Jump to content

Stamkos' show me the money poll  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. How much $$$$$ will Stamkos get per year?

    • $8 - 9.9million
      6
    • $10 - 10.9million
      37
    • $11 - 11.9million
      34
    • $12mil or more
      23
  2. 2. How much $$$$$ would YOU pay Stamkos per year? It is safe to assume he gets max deal of 7 years.

    • $8 - 9.9million
      40
    • $10 - 10.9million
      34
    • $11 - 11.9million
      15
    • $12mil or more
      11


Recommended Posts

Posted

It's a self-contained system basically. As pi said you can have stars without role players but those stars probably can't win cups without at least effective role players. I'm not arguing against role players as much as I'm just saying I think this finals shows why you need star players to perform moreso than role players.

Posted

It's a self-contained system basically. As pi said you can have stars without role players but those stars probably can't win cups without at least effective role players. I'm not arguing against role players as much as I'm just saying I think this finals shows why you need star players to perform moreso than role players.

And the HBK line probably isn't getting the favourable match ups it is, without Sid and Geno drawing the tough ones away.

Posted (edited)

What is the bare minimum number of star players everyone thinks is necessary to win a Cup? Briefly reviewing recent history, I'd go with four: 3 forwards and 1 Dman. I'm not talking core pieces, as I think core pieces don't have to be stars (Hjalmarsson, for example), and I'm not going to argue that more is worse or anything...just trying to get a handle on a minimum baseline.

 

Chicago: Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith are unquestionable. Include Seabrook and Sharp? I'd say probably. Not surprising that this generation's dynasty has more than the bare minimum.

 

LA: Kopitar, Carter, Doughty for sure. Gaborik in 2014, I think. Richards and Brown in 2012, but not 2014. So 4-5, depending on year. Williams was a star in the playoffs, but would anyone really consider him a star player? He's a Corsi star, anyway ;)

 

Boston: Krejci, Bergeron, Chara absolutely. Marchand/Lucic?

 

Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Gonchar. Letang wasn't a star yet (though he'll certainly be on the list this year if they close it out), Guerin was a star in name only (though still very effective). Struggling to come up with more than those top three, but Crosby and Malkin probably counted as 1.5 each at that point :lol:

 

Detroit: Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk...Kronwall? Curious how people would classify Kronwall and Franzen. Core but not stars, IMO, though I'm open to persuasion.

 

Anaheim: Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, Getzlaf. Perry was great in the playoffs, but not yet a star (44 points in the regular season). 

 

Carolina: I refuse to look at that roster. F 'em.

 

What forwards can we safely pencil in as stars on our eventual Cup team? Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly? If you think only 1-2 of them fits the bill (or you disagree with my breakdown and think some players I had as core-but-not-star are in fact stars), chasing Stamkos for top dollar makes a ton of sense. If you think all 3 are stars, I think the picture gets more muddied, and further jumbled if you're not sold on Risto as a star on a Cup team. What if Risto is more Seabrook than Keith or Doughty? Does that affect your willingness to pony up for Stammer?

Edited by TrueBlueGED
Posted

What is the bare minimum number of star players everyone thinks is necessary to win a Cup? Briefly reviewing recent history, I'd go with four: 3 forwards and 1 Dman. I'm not talking core pieces, as I think core pieces don't have to be stars (Hjalmarsson, for example), and I'm not going to argue that more is worse or anything...just trying to get a handle on a minimum baseline.

 

Chicago: Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith are unquestionable. Include Seabrook and Sharp? I'd say probably. Not surprising that this generation's dynasty has more than the bare minimum.

 

LA: Kopitar, Carter, Doughty for sure. Gaborik in 2014, I think. Richards and Brown in 2012, but not 2014. So 4-5, depending on year. Williams was a star in the playoffs, but would anyone really consider him a star player? He's a Corsi star, anyway ;)

 

Boston: Krejci, Bergeron, Chara absolutely. Marchand/Lucic?

