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

[TrueBlueGED]

It's understandable that there's hesitation when handing out a salary cap league's richest contract to a player that just sat most of the season and experienced a dip in stats the year before.

 

On the upside, people say he's healthy and quesionable usage explains the dip.

 

I don't think his usage has anything to do with his decline.

 

*dons protective armor*

 

At the risk of re-igniting the entire debate when I don't have time to litigate it...even if his usage is part of the reason, what does that say about his actual on-ice value (not his UFA-inflated market value)? Crosby produces the same regardless of who he's with, including a decrepit Dupuis and Kunitz. So does Kane. And Kopitar lugging around Brown's carcass. Etc etc etc. Usage and linemates matter a lot for your secondary and support players, but for a guy you're willing to pay upwards of $12M for, I don't think he should be so dependent on it.

 

And yes, I know this is merely a philosophical point, since if we sign him he'll be playing with other top end players.

[Iron Crotch]

I still think the Isles are flying below the radar and will make a pitch for Stamkos. They could let Okposo and Nielsen walk and use that money on Stamkos (seems odd they haven't resigned one or both already). A 1-2 punch of Tavares and Stamkos would be deadly.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Stamkos doesn't pick Buffalo. I'm not so sure Stamkos isn't better off on the wing (i.e. Tampa is right about his best position). And, these monster free agent deals have a way of coming back to bite a team a few years down the road.

[That Aud Smell]

I still think the Isles are flying below the radar and will make a pitch for Stamkos. They could let Okposo and Nielsen walk and use that money on Stamkos (seems odd they haven't resigned one or both already). A 1-2 punch of Tavares and Stamkos would be deadly.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Stamkos doesn't pick Buffalo. I'm not so sure Stamkos isn't better off on the wing (i.e. Tampa is right about his best position). And, these monster free agent deals have a way of coming back to bite a team a few years down the road.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Any word on whether GM TM is 'a courtin' Okposo? Or is that just gonna cost too much? I reckon a fair amount here rides on what Vesey is prepared to do.

[jsb]

To be honest, I'm almost having pre-buyers remorse already on Stamkos. I like him a ton as a player but the injuries, production decline, and cap hit concern me. I go back and forth. I like him at 10 and I'm wary at 12

I agree with you on this and Vogl just tweeted this

Points per game during last three seasons: Steven Stamkos .90, Kyle Okposo .88

 

Are we better off going after Okposo and saving money??? Or is the name brand really better??

 

 

 

edit: I don't know how to imbed a tweet so I went with the copy/past method

Edited June 27, 2016 by jsb

[Iron Crotch]

Hear, hear.

 

Any word on whether GM TM is 'a courtin' Okposo? Or is that just gonna cost too much? I reckon a fair amount here rides on what Vesey is prepared to do.

 

Supposedly Okposo is a Plan-B option for Murray if Stamkos doesn't sign in Buffalo. A ton of teams are in on Okposo though, so he'd be a tough pull unless we outbid everyone. He is from Minnesota and with them dumping Vanek, they may be the favorites.

[ddaryl]

Babcock was just an example. The truth is that I have no idea what's going on in the mind of Stamkos and neither do you. We're all basically here to speculate and discuss. I made my comment because you seemed to be speaking in absolutes like it's some auction and he's guaranteed to go to the highest bidder when that's not necessarily the case.

 

I'm not from Buffalo and have never even lived there so the woe is Buffalo mantra doesn't really apply in my case. I'm not trying to rain on your parade or piss in your cheerios or whatever analogy you prefer but like everyone else here we have to beat this topic to death (it's the offseason after all and Stamkos is as interesting as anything else to talk about) and you can't really fully discuss the topic without looking at it from all angles which is part of what I was doing.

 

To be honest, I'm almost having pre-buyers remorse already on Stamkos. I like him a ton as a player but the injuries, production decline, and cap hit concern me. I go back and forth. I like him at 10 and I'm wary at 12, but then I think about how the difference between 10 and 12 is basically just the difference between what Marcus Foligno will probably make next year vs some guy on an entry level contract and I'm back on board. Then I think about Ristolainen needing a true top pair caliber partner and I'm back off. From reading this thread I'm not the only one who seems to waffle back and forth. It's a game changer (good or bad or a bit of both) for whoever signs him.

 

 

Well I agree mostly...   I really not 100% on the Stamkos train but just not going to be sucked into the we don;t have a shot mentality shared by too many IMO

 

You are right nobody knows but if we just accepted that this thread would not exist.

