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

[IKnowPhysics]

If the Canadian dollar bounces back I think we could see a serious rise in the cap (and if Vegas is an early success).

 

That could definitely happen.  The NBC contract was $2B over ten years starting in 2011, meaning that the new contract will be signed in 2021 (five years into this 7 year player contract), likely with considerably higher revenue (especially with Vegas and potential Seattle TV markets).  Rogers' contract was $5B for 12 years, but the Canadian dollar has dropped from parity to $1.32CAD/$1USD since then, meaning that if/when the CAD bounces back, TV revenue for the NHL will be increased by hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

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

 

It's possible.  I think definitely so in 10-12 years and possibly so in 7-8 years.

[GoPre]

That could definitely happen. The NBC contract was $2B over ten years starting in 2011, meaning that the new contract will be signed in 2021 (five years into this 7 year player contract), likely with considerably higher revenue (especially with Vegas and potential Seattle TV markets). Rogers' contract was $5B for 12 years, but the Canadian dollar has dropped from parity to $1.32CAD/$1USD since then, meaning that if/when the CAD bounces back, TV revenue for the NHL will be increased by hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

 

 

It's possible. I think definitely so in 10-12 years and possibly so in 7-8 years.

Id put money on it. Ten years ago the cap was at 39 million.

[Hoss]

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

You suggested it? Then it must be blasphemy!

Just kidding, I think it's possible the cap will rise. I don't know how confident I am in a $10M+ raise within the next five-to-seven years. If a cap raise is inevitable near or shortly after the end of the contract then it should alleviate a lot of concerns and make it way easier to maneuver.

[TrueBlueGED]

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.

 

The biggest difference, of course, is that all of those players were already in house. You didn't see Pittsburgh pay Malkin and Crosby only to go out and chase the big fish free agent (and yes, I'm well aware that a Stamkos-level UFA wasn't available for them to chase). Chicago chasing Hossa is the only comparable, and they were able to get him on a lovely backdiving contract. I suppose this is the disconnect I have with the "spare no expense" perspective...if we didn't have top forwards I'd be all over going after Stamkos, but in my estimation, we already have what we need so I can't get to the same spot financially. Not all agree, which is fine, but that's where I'm at.

You suggested it? Then it must be blasphemy!

Just kidding, I think it's possible the cap will rise. I don't know how confident I am in a $10M+ raise within the next five-to-seven years. If a cap raise is inevitable near or shortly after the end of the contract then it should alleviate a lot of concerns and make it way easier to maneuver.

 

Yea, I really don't see a reason to expect a major cap jump until the next TV deal. I certainly wouldn't want to structure my payroll around it.

[7+6=13]

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).

 

However it's pretty great that if the cap goes up Buffalo is one of the teams that wouldn't care and will spend to it.

[IKnowPhysics]

I suppose this is the disconnect I have with the "spare no expense" perspective...if we didn't have top forwards I'd be all over going after Stamkos, but in my estimation, we already have what we need so I can't get to the same spot financially.

 

When we talk about guaranteeing the offensive ability to not only go deep into the playoffs, but win the whole damn thing, what will it take to do that?  Are our needs already met?  Buffalo scored 199 goals for last season.  League's top three in goals this year were 265 (DAL), 248 (WSH), 241 (PIT).  We need to develop or add at least 50 goals per season.  I know some of this will come with defensive improvement, but for this discussion, I figure that contribution to be icing on the cake when we go over the top.  We need 50 more goals on offense.  We had only four 20 goals scorers on the team last year, and zero with 25 goals.

 

Who on the team is, who on the team will be, or what elite draft picks will we attain that are capable of performing like Stamkos?  Who's even close?  Maybe Eichel.  Maybe Kane can return to 30 goals.  Maybe ROR has 30 goals in him with the right wingers.  Maybe Reinhart has 30 goals in him.

