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

[qwksndmonster]

No, because Samson is a winger.

A what?

[TrueBlueGED]

I've been pretty all in on Stamkos. Learning that he is "a center and only a center" really disappoints me. I guess we move Reinhart for a stud D-man? That'd still make our team a lot better, but it'd be so hard to give up Samson.

 

While it does make sense, I'd kick a puppy if we trade the entirety of Reinhart's prime for the last half of Stamkos'.

No, because Samson is a winger.

I laughed.

[qwksndmonster]

While it does make sense, I'd kick a puppy if we trade the entirety of Reinhart's prime for the last half of Stamkos'.

It's more like getting Stamkos for free and trading Reinhart for a great D-man. But having Samson and Eichel both under control for many years is still what I really want. And maybe what I want more than Stamkos. I've been kind of accepting in my brain that he's not coming here and it's not worrying at all. Having Nylander and probably Vesey is still a good offseason haul.

[...]

I'll be so mad if we dump Girgensons for picks. Gorges, sure. Ennis I wouldn't, but I get it.

 

Edit: I think you're right on Murray's thinking. He tried to fix the defense this year, the market wasn't right and he couldn't, so he'll turn his attention to helping what he still can. I'm choosing to be optimistic that he knows the defense still needs help.

 

He may have wanted to focus on D, but all paths pointed toward the O. If we get Vesey and Stamkos to add to what we already have, plus the kids in the pipeline...woah. We should be good for the next 7 years or so offensively.

 

There's still trades and free-agency, still time to work on the D. But, if nothing else, one side will be set up long term.

[IKnowPhysics]

Landing Stamkos would make Vesey cream his breezers.  Best case, he plays with Eichel.  Bester case, he plays with Stammer.

[TrueBlueGED]

It's more like getting Stamkos for free and trading Reinhart for a great D-man. But having Samson and Eichel both under control for many years is still what I really want. And maybe what I want more than Stamkos. I've been kind of accepting in my brain that he's not coming here and it's not worrying at all. Having Nylander and probably Vesey is still a good offseason haul.

 

For whatever it's worth, I really don't think Reinhart would be traded to address the defense, so it's a lot of angst over nothing. The whole idea of getting Stamkos, I think, is to add him to our young core forwards, not make one of them expendable.

[IKnowPhysics]

I think I'm prepared to go to $13M now.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think I'm prepared to go to $13M now.

 

Do you have a puppy? If so, your puppy is the one I'm kicking.

[Hoss]

So let's take a look at all 30 teams in the NHL and the likelihood to get Stamkos. I'll categorize them and put a likelihood from 1-10 next to them.

 

Teams with no chance for cap reasons:

Chicago Blackhawks 1

Pittsburgh Penguins 1

Washington Capitals 1

Dallas Stars 1

St. Louis Blues 1

San Jose Sharks 1

 

Teams with no chance due to lack of talent, appeal:

Columbus Blue Jackets 2

Colorado Avalanche 2

Ottawa Senators 2

Winnipeg Jets 2

Arizona Coyotes 1

New Jersey Devils 1

Edmonton Oilers 2

 

Teams with slight chance but highly unlikely:

Los Angeles Kings (doubtful they can maneuver cap) 3

Minnesota Wild (appealing spot but not a good fit) 2

Nashville Predators (great spot but cap too tough) 2

Anaheim Ducks (would need to move earth to make cap work) 2

Carolina Hurricanes (jury still out on where their young talent will go) 3

 

Teams reported to show interested but unlikely:

Boston Bruins (they're a team on the way down) 4

Calgary Flames (reportedly interested but too far away) 3

Florida Panthers (their offseason shows they're going a different route) 3

Vancouver Canucks (they're rumored to want him but not a good situation) 3

 

 

This leaves us with eight teams that I think will have somewhat serious conversations with Stamkos:

Philadelphia Flyers, Buffalo Sabres, Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Tampa Bay Lightning, Detroit Red Wings

 

Let's rank them.

 

8. Philadelphia Flyers

I think they'll get involved and have heard their named mentioned only recently on this. They've got some talent and just surprised in the playoffs. The issue is the same as it always has been in Philadelphia, though: the blueline and back. Their goaltending isn't solid and their defense is old, expensive and prone to injuries. They've got talent with Giroux, Voracek and Simmonds but I think their flaws have been exposed and there's just not enough here to get serious. We'll likely hear their name, but I don't see a way they make this work financially or with their current setup. They get a 5 from me.

