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

[North Buffalo]

Alright, so not looking good. I won't be fooled by reports we have a good chance at him, and I hope the Sabres aren't fooled like they were on Babcock. Stamkos likely already knows what team he wants, and is just trying to maximize the contract.

So do Sabres abruptly pull out to send a message or do they up the offer to make other teams more uncomfortable say $13 mil... front load it even... Make them pay.

[dudacek]

Murray has a good rapport with Newport News. He's made good on promises to them and I would think they appreciate their working relationship with Murray enough to not insult him. If he had no chance, he'd know.

I agree with this.

If we are at the table, we have a reasonable chance.

In fact, I think there's a case that can be made that the agency, all things being equal, will actually be steering people to the Sabres. That part of Hockey Heaven is real.

What ultimately matters is what Stamkos wants and if the Sabres can supply it.

Edited June 28, 2016 by dudacek

[kas23]

 

Jim Fink is a business reporter, but still, I suppose he knows people who know people...

 

 

James Fink‏@BfloBizJimFink Jun 27

 

A growing buzz in some NHL circles that high profile FAs (Babcock last year) and Stamkos are using Sabres as a 'leverage' for better deals

No doubt they'll be looking to do this. If they want to drive their price up, Buffalo is the perfect tool to do this. Plus, it makes zero sense for him to sign with Buffalo when his hometown team also wants him. Zero.

 

That said, if Toronto wants to give him 12+ million every year for the next 7 years, due to us, I'll drive him to Toronto to sign his name. That'll be a crippling contract for them with only a slim chance he ever lives up to that contract.

Murray has a good rapport with Newport News. He's made good on promises to them and I would think they appreciate their working relationship with Murray enough to not insult him. If he had no chance, he'd know.

Newport is under a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of their clients, not the negotiating GM. Getting the very best contract for their clients trumps any relationships they may have with GMs.

[Norcal]

Newport is under a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of their clients, not the negotiating GM. Getting the very best contract for their clients trumps any relationships they may have with GMs.

Yes I agree Newport's priority is their client but I disagree that Murray will be led to believe that Stamkos wants to sign for X under X terms only to be outbid after an offer is made and signed away by someone else. If the Sabres meet his want list and terms he'll sign.

[Thorner]

No doubt they'll be looking to do this. If they want to drive their price up, Buffalo is the perfect tool to do this. Plus, it makes zero sense for him to sign with Buffalo when his hometown team also wants him. Zero.

That said, if Toronto wants to give him 12+ million every year for the next 7 years, due to us, I'll drive him to Toronto to sign his name. That'll be a crippling contract for them with only a slim chance he ever lives up to that contract.

 

Newport is under a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of their clients, not the negotiating GM. Getting the very best contract for their clients trumps any relationships they may have with GMs.

It very well may not be a crippling contract. A lot of people want to stay put and not sign Stamkos, because they are good with what we have. We have Kane and Moulson, who together have a 10.25 mil cap hit. Are we crippled? I don't think so. And Stamkos at 12 mil would only be making a little bit more, and he'd provide far more production than the two of them combined. Stamkos had an "off" year last year and had 36 goals to Moulson and Kane's 28 together.

 

If we were to somehow get Stamkos, Kane is gone in two years and that's half Stamkos's contract. And if I'm not mistaken, Moulson's contract could be bought out at that point for savings.

 

Again, this is all water under the bridge as I believe as I don't think we are going to sign him. I get that Stamkos is going to get paid a ton. But he's not going to cripple a team, he's too great a player. The argument is whether a team may be better served spending the money elsewhere. Which certainly can be argued. But he's going to make any team he signs with better than they are now.

[ct fab]

I know James Fink through a mutual friend - business first or Buffalo first, some local business newspaper. Believe me this is pure speculation - he would have no inside info

[...]

 

Newport is under a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of their clients, not the negotiating GM. Getting the very best contract for their clients trumps any relationships they may have with GMs.

That's not quite how business works. The only way Newport gets the best contracts for its clients and themselves consistently is to have excellent working relationships with everyone, especially the GMs and their staffs.

[Huckleberry]

It very well may not be a crippling contract. A lot of people want to stay put and not sign Stamkos, because they are good with what we have. We have Kane and Moulson, who together have a 10.25 mil cap hit. Are we crippled? I don't think so. And Stamkos at 12 mil would only be making a little bit more, and he'd provide far more production than the two of them combined. Stamkos had an "off" year last year and had 36 goals to Moulson and Kane's 28 together.