 

Stamkos has been top ten in NHL scoring every year he's been healthy after his rookie year (2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, INJ (on pace for 1st), 2nd, 8th).  And this season's 8th place came with his usage messed with.  If you buy Stamkos, with proper usage, you buy 40-55 goals per season.  And you get to keep all of the players I just listed.

[dejeanneret]

Can the Bolts actually do a sign and trade? I think that would add another dimension to this.

 

Bolts have 18 million in cap space to do a deal. This would be beneficial for Stamkos cause that would be able to get 8 years instead of 7. He would be in complete control since the deal would have a clause where he could only be traded to whomever he agrees to that offers the most compensation.

 

Because it's SS I see Murray overpaying if this where to occur. I would even go as far to think he would offer Ennis in a deal. It's a win win. Murray gets his guy. SS gets max money for the team of his choice. And the Bolts get something in a situation where they were going to get nothing.

[IKnowPhysics]

Moving assets to Tampa to get Buffalo Stamkos exclusivity and keep him off the market is one thing.

 

But Stamkos has all leverage here, Tampa has none, and Buffalo will have to compete for Stamkos.  The sign and trade only makes sense if Stamkos goes to the team he wants to go to.  If he chooses Buffalo, it might be in Stamkos' best interest to eat that 8th year in favor of not forcing Buffalo to move assets back to Tampa- he would just wait until July 1 and sign with Buffalo.

 

In order to do a sign and trade, Stamkos would have to get guarantees that he's moved only to where he wants to go, gets the salary he could command in open bidding, and has some sappiness about getting some asset return to Tampa.  But he's a UFA.  He can do all but that sappy part on his own.

Edited June 26, 2016 by IKnowPhysics

[Hoss]

Once July 1st hits the eighth year disappears for all teams (including Tampa Bay).

[TrueBlueGED]

When we talk about guaranteeing the offensive ability to not only go deep into the playoffs, but win the whole damn thing, what will it take to do that?  Are our needs already met?  Buffalo scored 199 goals for last season.  League's top three in goals this year were 265 (DAL), 248 (WSH), 241 (PIT).  We need to develop or add at least 50 goals per season.  I know some of this will come with defensive improvement, but for this discussion, I figure that contribution to be icing on the cake when we go over the top.  We need 50 more goals on offense.  We had only four 20 goals scorers on the team last year, and zero with 25 goals.

 

Who on the team is, who on the team will be, or what elite draft picks will we attain that are capable of performing like Stamkos?  Who's even close?  Maybe Eichel.  Maybe Kane can return to 30 goals.  Maybe ROR has 30 goals in him with the right wingers.  Maybe Reinhart has 30 goals in him.

 

Stamkos has been top ten in NHL scoring every year he's been healthy after his rookie year (2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, INJ (on pace for 1st), 2nd, 8th).  And this season's 8th place came with his usage messed with.  If you buy Stamkos, with proper usage, you buy 40-55 goals per season.  And you get to keep all of the players I just listed.

 

A lot of it will come from possession improvement...assuming our possession improves (if it doesn't we're screwed with or without Stamkos). It's not a surprise that a team that never had the puck struggled to score. Some will come from a combination of development of Jack & Sam, a bounceback from Girgensons and Ennis, young guys like Bailey/Fasching/Nylander/Vesey (that's right, I'm penciling him in baby!). Is all of that going to happen at an ideal level? Most assuredly not, but I think enough of it will come to fruition. Stamkos removes some uncertainty, but his presence also takes opportunity from someone else, so it's not a pure 50 goal addition, the net is lower. For instance, he plays the spot on the PP that Eichel should be at, so maybe his PP presence reduces Jack's output by 5 goals. And so on. I know you know GVT dammit, why am I typing this!?!? :P

 

I think an underrated point which I've tried to make before, is we tend to overestimate the number of individual goal scoring wizards that Cup teams have. Chicago last season didn't have a single 30 goal scorer (to be fair, Kane would have been if healthy)--just a bunch of 20 goal scorers and depth players in the teens. Even Pittsburgh this year only had Crosby break the 30 goal barrier and only three guys in the 20s, remainder in the teens or below. I have the rest of the post-lockout Cup winners broken down somewhere in this thread, so not going to repeat it, but the basic story is we're not as in need of a pure scorer as team goal scoring rankings would suggest. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't add one, just that it's not a simple no-brainer.