 

7. New York Rangers

They've become a "serious suitor" lately. There was always a feeling they could get involved, as with Philly. The problem with the Rangers is that they've still got to do some capwork to make their current situation work and would have to do even more to make Stamkos fit. Gutting their team just to welcome in Stamkos seems like a waste of time for both parties. Lundqvist seems to be the only thing making this team relevant at the moment and he's getting older. The defense is overpaid and getting worse. They also get a 5.

 

6. Montreal Canadiens

This is the team I would probably say as my favorites had they not gotten exposed this season. Carey Price getting hurt showed that there just isn't a whole lot of talent to go around. Couple that with the fact that they haven't exactly shown a lot of love for their superstar (PK Subban) and you get a bit of a volatile situation. They've held on too long to a coach that has shown a tendency to play favorites and has taken minutes from a player who showed elite offensive talent at times (Alex Galchenyuk). They're either going to get right back to it when Price returns or fall apart. Then they'll have to figure out how to pay Subban, Price and Stamkos. I give them a 5.

 

5. New York Islanders

There has been a whole bunch of talk about the appeal of playing with close friend John Tavares. They are likely to lose guys like Frans Nielsen and Kyle Okposo, so the idea is that they could replace their contributions (and then some) with a single player in Stamkos. Unfortunately for them I think there is still some trepidation about the voodoo of this organization. It hasn't gone well in Brooklyn (though those fans were electric in the postseason) and they haven't been relevant in some time. Who would be the appealing wingers for him since Tavares would likely take the only decent linemates available? I'll give them a 6.

 

4. Tampa Bay Lightning

This is where the incumbent lands for me. They've got everything Stamkos should want, but they've got boatloads of talent to pay in the next two offseasons. If Stamkos was a free agent a year ago I would look at them as a virtual lock, but Kucherov has approached Stamkos' status as the best forward on the team and Hedman appears to be the most important skater on the team. There is some question marks in goals as there is talk of a Bishop trade and there's no way of knowing if Vasilevsky is the long-term answer right now. They land a 7 from me.

 

3. Toronto Maple Leafs

This is home. This is the hockey mecca. But they're the New York Knicks of hockey, not the Los Angeles Lakers. They haven't won in an eternity. The appeal is the future as they've got as much young talent as anybody in the league (yes, as much as Buffalo). The big issue is that Stamkos would have to accept AT LEAST two or three years of failed seasons. They might sniff the playoffs but they aren't a serious contender in the Eastern Conference. Is Stamkos willing to collect money (hello, taxes) and coach up a group of kids while other teams skate the cup around their rinks? That's a tough question. It'll come down to how much he values coming home if Toronto is to be a top suitor. Mike Babcock could be a trump card. They also get a 7.

 

2. Buffalo Sabres

I wish I could confidently put us at one, but I think the top four teams are nearly interchangeable. Ranking teams is acting like I'm in the mind of Stamkos, but there's definitely a reason to consider Buffalo as an appealing destination. Their teardown was done a year ago. They showed some real potential down the stretch with plenty of exciting young talent. The reason they should be more appealing than Toronto is that they've got a great mix of veteran talent in there, too. Adding Stamkos to the forward group instantly makes it as appealing a group as any in the league. The money will be equal for most of these top teams, but Buffalo has the money to get into a bidding war if that's what Stamkos and Murray want. Goaltending is still a question. Buffalo gets an 8.

 

1. Detroit Red Wings

I said a while back they were my favorite to make this move and I still have them VERY SLIGHTLY over the other three in my top four. If you really look at it I don't think there's a ton to really put Detroit over the top, but there's a history here. They've got the streak that makes them appear to still be relevant and are loaded with young forwards. Their biggest flaw might be that their young forwards, outside of Dylan Larkin, don't appear to be the truly-elite prospects Toronto and Buffalo offer. Outside of Larkin the others seem to mostly need to play with elite playmakers to really matter. Are his linemates going to be relying on him too much or will Stamkos be able to rely on them? I could cast a lot of doubt, but I think there is absolutely an appeal to playing in "Hockeytown." Goaltending is also a question. I give them an 8. 

 

 

This is my list, but it got a little more crowded as I went on. The top four really is going to be a serious race. I see the appeal of all three. I would go back to Tampa if the money is equal, but I think Tampa is the one team on this list that won't match the dollars (and maybe not the term). If they do I could see him making the "easy" choice (easy doesn't mean wrong).