 

If we were to somehow get Stamkos, Kane is gone in two years and that's half Stamkos's contract. And if I'm not mistaken, Moulson's contract could be bought out at that point for savings.

 

Again, this is all water under the bridge as I believe as I don't think we are going to sign him. I get that Stamkos is going to get paid a ton. But he's not going to cripple a team, he's too great a player. The argument is whether a team may be better served spending the money elsewhere. Which certainly can be argued. But he's going to make any team he signs with better than they are now.

 

Buying out moulson gets interesting as from next offseason, Maybe Las Vegas want him to get to the bottom floor.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Huckleberry

[LTS]

He's been medically cleared that it was the result of a collision, it is not a reoccurring genetic condition like Pascal had

 

Thanks missed that.

 

No risk there, if he goes out on LTIR, he will not count against the cap. See: Pronger, Chris.

 

Yep... also not thinking.  Good point.

 

So, the only other issue I have it the cap hit.  I'm not sold on teams having that much in one player being that successful especially when they will have to have other players in that neighborhood as well.

 

But.. if it forces the Leafs to overspend.... :)

[3putt]

Vegas needs to be as entertaining as possible as quickly as possible due to the competition in that town for youe entertainment dollar.  It will be an abject failure, but initially they will want excitement and glitz.  They will not be looking to get to the floor.  As an aside once the nfl shows up the team goes in the shitter

[kas23]

That's not quite how business works. The only way Newport gets the best contracts for its clients and themselves consistently is to have excellent working relationships with everyone, especially the GMs and their staffs.

I'm pretty sure I know how contracts work (more so than I wish), but that's neither here nor there. I guess we'll see how this plays out.

[kas23]

It very well may not be a crippling contract. A lot of people want to stay put and not sign Stamkos, because they are good with what we have. We have Kane and Moulson, who together have a 10.25 mil cap hit. Are we crippled? I don't think so. And Stamkos at 12 mil would only be making a little bit more, and he'd provide far more production than the two of them combined. Stamkos had an "off" year last year and had 36 goals to Moulson and Kane's 28 together.

 

If we were to somehow get Stamkos, Kane is gone in two years and that's half Stamkos's contract. And if I'm not mistaken, Moulson's contract could be bought out at that point for savings.

 

Again, this is all water under the bridge as I believe as I don't think we are going to sign him. I get that Stamkos is going to get paid a ton. But he's not going to cripple a team, he's too great a player. The argument is whether a team may be better served spending the money elsewhere. Which certainly can be argued. But he's going to make any team he signs with better than they are now.

First, poor examples. Not a day goes by on here where someone is not complaining about Moulson's contract. He's the perfect example of bust (outside of Leino). Then there's Kane. Again, not worth the money we pay him and some think we should either trade him or send him to the 3rd line. But, that's immaterial.

 

The biggest question is: what Stamkos will we get? The 25 goal scorer or the 60 goal scorer? Considering I don't think anyone will score 60 in the near future, coupled with him getting older, my compromise is 30-35 goals per season. Is it worth it? Sure, for the next 3-4 years it definitely is. But what happens when we have to pay BOTH Samson and Jack? You willing to let one of them walk because we need to pay Stamkos the last 3 years of his contract?

[Thorner]

First, poor examples. Not a day goes by on here where someone is not complaining about Moulson's contract. He's the perfect example of bust (outside of Leino). Then there's Kane. Again, not worth the money we pay him and some think we should either trade him or send him to the 3rd line. But, that's immaterial.

The biggest question is: what Stamkos will we get? The 25 goal scorer or the 60 goal scorer? Considering I don't think anyone will score 60 in the near future, coupled with him getting older, my compromise is 30-35 goals per season. Is it worth it? Sure, for the next 3-4 years it definitely is. But what happens when we have to pay BOTH Samson and Jack? You willing to let one of them walk because we need to pay Stamkos the last 3 years of his contract?

No, you missed my point then. My argument was that people ARE complaining about those 2. And we still aren't crippled. So a team is likely going to get much better production from Stamkos, and of course, still not be crippled.

 

And no. I'm letting Kane walk. Any buying out Moulson. That covers most of his contract. Other contracts are off the books by that time as well.

