the right player, or at what contract he becomes a liability, those are legitimate questions.

But not to investigate an opportunity like this when it presents itself?

That would be patience wasted.

 

There is no opportunity. He will never come to Buffalo.

 

#BecauseBuffalo

#skyhasfallen

 

:P

 

(I agree with your substantive point)

Edited June 3, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[nfreeman]

1) This is such a disingenuous comment. Thinking it unwise to pay Stamkos a certain price, or expressing concern about his production trend, or wondering if the fit is right, is not fairly characterized as "anti-Stamkos". 

 

2) His most common linemates were Killorn, Namestnikov, and Callahan--Palat was #5. If you're primed to pay somebody $11 million per season, that player should be the driver of his line's production, not dependent upon ideal teammates. Pre-injury Stamkos showed no meaningful drop in production away from St. Louis when moving to lesser teammates--he produced essentially the same regardless of who he was with. Post-injury Stamkos? Different story.

 

    Killorn & Stamkos    Stamkos w/o Killorn    Killorn w/o Stamkos

GF% 61.8                 51                     54

CF% 49.8                 52.4                   55.3

PDO 104.3                100.7                  100.2

 

    Callahan & Stamkos   Stamkos w/o Callahan   Callahan w/o Stamkos

GF% 64.3                 50.9                   39.5

CF% 50.1                 52.1                   51.3

PDO 105.7                100.1                  95.8

 

    Namestnikov & Stam   Stam w/o Namestnikov   Namestnikov w/o Stam

GF% 56.7                 54.7                   66.7

CF% 56                   48.8                   54.1

PDO 103.7                102.7                  103.7

 

I don't think the data you posted supports (or really relates to) the bolded.

 

I'd have no qualms about $10M+ if I was confident I'd be getting 2009-2013 Stamkos--I'll figure out a way to make it work. My fear is we'd be paying for 2009-2013 Stamkos only to get 2014-16 Stamkos. 

 

Now this is a legit concern.  Still, he was tied for 7th in goals last year with 36, and had 43 the previous year (which was after the injury).  And, FWIW, the year before that, which is when he hurt his leg, he had 25 goals in 37 games. 

 

I think overall NHL offensive constipation is more to blame for the (modest) decline in his production more than the injury is.  I also think that there is no end in sight to offensive constipation, and in those circumstances, goals, and goal-scorers, are even more valuable. 

 

I also think, when he is a Sabre, he will lead the team in goals for at least the first 5 years of his contract.

 

Boom!

 

I mean, it'd be really fun to watch, it really would. But depth and defense win in the postseason, not flashy talent. Penguins had all the talent in the world for years, and didn't do ######

 

Response:  Pittsburgh added scoring depth, which is what adding Stamkos would do for the Sabres -- It would contribute to having 3 lines that can create offense, especially the top 2 lines.

 

Re: the remarks about patience.

I don't believe attempting to add a star player like Stamkos reflects a lack of patience.

It was always part of the plan to be in a position like we are now: loaded with a talented young core, upwardly mobile, with plenty of money under the cap to add crucial pieces, whether they are available in free agency or through trade.

 

I think we have been patient in order to add a player like Stamkos.

Whether he is the right player, or at what contract he becomes a liability, those are legitimate questions.

But not to investigate an opportunity like this when it presents itself?

That would be patience wasted.

 

Good post.

 

Well, to be completely fair, I think there are arguments for why he can get back to that 50-60 goal player--I'm not positive he'll never get back there--nor do I think it's especially likely he declines from the past two seasons. However, I do think his future performance is more uncertain than many around here believe, hence my reluctance to offer something tantamount to a blank check. 

 

Trying to set parameters for continuing discussion, I ask those of you who are of the "he's scored 60 goals, pay him and figure out the rest"...is there a number up to the 20% limit (assuming the players enact the escalator, that'd be about $14.8 million next season) where you say it's not worth it? 

 

 

I'm out at $12MM.

[dudacek]

The thing is, the majority of UFA deals turn out to be bad ones, largely because you are paying declining players for past performance.

I think it is highly unlikely Stamkos ever scores 60 or even 50 goals again.

I do think it is quite likely he will score 200-250 over the seven-year term of his next contract.

And to me, that is far better value than you typically get from a UFA signing.

 

Question:

Is this team better off in three years by signing Stamkos at $10 million per over seven?

Or by signing Goligoski and Yandle for about $12 million per over the next four to six?

[qwksndmonster]

10.5 is my absolute limit. I'm hoping 10 will get it done.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't think the data you posted supports (or really relates to) the bolded.

 

 

Now this is a legit concern.  Still, he was tied for 7th in goals last year with 36, and had 43 the previous year (which was after the injury).  And, FWIW, the year before that, which is when he hurt his leg, he had 25 goals in 37 games. 

 

I think overall NHL offensive constipation is more to blame for the (modest) decline in his production more than the injury is.  I also think that there is no end in sight to offensive constipation, and in those circumstances, goals, and goal-scorers, are even more valuable. 