 

A top 2 D man is choice but hard to come by in FA or trade, but man it would be nice

Edited June 27, 2016 by ddaryl

[WildCard]

My brother told me yesterday he heard Nashville was going to take a swing. TBH I don't know where he heard it from, just though I'd mention it

[Hoss]

My brother told me yesterday he heard Nashville was going to take a swing. TBH I don't know where he heard it from, just though I'd mention it

A quick Twitter search shows this originated with Eklund. You should probably disown your brother.

 

Nashville is the team I said from the beginning is the best fit if all things were equal but I don't think they can make it work financially.

[WildCard]

A quick Twitter search shows this originated with Eklund. You should probably disown your brother.

 

Nashville is the team I said from the beginning is the best fit if all things were equal but I don't think they can make it work financially.

Well, :lol:

[beerme1]

I agree with you on this and Vogl just tweeted this

Points per game during last three seasons: Steven Stamkos .90, Kyle Okposo .88

 

Are we better off going after Okposo and saving money??? Or is the name brand really better??

 

 

 

 

I think I could stomach giving SS $12 before I could Okposo $8

[TrueBlueGED]

I think I could stomach giving SS $12 before I could Okposo $8

Even with the age concerns, I think I'd rather go with Eriksson as a secondary option than Okposo. I think it's likely both of them have a couple ugly years to close out their contracts, but I like Eriksson's fit more.

Edited June 27, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[WildCard]

Even with the age concerns, I think I'd rather go with Eriksson as a secondary option than Okposo. I think it's likely both of them have a couple ugly years to close out their contracts, but I like Eriksson's fit more.

I knew you'd come around

[TrueBlueGED]

I knew you'd come around

Sir, do not confuse my post with "I'd be happy to give Eriksson 6 years" :p

 

Just saying, if we're going to hand out a contract to a forward we're likely to regret in 3-4 years, Eriksson is my choice. I will say, I do think he does enough outside of scoring that the bad years of his deal would be "he's overpaid" rather than "he's useless" as may happen with Okposo.

[Iron Crotch]

My brother told me yesterday he heard Nashville was going to take a swing. TBH I don't know where he heard it from, just though I'd mention it

 

Probably not enough cap space. The Preds badly need to dump Ribero (awful in the playoffs), but no one will take his contract.

[LGR4GM]

I agree with you on this and Vogl just tweeted this

Points per game during last three seasons: Steven Stamkos .90, Kyle Okposo .88

 

Are we better off going after Okposo and saving money??? Or is the name brand really better??

 

 

 

edit: I don't know how to imbed a tweet so I went with the copy/past method

Specifically it is

Stamkos: 0.898ppg

Okposo: 0.876ppg

 

Based off of shots per game average x 82 games a year x career SH% = 

Stamkos: 45.062goals

Okposo: 21.49goals

This would be their goal totals provided they shoot at their career SH% and play 82 games next season.

[pi2000]

Specifically it is

Stamkos: 0.898ppg

Okposo: 0.876ppg

 

Based off of shots per game average x 82 games a year x career SH% = 

Stamkos: 45.062goals

Okposo: 21.49goals

This would be their goal totals provided they shoot at their career SH% and play 82 games next season.

 

BUF needs goal scorers, I'd rather have 1 Stamkos than 2 Okposo's. 

[Randall Flagg]

If Vesey signs, I think I swallow my desire to win playoff series this season and I don't make any significant forward addition, unless I somehow find a way to dump Moulson's contract. I just don't like these players, for what they are going to get. I'd continue to push for a LHD deal, but that's it. Let the kids develop over giving old people bad contracts or Stamkos $12 million.

[LGR4GM]

BUF needs goal scorers, I'd rather have 1 Stamkos than 2 Okposo's. 

I ran the numbers for that argument already in this thread. Let's take a team that finished just outside the top 10 in goals, Calgary with 231 goals. Buffalo had 201 goals. So we need 30goals to be on the edge of the top 10 in goals for. Well Jack and Sam are easily going to get at least 10 more goals next season between the two of them. You have Zemgus, Moulson, and Ennis under-performing so hard that statistically last season was an outlier (Ennis was obviously injured). Let's assume we sign Vesey. Between those 4 players you need them to account for an additional 20 goals... so I don't buy the BUF needs scorers argument that much. We Tyler Ennis alone and healthy probably adds +10 goals to the team and I think Zemgus and Moulson alone can add another 10 and that doesn't account for Vesey. Buffalo needs better GT, better defense, and consistency. 

[Brawndo]

Comparsions on contract values in different locales.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/lightning/how-tax-factor-favors-lightning-in-steven-stamkos-sweepstakes/2283286

 

As mentioned Toronto would probably have the largest amount of endorsement dollars. 