 

Besides, I've said this before, I'm not going to worry about managing the cap when there are people paid to do it. I'll choose to hope we sign a 30/40 goal scorer. Murray would find a way to keep the 4 core forwards. O'Reilly, Stamkos, Eichel and Reinhart.

[TrueBlueGED]

No, you missed my point then. My argument was that people ARE complaining about those 2. And we still aren't crippled. So a team is likely going to get much better production from Stamkos, and of course, still not be crippled.

 

And no. I'm letting Kane walk. Any buying out Moulson. That covers most of his contract. Other contracts are off the books by that time as well.

 

Besides, I've said this before, I'm not going to worry about managing the cap when there are people paid to do it. I'll choose to hope we sign a 30/40 goal scorer. Murray would find a way to keep the 4 core forwards. O'Reilly, Stamkos, Eichel and Reinhart.

 

Keeping them really isn't my concern (though I can't speak for others on that front). I'm worried about a swiss cheese defense and not enough depth for a deep run. The margin for error on assembling the rest of the roster shrinks to, for me, an uncomfortably small margin.

 

And yes, I'll still be excited if we sign him :lol:

[Thorner]

Keeping them really isn't my concern (though I can't speak for others on that front). I'm worried about a swiss cheese defense and not enough depth for a deep run. The margin for error on assembling the rest of the roster shrinks to, for me, an uncomfortably small margin.

 

And yes, I'll still be excited if we sign him :lol:

And that's fair. I tried to (not very eloquently) get that across with my other post, where I said it could be argued that there are better ways to use the money. Both sides make valid points on that matter. What I was trying to say is that I don't think signing Stamkos cripples a team in that they can't be successful. I think it immediately, drastically improves whoever signs him, and I think his cap hit can be mangaged down the road.

 

I don't buy the argument that Toronto is screwed or crippled should they sign Steven Stamkos. They'll likely be cup contenders in the near future (gross).

[nfreeman]

Murray has a good rapport with Newport News. He's made good on promises to them and I would think they appreciate their working relationship with Murray enough to not insult him. If he had no chance, he'd know.

 

Good call.

 

Plus, it makes zero sense for him to sign with Buffalo when his hometown team also wants him. Zero.

 

 

 

Newport is under a legal obligation to do what's in the best interest of their clients, not the negotiating GM. Getting the very best contract for their clients trumps any relationships they may have with GMs.

 

On the first point -- I think there are plenty of reasons why he might prefer Buffalo (and certainly plenty in Toronto's favor as well).

 

On the 2nd -- while Newport will certainly pursue its clients' interests, part of their skill set, and their client offering, is their access/relationships with GMs.  They aren't going to jerk around GMTM and TP.

 

It very well may not be a crippling contract. A lot of people want to stay put and not sign Stamkos, because they are good with what we have. We have Kane and Moulson, who together have a 10.25 mil cap hit. Are we crippled? I don't think so. And Stamkos at 12 mil would only be making a little bit more, and he'd provide far more production than the two of them combined. Stamkos had an "off" year last year and had 36 goals to Moulson and Kane's 28 together.

 

If we were to somehow get Stamkos, Kane is gone in two years and that's half Stamkos's contract. And if I'm not mistaken, Moulson's contract could be bought out at that point for savings.

 

Again, this is all water under the bridge as I believe as I don't think we are going to sign him. I get that Stamkos is going to get paid a ton. But he's not going to cripple a team, he's too great a player. The argument is whether a team may be better served spending the money elsewhere. Which certainly can be argued. But he's going to make any team he signs with better than they are now.

 

Good post, although I think it's quite likely that they agree on an extension with Kane (I think I may be in the minority there though).

[Doohicksie]

I think whether Kane stays or goes has just as much with what he does off the ice as he does on the ice.

[Thorner]

Good call.

 

 

 

On the first point -- I think there are plenty of reasons why he might prefer Buffalo (and certainly plenty in Toronto's favor as well).

 

On the 2nd -- while Newport will certainly pursue its clients' interests, part of their skill set, and their client offering, is their access/relationships with GMs.  They aren't going to jerk around GMTM and TP.

 

 

 

Good post, although I think it's quite likely that they agree on an extension with Kane (I think I may be in the minority there though).

Even if they sign Stamkos? I tried to phrase it to mean I think Kane is gone in that circumstance. Think there's a decent chance we sign him if we don't sign Stamkos and he's playing well.

 

But I think if we do sign Stamkos, Kane's 5.25 mil will just be something too easy for GMTM to move on from to make room in other areas.

