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

[ct fab]

Eichel has no worries - he's hanging out with Gronk and Johnny hockey in Nantucket. Ironically, I was too but had no clue they were there. In all seriousness, a guy like Stamkos hits FA about once a decade so you have to explore. A lot of his stats decline is because Cooper is using him less than he was being used in 2012-2013, hence one of his issues with TB. Sign him, sign Vesey, trade #8 + girgs + Pysyk for #10 and Barrie, trade Bogo for Eberle, sign a UFA LHD, draft Keller at #10, re-sign Johnson. This may not be a cup contending team in 2016/2017 but it's close.

[LGR4GM]

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.

 

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!

 

 

Good post.

 

 

I'm out at $12MM.

Either this season or next season jack eichel will score more goals then Stamkos. He already out produced Stamkos in there respective rookie years.

[Claude_Verret]

All things being equal, and sometimes when we even want to over pay, I still say the marquee players will choose almost anywhere else over Buffalo.  We still have a FA recruiting problem IMO, which is why the successful tanks were so crucial.  I'm with those who say there is zero chance Stamkos comes to Buffalo, but I'd be delighted to be wrong.

[Randall Flagg]

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.

I hope Eichel isn't that snotty. I would imagine him saying "fantastic, another great player, let's go win a cup."

[3putt]

Jack will be fine.  We drafted him with Sam already here and acquired ROR within minutes after he was drafted.  His response, "I got make the team. "  That is a competitor saying bring it on, I got this.  Adding another star only increases his chances of success.  I am not against signing Stamkos, if it fits money wise over the long haul.  I just want to increase our offensive production, i.e. goals, whether from the blue line or up front.  Forcing the opposition into a defense first mentality gives us an advantage we dont currently have.  Most teams knew we had players but they weren't wooried about getting blown out.  I want every team worried about getting into a track meet against us.  I truly think this is Dallas' approach and think it would have worked with better goaltending. 

[dudacek]

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

 

Hossa was 30 when the Hawks signed him. Stamkos is 26.

 

  

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.

 

I'd say he's likely to say "it's great they are trying to help us win."

Toews didn't seem to be affected too much by Kane, or Malkin by Crosby.

Why do you think Jack is a selfish douche nozzle?

[WildCard]

 

Hossa was 30 when the Hawks signed him. Stamkos is 26.

They didn't sign him for a max deal. Hossa was a complimentary piece. This contract dictates Stamkos is the centerpiece 

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. 

I've voiced the concern before. I think it's a valid one

 

 I'd say he's likely to say "it's great they are trying to help us win."

Toews didn't seem to be affected too much by Kane, or Malkin by Crosby.

Why do you think Jack is a selfish douche nozzle?

All of those players you mentioned were drafted within a year of one another.

 

I don't think it's selfish for him to view it like that. We have t-shirts everywhere, tanked for the chance at him, sold out a rookie scrimmage for him...this entire city is one Cup run away from giving him the keys to the city. He's the face of the franchise 

I hope Eichel isn't that snotty. I would imagine him saying "fantastic, another great player, let's go win a cup."

I think it's more along the lines of "Am I not good enough that they had to bring this guy in?"

[qwksndmonster]

There's no chance in hell Eichel would be anything but happy about getting a star linemate and an increased chance at winning.

[JJFIVEOH]

 

Hossa was 30 when the Hawks signed him. Stamkos is 26.

 

 

I'd say he's likely to say "it's great they are trying to help us win."

Toews didn't seem to be affected too much by Kane, or Malkin by Crosby.

Why do you think Jack is a selfish douche nozzle?

I never said Jack is a selfish douche nozzle. Kane and Toews were both drafted by the Blackhawks, as was Malkin and Crosby by Pittsburgh, as was Reinhart and Either by Buffalo. Hossa wasn't brought in as a franchise player.

 

As far as Malkin and Crosby, with the exception of the last couple of months the argument could be made that the Pens have been a better team with one of those guys out of the lineup.

 

I've voiced the concern before. I think it's a valid one

 

 

Sorry if I missed it. Your points reflect mine.

[LGR4GM]

Because I think the "well we were only 26th (we were tied for 25th but whatever) in goals scored last year so we obviously need Stamkos!" argument is total ...

 

Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart alone scored 24 and 23 goals respectively. Let's say that next year they top out at a modest 33goals and 30 respectively.  Not a big increase for those two. That gives you 16 more goals on the year if everyone else remains constant including players like Moulson, Kane, and Ennis who didn't even play most of the season. That increase would tie us for 17th in goals scored without adding Stamkos. Now let's say we add a defender who manages to score more than the 4 goals we got from Franson... let's say the guy scored 9 goals, nothing even that crazy but Barrie scored 13 so seems fair. That's an additional 5 goals without again accounting for Moulson or Ennis (sorry I don't buy the theory that Moulson sucks). That puts us up to 15th or a playoff spot.  The difference between 15th and 6th? in goals, 14 goals. I personally believe that Larsson, Moulson, and Ennis can get an extra 15 goals between them. So when people claim our scoring is horrendous and such as justification for Stamkos, it is smoke and mirrors or you really believe Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart peaked in their rookie years.