 

[TrueBlueGED]

Good post, Hoss, and I think I mostly agree with your odds. As much as I hate Detroit, I think that's where I want him to go because I think it's the roster least likely to threaten us long term, even with him in the fold.

[...]

For whatever it's worth, I really don't think Reinhart would be traded to address the defense, so it's a lot of angst over nothing. The whole idea of getting Stamkos, I think, is to add him to our young core forwards, not make one of them expendable.

Honestly, the only way I can get behind acquiring Stamkos is if I think of him as a complimentary player like Doughnut Boy is for Pittsburgh. As a complimentary player, okay, but I still cringe at the idea of paying big bucks for him.

[3putt]

I think if he was staying in Tampa we wouldn't be having this discussion. While he may forego the dollars, I would flip TB with NYI. I also think Blashill is a lot like Cooper. TO is still my favorite. As hard as that is to type.

[TrueBlueGED]

Honestly, the only way I can get behind acquiring Stamkos is if I think of him as a complimentary player like Doughnut Boy is for Pittsburgh. As a complimentary player, okay, but I still cringe at the idea of paying big bucks for him.

 

I just don't think you open the bank vault for a guy you peg as a complementary player. If we're prepared to pay Stamkos $12 million, it's to make him a cornerstone of the franchise for the length of the contract.

[Hoss]

I just don't think you open the bank vault for a guy you peg as a complementary player. If we're prepared to pay Stamkos $12 million, it's to make him a cornerstone of the franchise for the length of the contract.

And I think they would be. The point of signing Stamkos would, in part, be to ensure guys like Kane and, and this is crazy to think, O'Reilly are complementary players.

[...]

That's just it. I don't think Stamkos should be brought in as a leader. Period. Ugh...

[TrueBlueGED]

And I think they would be. The point of signing Stamkos would, in part, be to ensure guys like Kane and, and this is crazy to think, O'Reilly are complementary players.

 

Kane yes, O'Reilly no. If we think about a team having 4 core forwards they don't part with until the end of the road (like Sharp), then those core are Stamkos, Eichel, Reinhart, and O'Reilly. That's the foundation around which the forward group is built--everyone else is expendable.

 

Frankly, I think it's all but certain Kane is gone in two years if we sign Stamkos. And I'm fine with that--potentially losing Kane isn't in my top-5 reasons for being against giving Stamkos the largest contract in the NHL.

[Hoss]

Kane yes, O'Reilly no. If we think about a team having 4 core forwards they don't part with until the end of the road (like Sharp), then those core are Stamkos, Eichel, Reinhart, and O'Reilly. That's the foundation around which the forward group is built--everyone else is expendable.

 

Frankly, I think it's all but certain Kane is gone in two years if we sign Stamkos. And I'm fine with that--potentially losing Kane isn't in my top-5 reasons for being against giving Stamkos the largest contract in the NHL.

So we're just going to ignore Pu? Okay...

 

You're right. I would say those are the core four and Kane (he'd likely be a goner if we get Stamkos), Nylander, Vesey, Zemgus and the like are the complementary pieces.

Was it six or seven that we decided to be a "core" based on what we've seen from so many other successful teams?

If it's seven then I see it as Stamkos, O'Reilly, Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, dman X (not here) and Nylander in a few years.

[TrueBlueGED]

So we're just going to ignore Pu? Okay...

 

You're right. I would say those are the core four and Kane (he'd likely be a goner if we get Stamkos), Nylander, Vesey, Zemgus and the like are the complementary pieces.

Was it six or seven that we decided to be a "core" based on what we've seen from so many other successful teams?

If it's seven then I see it as Stamkos, O'Reilly, Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, dman X (not here) and Nylander in a few years.

 

I think you're looking at 6-7 with varying makeup depending on your definitions. 3-4 forwards and 2-3 defensemen, for 6-7 total.

[apuszczalowski]

I think if they sign Stamkos which I am all for, then I would be looking to move Kane for defensive help. Signing him makes others expendable for help elsewhere. Throw in signing vesey and you can move Ennis also.

[Rasmus_]

Stamkos will be a Sabre.  That's all. 

[Brawndo]

Hextall did say they would be in on Stamkos, however he did mention he would not want to hamstring the Flyers for next summer.

Stamkos will be a Sabre. That's all.

Gut instinct or inside info?

[Rasmus_]

Hextall did say they would be in on Stamkos, however he did mention he would not want to hamstring the Flyers for next summer.