 

Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Gonchar. Letang wasn't a star yet (though he'll certainly be on the list this year if they close it out), Guerin was a star in name only (though still very effective). Struggling to come up with more than those top three, but Crosby and Malkin probably counted as 1.5 each at that point :lol:

 

Detroit: Lidstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk...Kronwall? Curious how people would classify Kronwall and Franzen. Core but not stars, IMO, though I'm open to persuasion.

 

Anaheim: Pronger, Niedermayer, Selanne, Getzlaf. Perry was great in the playoffs, but not yet a star (44 points in the regular season). 

 

Carolina: I refuse to look at that roster. F 'em.

 

What forwards can we safely pencil in as stars on our eventual Cup team? Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly? If you think only 1-2 of them fits the bill (or you disagree with my breakdown and think some players I had as core-but-not-star are in fact stars), chasing Stamkos for top dollar makes a ton of sense. If you think all 3 are stars, I think the picture gets more muddied, and further jumbled if you're not sold on Risto as a star on a Cup team. What if Risto is more Seabrook than Keith or Doughty? Does that affect your willingness to pony up for Stammer?

Bare minimum of stars? Until we find out how '99 ends and we see if a team can get away w/ only 1, I'd say 3 but you'll need at least 4 and probably 5-7 core contributors.

 

Sabres appear to be on track towards that 4 player (minimum) core and at least 2 (Eichel & ROR) will almost definitely be stars & I'd expect the other 2 to have better than even chances of being stars as well. Add Lehner, this year's top pick, & at least 1 more guy either in pipeline or obtainable via trade as potential core as well & the future looks bright.

Posted

So, have we come to a conclusion?

 

Yes.  If Stamkos was already a Sabre and he was heading to free agency we should resign him to a long term contract even though we had 2 rookies play well and ROR. 

Posted

Yes.  If Stamkos was already a Sabre and he was heading to free agency we should resign him to a long term contract even though we had 2 rookies play well and ROR. 

This is a really interesting thought, and I think you're right, many more of us would be clamoring to resign him

 

 

Here's Friedman's thoughts on the Stamkos developments.

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-the-ice/friedman-hedman-contract-number-may-be-key-lightning-domino/

Posted

This is a really interesting thought, and I think you're right, many more of us would be clamoring to resign him

 

 

Here's Friedman's thoughts on the Stamkos developments.

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-the-ice/friedman-hedman-contract-number-may-be-key-lightning-domino/

 

 

So at the end of that article you're left to wonder if we and everybody else want Tampa's leftovers. Seconds if you will.

Posted

So at the end of that article you're left to wonder if we and everybody else want Tampa's leftovers. Seconds if you will.

I don't get the impression that Stamkos is that. I get the impression that they wish they could move other guys and ensure Stamkos' return.

Posted

I don't get the impression that Stamkos is that. I get the impression that they wish they could move other guys and ensure Stamkos' return.

 

 

I was referring to everyone but Stamkos that they may have to let go lol There's a lot of fallout if they do sign him.

Posted

I was referring to everyone but Stamkos that they may have to let go lol There's a lot of fallout if they do sign him.

Agreed, and I think Killorn, Bishop and Filppula would be the ones they try to move first (I don't think there'd be a ton of action of Valteri, though).

Posted

That's alright, Damien Cox retweeted it without comment, waited awhile, and casually mentioned it's five years old. Given his recent Twitter indiscretion, I'd say he needs to put the phone away for awhile. Unless the whole thing was a super meta joke / self-parody, in which case well-played.

 

I doubt highly it's the second thing though.

Posted

That's alright, Damien Cox retweeted it without comment, waited awhile, and casually mentioned it's five years old. Given his recent Twitter indiscretion, I'd say he needs to put the phone away for awhile. Unless the whole thing was a super meta joke / self-parody, in which case well-played.

 

I doubt highly it's the second thing though.

 

You're probably right, he's not that clever. 

 

I knew something didn't seem right when I saw it was a 5 year deal. 

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...