[Kruppstahl]

No, I don't think he should be the captain of this team.

No, I don't think he should be given the reigns over Eichel.

No, I don't think Murray should be handcuffing this team with that kind of cap hit for a one dimensional playoff disappearing act.

 

Thanks for listening. :D

I am of a similar mind.  I flat out don't want the Sabres to acquire him.  We have a good thing going and I see Stamkos and a huge K subtracting more than it adds. 

 

Also, for a mega priced superstar, he's a bit of a one trick pony with flaws in his game.

 

I can think of many superstars I'd have before Stamkos, if they were equally available.

 

Drew Doughty, Erik Karlsson, Toews and Patrick Kane are all way more valuable players in my opinion, to name a quick four off the top of my head.

[nfreeman]

Even if they sign Stamkos? I tried to phrase it to mean I think Kane is gone in that circumstance. Think there's a decent chance we sign him if we don't sign Stamkos and he's playing well.

 

But I think if we do sign Stamkos, Kane's 5.25 mil will just be something too easy for GMTM to move on from to make room in other areas.

 

I agree with the bolded, but I think that there's a reasonable chance they keep him even after they sign Stammer.

 

2 main variables IMHO:

 

1 -- as you noted, how well he plays

2 -- how much the cap rises.

 

I think there's a pretty good chance that Kane plays very well, in multiple areas, and is a tough MF, for the next 2 years -- and that as a result, GMTM and everyone here will want to keep him.

 

I also think there's a so-so chance that the Canadian dollar will rise enough against the US dollar between now and the trade deadline in 2018 to push the cap high enough so that it will be a no-brainer.

 

Expensive core forwards 3 years from now:  ROR, Stammer, Eichel, Reino, Kane

Rising youngsters, some of whom will have to be dealt:  Nylander, Fasching, Vesey, Asplund

 

Expensive core defensemen 3 years from now:  Risto, XXX?

Mid-priced core defensemen:  Kulikov, McCabe

 

The 10th-13th forwards and 5th-7th defensemen will be cheap, mostly young, and cycled through based on cost and production.

 

That's a team I'm extremely psyched to see, btw.

[pi2000]

I see so many comments on here about how paying Sam and Jack will be an issue in two years if we sign our lord and savior Steven Stamkos. I can see a significant deal for Jack, but a bridge deal for Samson makes sense unless he absolutely explodes offensively. Jack might even accept a bridge deal if the team is a contender.

[Thorner]

If the loonie does rise against the dollar, I could see that coming to fruition. And I am equally psyched.

 

But why so blue?

 

I see so many comments on here about how paying Sam and Jack will be an issue in two years if we sign our lord and savior Steven Stamkos. I can see a significant deal for Jack, but a bridge deal for Samson makes sense unless he absolutely explodes offensively. Jack might even accept a bridge deal if the team is a contender.

I, for one, welcome our new Stamkos overlord.

[darksabre]

I see so many comments on here about how paying Sam and Jack will be an issue in two years if we sign our lord and savior Steven Stamkos. I can see a significant deal for Jack, but a bridge deal for Samson makes sense unless he absolutely explodes offensively. Jack might even accept a bridge deal if the team is a contender.

No way Sam gets a bridge. He was easily one of our best players last season.

[pi2000]

No way Sam gets a bridge. He was easily one of our best players last season.

They'll be RFAs, it's not like they can dictate the terms and we can always match an offer if it comes to that, but that doesnt happen much these days because the cost is too high.

 

Bridge deals are good from a players perspective if they feel they are still developing, so they can cash in a richer contract when the bridge expires in 2-3 years.

[TrueBlueGED]

They'll be RFAs, it's not like they can dictate the terms and we can always match an offer if it comes to that, but that doesnt happen much these days because the cost is too high.

 

Bridge deals are good from a players perspective if they feel they are still developing, so they can cash in a richer contract when the bridge expires in 2-3 years.

 

O'Reilly, Hamilton, Saad are three players in consecutive years who have either signed an offer sheet or there was a threat to sign an offer sheet which facilitated a trade. Maybe they're becoming a more commonly used tool.

 

Anyway, bridge deals are terrible for both players and teams when said player is a blossoming star. The team gets 2-3 years of cap relief in exchange for 6-8 years of significantly higher cap hit, and the player loses money short term while not having any long term security. You bridge deal players like Larsson and Pysyk, not Reinhart.