 

I again would be happy to have Stamkos but at anything over 9million, I am out. He's simply never going to live up to that unless he signed a shorter deal like 4 years and then the cap would have to increase to decrease that hit percentage.  What if next year he scores 35 goals and 40 assists? Is that worth 9mil? What about in 2 more years when you have Reinhart and Jack up new deals? I like Stamkos but his play of late is really worrisome to toss a ton of money at him.

[JJFIVEOH]

Not to mention the average age of our top 5 scorers is 21. Then throw in the fact that the opening day roster had ten players who weren't there before, not including the head coach. To backup LGR's comments, the lack of scoring had nothing to do with the fact that they don't have enough scorers. 

And I'm still leery about the blood clot issues. 

[dudacek]

Because I think the "well we were only 26th (we were tied for 25th but whatever) in goals scored last year so we obviously need Stamkos!" argument is total ######...

 

Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart alone scored 24 and 23 goals respectively. Let's say that next year they top out at a modest 33goals and 30 respectively. Not a big increase for those two. That gives you 16 more goals on the year if everyone else remains constant including players like Moulson, Kane, and Ennis who didn't even play most of the season. That increase would tie us for 17th in goals scored without adding Stamkos. Now let's say we add a defender who manages to score more than the 4 goals we got from Franson... let's say the guy scored 9 goals, nothing even that crazy but Barrie scored 13 so seems fair. That's an additional 5 goals without again accounting for Moulson or Ennis (sorry I don't buy the theory that Moulson sucks). That puts us up to 15th or a playoff spot. The difference between 15th and 6th? in goals, 14 goals. I personally believe that Larsson, Moulson, and Ennis can get an extra 15 goals between them. So when people claim our scoring is horrendous and such as justification for Stamkos, it is smoke and mirrors or you really believe Jack Eichel and Sam Reinhart peaked in their rookie years.im.

Losing Drury and Briere doesn't matter. Roy and Pommers can score 30, Vanek scored 40 and he's only in his second year. You going to tell me he's peaked? And we've got Stafford coming.

 

You can never have enough good players.

Edited June 3, 2016 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

Losing Drury and Briere doesn't matter. Roy and Pommers can score 30, Vanek scored 40 and he's only in his second year. You going to tell me he's peaked? And we've got Stafford coming.

 

You can never have enough good players.

This isn't even a comparable in my mind.  Drury and Briere were the #1 and #2 center on the team and Captain and Assistant Captain. ROR and Jack are the #1 and #2 centers on the team ROR is the Assistant Captain and Gionta is the Captain. My point of my post was this team will not be 25th in goals scored again next year. You can argue Stamkos is good and we need him but pointing to that one stat is a complete bs argument unless as a poster it assumes Jack Eichel and Samson Reinhart will never score more goals than they did as rookies.

 

So in you scenario it would be like saying Kane can score 40, Reinhart can be Pommers with 30 and Ennis can be Roy and play center and get 30.  Those would be closer comparables and they leave out Jack Eichel and Ryan O'Reilly.

 

Not to mention as has been discussed ad nauseam Roy, Pominville, and Vanek lacked legit leadership qualities something that Reinhart, Eichel, O'Reilly, Gionta, don't.

Edited June 3, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

This isn't even a comparable in my mind.  Drury and Briere were the #1 and #2 center on the team and Captain and Assistant Captain. ROR and Jack are the #1 and #2 centers on the team ROR is the Assistant Captain and Gionta is the Captain. My point of my post was this team will not be 25th in goals scored again next year. You can argue Stamkos is good and we need him but pointing to that one stat is a complete bs argument unless as a poster it assumes Jack Eichel and Samson Reinhart will never score more goals than they did as rookies.

 

So in you scenario it would be like saying Kane can score 40, Reinhart can be Pommers with 30 and Ennis can be Roy and play center and get 30.  Those would be closer comparables and they leave out Jack Eichel and Ryan O'Reilly.

 

Not to mention as has been discussed ad nauseam Roy, Pominville, and Vanek lacked legit leadership qualities something that Reinhart, Eichel, O'Reilly, Gionta, don't.

 

I think you make a lot of good points, but I'm not sure Reinhart is going to be a leader type.  And that's ok.

[nfreeman]

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.

 

 

Well, I don't think the data you originally posted really supports this statement either.  Killorn's stats away from Stamkos are pretty close to Stamkos' stats away from Killorn, while Stamkos' stats away from Callahan are substantially better than Callahan's away from Stamkos.  And while the biggest spread is with Namestnikov, that one also has the smallest sample size, as he only played 12 min per night in 5x5  (NB that Callahan got more ice time than Killorn or Namestnikov, so his stats may be the most reliable).

 

Your point about relative league constipation is a good one, and effectively rebuts my theory (dammit!) -- but there are other key differences to consider between 2011-12 and this past year:

 

- In 11-12, TB was 8th in the NHL in scoring, as compared with 12th this year.