 

It's also worth noting that, as opposed to other stars in the same salary stratosphere, his goal scoring is down significantly in the playoffs: .55 GPG regular season, .31 playoffs. Most end up with lower production because they're not feasting on bottom feeders, but that's about twice the dropoff (and in some cases like Crosby's, more like 3x the dropoff) of other premier players. Why? Could be small sample, but it's worth thinking about. I have a theory that it's because he's so reliant on the PP, and they just don't come along as often in the playoffs. This season Stamkos' even strength scoring rate among players with 1000 minutes was only 93rd in the league. 

 

Lastly, and this saddens me to a significant degree...goal prevention is simply more important than goal scoring. Obviously you need both (unless you're coached by Darryl Sutter, apparently), but a straight ranking puts better defensive teams winning more often than the better offensive team. Stamkos isn't helping that, just as he's not helping our even strength possession a whole lot. I continue to think Stamkos is a luxury...a pretty great luxury I'd like to add, but he's not a blank check type of addition to this team, at least not obviously so. 

 

I now eagerly await at least a few people once again misrepresenting this position as not having any room on the team for a 40 goal scorer.

Edited June 26, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[Sabel79]

Can the Bolts actually do a sign and trade? I think that would add another dimension to this.

 

Bolts have 18 million in cap space to do a deal. This would be beneficial for Stamkos cause that would be able to get 8 years instead of 7. He would be in complete control since the deal would have a clause where he could only be traded to whomever he agrees to that offers the most compensation.

 

Because it's SS I see Murray overpaying if this where to occur. I would even go as far to think he would offer Ennis in a deal. It's a win win. Murray gets his guy. SS gets max money for the team of his choice. And the Bolts get something in a situation where they were going to get nothing.

Stamkos has a full no move, why would he agree to weaken the team he'd go to for nothing on 7/1 by costing them assets? 

[IKnowPhysics]

A lot of it will come from possession improvement...assuming our possession improves (if it doesn't we're screwed with or without Stamkos). It's not a surprise that a team that never had the puck struggled to score. Some will come from a combination of development of Jack & Sam, a bounceback from Girgensons and Ennis, young guys like Bailey/Fasching/Nylander/Vesey (that's right, I'm penciling him in baby!). Is all of that going to happen at an ideal level? Most assuredly not, but I think enough of it will come to fruition. Stamkos removes some uncertainty, but his presence also takes opportunity from someone else, so it's not a pure 50 goal addition, the net is lower. For instance, he plays the spot on the PP that Eichel should be at, so maybe his PP presence reduces Jack's output by 5 goals. And so on. I know you know GVT dammit, why am I typing this!?!? :P

I hope those guys would develop so well to challenge Stamkos' GVT in two to three years; that'd be great development. But it won't be an issue sooner. Because we're not talking Stamkos vs Vesey in his potential prime, we're talking Stamkos vs Gionta or Stamkos vs Matt Moulson in the top six this year.

 

The bonus from a developed offense and defense and the resulting improved possession will be enough to make the playoffs in that two-three year range. But you will need elite veteran forwards to will your way into deeper rounds. Stamkos can give you that. And buying him now just might let you force your way into the playoffs a year or two sooner than expected (this year?), giving the kids the battle-tested hardness they'll need for the show BEFORE they're in their prime.

 

We have an opportunity to ignite an unprecedentedly explosive rebuild, even compared to Crosby/PIT, by gaining Stamkos for nothing but money.

 

Stamkos is the fully developed type of player we would have tanked for and now we can buy him.

Edited June 26, 2016 by IKnowPhysics

[7+6=13]

Stamkos has a full no move, why would he agree to weaken the team he'd go to for nothing on 7/1 by costing them assets? 

 

He'd get an 8th year on the contract.

[beerme1]

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.

 

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).

 

 

I wish you apply to the Buffalo News. This is a great post. The only snipe from me is Tampa. Personally I think they're out now.

[WildCard]

Hey Liger, I was wondering if we could add a simple 'Yes/No' option to the poll? At this point it seems the cost is pretty set, it will be above $10m, and I'd like to know exactly where the board leans on this. Just an idea

[Randall Flagg]

Signing Stamkos would make me feel woozy, but looking at our roster and what else is available and realizing I can't bet on playoffs without him this year also makes me feel woozy. I don't know what I want.

 

(I want to offer sheet Hampus Lindholm)

[TrueBlueGED]

Signing Stamkos would make me feel woozy, but looking at our roster and what else is available and realizing I can't bet on playoffs without him this year also makes me feel woozy. I don't know what I want.

 

(I want to offer sheet Hampus Lindholm)

Let's face it, signing Stamkos would he flippin' exciting. I'm not super into it in the grand scheme for all the reasons talked about, but I'm not going to sit here and downplay the emotional reaction I'd have.

 

I also want to offer sheet Lindolm. Not because I hold any delusion of it working but because I'm bitter over the asking price for Fowler. Yes, I'm unreasonably vengeful :lol:

[Crusader1969]

Stamkos has a full no move, why would he agree to weaken the team he'd go to for nothing on 7/1 by costing them assets?

 

I'd imagine he will have about 10 to 12 million reasons to get the 8th year on his contract

[pi2000]

Offer sheet Lindholm, then tell Bob Murray you'll rescind the offer sheet if he trades us Fowler for Bogo.

[Crusader1969]

I wish you apply to the Buffalo News. This is a great post. The only snipe from me is Tampa. Personally I think they're out now.

 

No doubt in my mind he is going to Toronto. Hopefully the price gets up to around $12million per!

[TrueBlueGED]

Offer sheet Lindholm, then tell Bob Murray you'll rescind the offer sheet if he trades us Fowler for Bogo.

 

How does this make us better? We have nobody to take Bogo's spot on the 2nd pair RHD.

[WildCard]

No doubt in my mind he is going to Toronto. Hopefully the price gets up to around $12million per!

We sign him for >10, I'm happy. Toronto signs him for $15, I'm still angry

[Crusader1969]

We sign him for >10, I'm happy. Toronto signs him for $15, I'm still angry

Be prepared - if they are willing to match the highest bidder he goes to Toronto. unfortunately, the Sabres are just a pawn for his Agents at NewportSports

 

I'll be very happy if Stamkos goes to leafs for at least $11+ and Sabres add Vesey.

[3putt]

We sign him for >10, I'm happy. Toronto signs him for $15, I'm still angry

This is illustrative of the conundrum of Stamkos. If you think he is the piece that makes you a cup favorite the price is irrelevant because you don't need the money elsewhere. If one thinks we need more than one piece you spend your money elsewhere. All the other arguments like fit, core, position become less germane. It really becomes yes or no. Yes we pay what it takes and get him and enjoy the ride or no he isn't the codec that solves the puzzle. I have not convinced myself that we are one piece away yet, but I Think the arguments that acquiring him would change our trajectory immediately are sound and intriguing. Red pill or blue pill.

[beerme1]

No doubt in my mind he is going to Toronto. Hopefully the price gets up to around $12million per!

 

 

You schooled me in an earlier post and I want to tell you I didn't simply ignore it. I appreciate your points of view on the matter of Stamkos, Steven. It absolutely screws with our salary and players etc .  

I also want you to understand I am irrational sports fan and I don't care how it works if we legitimately have a chance to add him. Do it. I will worry about the fallout after the Buffalo Sabres name is engraved on a cup and in my lifetime even! I think he elevates our shot immensely. Obviously.