 

1) It didn't relate to the first half of what I said, but it did relate to the second half. If Stamkos' drop in production is mostly due to linemates, why are seeing his linemates suffering less of a dropoff away from him than he does away from them? To address the St. Louis point, I'll just pick 2011-12 when he scored 60 goals (I can do the other years, just not at 1am). For context, when St. Louis wasn't on his wing, he was replaced with Purcell or Downie...not exactly superstars there.

 

    Stamkos & St. Louis   Stamkos w/o St. Louis   St. Louis w/o Stamkos

GF% 56                    57.9                    45.8

CF% 47.5                  51.6                    46.3

PDO 104.3                 102.3                   99.5

 

Here the numbers are reversed: St. Louis suffers a dropoff away from Stamkos, whereas Stamkos actually improves his production away from St. Louis. I honestly don't believe the drop in production can be explained by a reduction in the quality of teammates.

 

2) I don't think the production shift can be explained by league scoring either. Average goals scored by a team in 2011-12 when Stamkos scored 60? 2.73. This season? 2.71. Last season? 2.73. Basically, the NHL was as constipated when he scored 60 as when he was down to "only" ~40.

The thing is, the majority of UFA deals turn out to be bad ones, largely because you are paying declining players for past performance.

I think it is highly unlikely Stamkos ever scores 60 or even 50 goals again.

I do think it is quite likely he will score 200-250 over the seven-year term of his next contract.

And to me, that is far better value than you typically get from a UFA signing.

 

Question:

Is this team better off in three years by signing Stamkos at $10 million per over seven?

Or by signing Goligoski and Yandle for about $12 million per over the next four to six?

 

You could at least have the decency to equalize the values :P

(Stamkos was "insulted" by a $68.5 million contract offer from Tampa...really think he signs for a $70 million contract from us?)

 

That aside, I honestly believe adding two top-4 LHD improves this team more than adding 1 40 goal forward. Having said that, I'm not in favor of both Yandle and Goligoski. Choose one then pursue a trade for another.

Edited June 3, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[qwksndmonster]

If we get 35 goal a year Stamkos, I'm happy with that.

[TrueBlueGED]

10.5 is my absolute limit. I'm hoping 10 will get it done.

 

I just don't see it.

 

$8.5 x8 = 68 = "Thanks, but I'm going to UFA"

$10 x7 = 70 = "I'm signing in Buffalo"

 

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

[Huckleberry]

I just don't see it.

 

$8.5 x8 = 68 = "Thanks, but I'm going to UFA"

$10 x7 = 70 = "I'm signing in Buffalo"

 

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

Also paying less taxes in florida , so he'd probably have more then signing with us or Toronto.

You'd have to 11 mill to get him I think.

[WildCard]

Re: the remarks about patience.

I don't believe attempting to add a star player like Stamkos reflects a lack of patience.

It was always part of the plan to be in a position like we are now: loaded with a talented young core, upwardly mobile, with plenty of money under the cap to add crucial pieces, whether they are available in free agency or through trade.

 

I think we have been patient in order to add a player like Stamkos.

Whether he is the right player, or at what contract he becomes a liability, those are legitimate questions.

But not to investigate an opportunity like this when it presents itself?

That would be patience wasted.

I think it's a win now move IMO. If Jack and Sam were 2-3 years older, or Stamkos 2-3 years younger, it'd be a different story

 

Well, to be completely fair, I think there are arguments for why he can get back to that 50-60 goal player--I'm not positive he'll never get back there--nor do I think it's especially likely he declines from the past two seasons. However, I do think his future performance is more uncertain than many around here believe, hence my reluctance to offer something tantamount to a blank check. 

 

Trying to set parameters for continuing discussion, I ask those of you who are of the "he's scored 60 goals, pay him and figure out the rest"...is there a number up to the 20% limit (assuming the players enact the escalator, that'd be about $14.8 million next season) where you say it's not worth it? 

I really don't think anyone hits 60 in this league anymore. If Stamkos hits 50 again, I think it's one more time, a-la Jagr style back for the Rangers. I don't think he declines drastically the next two seasons, but are we really contending for a Cup in the next two seasons? Our entire core is under 24. Our 'stud' defenseman is what? 21? 

@nfreeman. Pittsburgh added depth, but the right depth. They've always had two lines that could score, it's their 3rd/4th line that have been miserable. I just don't believe adding him, whatever position, immediately transforms us into 3 scoring lines. Even if you can manage it for a few years, DD doesn't like to use that line like that, and then what? We have no money to spend on our bottom 6, and teams schellack them until we have to run our top 6 out there 25 minutes a night

Edited June 3, 2016 by WildCard

[JJFIVEOH]

Has anybody mentioned how this might affect Eichel? Eichel knows he is the franchise player if he can live up to the potential, he knows this team is his moving forward. What does that say to him when you bring in another franchise player? This is Eichel's team, leave it alone. Save the money and bolster the foundation.