 

Gut instinct or inside info?

 

Just laying it out there.  Im not going to get into speculation.  I probably am wrong 9/10 times, but I think this is the time for Buffalo to be properly anointed "Hockey Heaven". 

[IKnowPhysics]

Do you have a puppy? If so, your puppy is the one I'm kicking.

 

Dolla dolla bill y'all.

 

--

You wanna get ballsy?  You start banking on the cap going up so that your huge-money-player is only a pretty-big-money player by the end of the term.  Therefore:

 

Corrected NHL salaries based on NHL Salary Cap at time/previous of signing

Corrected salary = Cap hit * ($73M projected cap for '16-'17 / cap hit at time of signing)

 

Ovechkin $13.8M (based on 2008 sign date to now)

Ovechkin $13.1M (based on 2008 sign date to seven years signing)

Kane/Toews $11.9M (signed 2 years ago)

Malkin $9.9M (signed 3 years ago)

Subban $10.2M (signed 2 years ago)

Crosby $9.9M (signed 4 years ago)

Lundqvist $9.6M (signed 2 years ago)

Giroux $8.6M (signed 3 years ago)

...

Stamkos' $7.5M 2011 contract adjusted to 2017: $9.2M

 

Remember that none of those players have ever been exposed to free agency.

 

The cap has increased 28% from 2010 to 2017, so if that continues, a 14% overpayment now works out to be a wash (a not really overpayment over the term) by the end of term.  So Kane/Toews' adjusted $11.9M as the highest paid players plus 14% is $13.57M.  So that'd be extremely ballsy.  If you take a slightly more conservative angle on this aggressive approach, and assume the cap only increases 18% over the next seven years from $73M to $86M, then Kane/Toews money plus 9% is $13M.

 

The more meta impact of a signing like this will likely drive some other GMs league wide absolutely nuts.  Some GMs would likely be pissed off for a perceived overpayment and inflation of player salaries, especially teams with high paid players and teams up against the cap.

Edited June 26, 2016 by IKnowPhysics

[Hoss]

Dolla dolla bill y'all.

 

--

You wanna get ballsy?  You start banking on the cap going up so that your huge-money-player is only a pretty-big-money player by the end of the term.  Therefore:

 

Corrected NHL salaries based on NHL Salary Cap at time/previous of signing

Corrected salary = Cap hit * ($73M projected cap for '16-'17 / cap hit at time of signing)

 

Ovechkin $13.8M (based on 2008 sign date to now)

Ovechkin $13.1M (based on 2008 sign date to seven years signing)

Kane/Toews $11.9M (signed 2 years ago)

Malkin $9.9M (signed 3 years ago)

Subban $10.2M (signed 2 years ago)

Crosby $9.9M (signed 4 years ago)

Lundqvist $9.6M (signed 2 years ago)

Giroux $8.6M (signed 3 years ago)

...

Stamkos' $7.5M 2011 contract adjusted to 2017: $9.2M

 

Remember that none of those players have ever been exposed to free agency.

 

The cap has increased 28% from 2010 to 2017, so if that continues, a 14% overpayment now works out to be a wash (a not really overpayment over the term) by the end of term.  So Kane/Toews' adjusted $11.9M as the highest paid players plus 14% is $13.57M.  So that'd be extremely ballsy.  If you take a slightly more conservative angle on this aggressive approach, and assume the cap only increases 18% over the next seven years from $73M to $86M, then Kane/Toews money plus 9% is $13M.

 

The more meta impact of a signing like this will likely drive some other GMs league wide absolutely nuts.  Some GMs would likely be pissed off for a perceived overpayment and inflation of player salaries, especially teams with high paid players and teams up against the cap.

This is the type of work I wanted to get to eventually but I'm glad you got to it. Very nice. I'm not sold on the idea that the cap is going to shoot up anytimes soon, and I have spoken out against relying on a cap raise in the past... BUT, it is a possibility. If the Canadian dollar bounces back I think we could see a serious rise in the cap (and if Vegas is an early success).

[tom webster]

This is the type of work I wanted to get to eventually but I'm glad you got to it. Very nice. I'm not sold on the idea that the cap is going to shoot up anytimes soon, and I have spoken out against relying on a cap raise in the past... BUT, it is a possibility. If the Canadian dollar bounces back I think we could see a serious rise in the cap (and if Vegas is an early success).

I mentioned the possibility of a $90M cap a few pages back and was ridiculed.