[LGR4GM]

Matt Moulson's sh% last year was the worst of his career. So either the guy had a bad year and will rebound or he went from being a 20goal scorer to crap in the span of 1 offseason. 

[TrueBlueGED]

If Vesey signs, I think I swallow my desire to win playoff series this season and I don't make any significant forward addition, unless I somehow find a way to dump Moulson's contract. I just don't like these players, for what they are going to get. I'd continue to push for a LHD deal, but that's it. Let the kids develop over giving old people bad contracts or Stamkos $12 million.

 

I agree.

 

Matt Moulson's sh% last year was the worst of his career. So either the guy had a bad year and will rebound or he went from being a 20goal scorer to crap in the span of 1 offseason. 

 

Matt Moulson's precipitous decline started before this season. He's done, finished, toast. I will not tolerate Matt Moulson apologism on this board!

[pi2000]

I ran the numbers for that argument already in this thread. Let's take a team that finished just outside the top 10 in goals, Calgary with 231 goals. Buffalo had 201 goals. So we need 30goals to be on the edge of the top 10 in goals for. Well Jack and Sam are easily going to get at least 10 more goals next season between the two of them. You have Zemgus, Moulson, and Ennis under-performing so hard that statistically last season was an outlier (Ennis was obviously injured). Let's assume we sign Vesey. Between those 4 players you need them to account for an additional 20 goals... so I don't buy the BUF needs scorers argument that much. We Tyler Ennis alone and healthy probably adds +10 goals to the team and I think Zemgus and Moulson alone can add another 10 and that doesn't account for Vesey. Buffalo needs better GT, better defense, and consistency. 

 

That's the rational for all bad teams in the league... we just need players x, y, and z to contribute at a higher level and we'll be a playoff team.  

 

Stamkos is a guaranteed 35-45 goals/yr for the next 7-8 years.    I'd rather have 1 Stamkos, instead of crossing my fingers that Girgensons, Moulson and Ennis make up that difference in goal scoring.   It ain't gonna happen.    

 

Jack and Sam will likely score more goals, but will O'Reilly?   Kane?   How many games will Kane even play (injury/suspension)?    Will Ennis retire after he gets hit hard again?      

[That Aud Smell]

Matt Moulson's precipitous decline started before this season. He's done, finished, toast. I will not tolerate Matt Moulson apologism on this board!

 

Yeah. I think he's a guy who was initially destined to be a borderline pro, but then, to his credit, developed and parlayed a very specific (and limited) set of skills into a career as a serviceable goal scorer. But once certain key skills began to diminish because of a natural aging process, the (Yuri An)dropov was remarkable and he had NOTHING to fall back on. I'll be stunned if he "turns it around" next season.

[LGR4GM]

That's the rational for all bad teams in the league... we just need players x, y, and z to contribute at a higher level and we'll be a playoff team.  

 

Stamkos is a guaranteed 35-45 goals/yr for the next 7-8 years.    I'd rather have 1 Stamkos, instead of crossing my fingers that Girgensons, Moulson and Ennis make up that difference in goal scoring.   It ain't gonna happen.    

 

Jack and Sam will likely score more goals, but will O'Reilly?   Kane?   How many games will Kane even play (injury/suspension)?    Will Ennis retire after he gets hit hard again?      

I left ROR and Kane out because they score at consistent rates so I don't need anything else from them. You think Zemgus (new coach and system and only 22 years old) and Ennis (injured) are not going to make up that 20 goal difference, I do. 

 

To the bolded, it isn't a higher level.  I am not asking Zemgus to produce 30goals, I am asking for him to get 12 instead of 7. I am not asking Ennis to score 35, I am asking him to score 15 instead of 3. Not only are those numbers well within their range, they are amounts they have already produced and surpassed. This doesn't take into account Jake McCabe growing more, or Kulikov coming in or anything at all on the backend. I don't agree with your bolded at all. It doesn't refute my argument and it is just a waste of time. Stamkos does make us a better team but at what cost and for how long? What happens if Jack Eichel scores 40 and Reinhart hits 30? What if Vesey signs and gives us 15, what if I bring in Stamkos and because he isn't the best defensive forward we need 50 goals to counteract the goal differential? What if I can't sign Jack and Sam and Reinhart to their next deal because the cap doesn't grow much and I have 12 million tied up in a 35goal scorer who is average in his own end? You know what bad teams in the league do, they draft like , rationalize why they need to overpay a player, and don't develop players properly to take over from aging players who are starting to decline.

[nfreeman]

 

Matt Moulson's precipitous decline started before this season. He's done, finished, toast. I will not tolerate Matt Moulson apologism on this board!

 

Indeed.  It would be wildly optimistic to pencil Moulson in for more than 10 goals.