 

- In 11-12, TB played a much more fast-and-loose game -- dead last in defense in 11-12, as compared with 5th-best this year (under a different coach).

 

- In 11-12, Stammer had a talented, experienced and high-scoring linemate in St-Louis (who had 49 assists that year).  Killorn and Namestnikov are nice young players, but nowhere near as productive as MSL.

 

- In 11-12, Stammer played over 22 min per game, as compared with under 20 min per game this year.

 

 

Overall, I agree that we're not likely to see 60 goals from Stammer ever again, unless the NHL removes head from rectum and implements significant offense-friendly changes.  But he's still a highly effective player, and I think with better linemates than he had this year -- which I think he'd have on the Sabres -- we're looking at 40/40/80.

[LGR4GM]

I think you make a lot of good points, but I'm not sure Reinhart is going to be a leader type.  And that's ok.

He may not be, but he has been either Captain or Assistant Captain for every team he played for going back to 2012. Kootney and the U18 and U20 Canadian Team. 

Well, I don't think the data you originally posted really supports this statement either.  Killorn's stats away from Stamkos are pretty close to Stamkos' stats away from Killorn, while Stamkos' stats away from Callahan are substantially better than Callahan's away from Stamkos.  And while the biggest spread is with Namestnikov, that one also has the smallest sample size, as he only played 12 min per night in 5x5  (NB that Callahan got more ice time than Killorn or Namestnikov, so his stats may be the most reliable).

 

Your point about relative league constipation is a good one, and effectively rebuts my theory (dammit!) -- but there are other key differences to consider between 2011-12 and this past year:

 

- In 11-12, TB was 8th in the NHL in scoring, as compared with 12th this year.

 

Overall, I agree that we're not likely to see 60 goals from Stammer ever again, unless the NHL removes head from rectum and implements significant offense-friendly changes.  But he's still a highly effective player, and I think with better linemates than he had this year -- which I think he'd have on the Sabres -- we're looking at 40/40/80.

The difference between TB and the 12th team in scoring that year was 11 goals... over 82 games. So not really much of an argument for anyone to make there. It really doesn't matter. Also they scored 232 then and 224 this yeas so again 8 goals over 82 games barely registers statistically and does not account for a drop of 40% in goals scored by Stamkos between the 2 years.

 

Stamkos is still and effective player and with better linemates such as Reinhart or ROR I think he could hit those numbers. The question is should we pay a guy who needs those linemates to hit those numbers big bucks and for how long can he hit those numbers even with good linemates?

Edited June 3, 2016 by LGR4GM

[Randall Flagg]

If Stamkos can do 40-40-80 in today's NHL, then I no longer care about cap hit (by that I mean I'll go up to $11mi), get him here.

[LGR4GM]

If Stamkos can do 40-40-80 in today's NHL, then I no longer care about cap hit (by that I mean I'll go up to $11mi), get him here.

What if he can only do that for 2 seasons and you sign him for 7?

[ubkev]

What if he can only do that for 2 seasons and you sign him for 7?

If he goes 35-35-70

33-33-66

30-30-60

 

I think we'll still win and I'm not sure if care what he did in the last 2.

 

Seriously, I think if he came here and killed it for 2 years and we got our cup, then Pegula and GMTM could pull a Florida Marlins esque dismantling of the team and none of us would care.

[LGR4GM]

If he goes 35-35-70

33-33-66

30-30-60

 

I think we'll still win and I'm not sure if care what he did in the last 2.

 

Seriously, I think if he came here and killed it for 2 years and we got our cup, then Pegula and GMTM could pull a Florida Marlins esque dismantling of the team and none of us would care.

Oh i would care. I am not doing this crap again. 3 years of garbage hockey.

 

As for your scenario that accounts for 3 years, but if he signs for 7 you have another 4 years of him on your cap hit. Just something that plays into the convo.

[Randall Flagg]

What if he can only do that for 2 seasons and you sign him for 7?

I'll take the risk and assume he doesn't drop like Moulson at 28 years old

[ubkev]

Oh i would care. I am not doing this crap again. 3 years of garbage hockey.

 

As for your scenario that accounts for 3 years, but if he signs for 7 you have another 4 years of him on your cap hit. Just something that plays into the convo.

I was adding those 3 years the the two that were previously mentioned of 40-40-80

[LGR4GM]

I was adding those 3 years the the two that were previously mentioned of 40-40-80

ooo, okay got ya. So then you are fine if you get 5 solid years of production from Stamkos and the last 2 years it is whatever? I can understand that for sure.

 

I'll take the risk and assume he doesn't drop like Moulson at 28 years old

Fair enough

[beerme1]

I want to go on record as the only one to say that I think Stamkos will score 60 again.

[Beer]

I'll take the risk and assume he doesn't drop like Moulson at 28 years old

 

Moulson sure has put a bad taste in our mouths... I would hope the #1 overall pick would play better than a guy taken 263rd in the 9th round.  :doh: