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

[tom webster]

OK, I've hot one more thing, those teams don't pay the 5th and 6th best forwards over $5/6M per year and that's what Kane and Ennis will be. They find good value veterans, kids on the rise and then add at the deadline. there is plenty of room and the unique opportunity of having two of your best players on entry level deals and the potential that you could rotate goaltenders still on their second deal for the next few years.

[beerme1]

There is the sticky issue of Moulson, which may force us to deal Kane.

 

 

 

I'm not losing Kane because of Moulson. I'll buy him out. And beat him up.

Edited March 20, 2016 by beerme1

[Neo]

I'll know after the draft. If we draft outside of five and grab Chychrun or Juolevi, I'd go $10 million X 7 yrs. for Stamkos. That may not be enough. If we're picking top top four, I take a forward and reserve my $10 million for FA/trade defensemen (2 at +/- $5 million per).

 

Picking at 5 is the tipping point. Finding a Moulson solution is another. He may cost us Kane.

 

Kane, Ennis, Girgensons, Foligno and draft picks are the cards you hold. Which do you play? The internal assessments of Fasching, Bailey and Baptiste will inform. Add McCabe and Pysk to the discussion.

 

I voted $10 to $10.9 million for each choice. I am not concerned by the position/captaincy issues. No promises. Stamkos gets the only vote on those issues. Stamkos at $10 million is a "best of the rest" contract I can live with at his age, our situation, and my expectations with regard to the cap. Elites will see $10 to $12 million during the next five years.

 

Good discussion, all. I've found my framework.

[dudacek]

And there goes your forward depth. Chicago, Anaheim, hell even the Caps this year, are good because they don't rely on just 2 lines. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, continues to toil around in their own woes

Chicago's fourth highest paid forward this year makes $3.2 million per.

They have only six forwards making more than $1 million per.

They have been rotating their second-tier guys for years.

 

If our top four are as good as theirs we may be able to make due with a bottom eight of DLo Larsson Foligno Girgs Fasching Bailey Carrier and Schaller. Which, in two years, might not be a bad group. Maybe we augment with bargain basement veterans.

 

It's far easier to fill the holes down low than on the first line.

[tom webster]

I'm not losing Kane because of Moulson. I'll buy him out. And beat him up.

In two years, when Kane's deal is done, Mouldon will only have one year left. You won't lose Kane because if Moulson. Kane will be gone because hopefully he's your 6th best forward and you don't pay your 6th forward what he'll want.

[beerme1]

In two years, when Kane's deal is done, Mouldon will only have one year left. You won't lose Kane because if Moulson. Kane will be gone because hopefully he's your 6th best forward and you don't pay your 6th forward what he'll want.

 

 

I want the toughness that Kane also brings to the table. And Mouldon plays like he's full of mold now. I'm buying him out this off season.

[dudacek]

I'll know after the draft. If we draft outside of five and grab Chychrun or Juolevi, I'd go $10 million X 7 yrs. for Stamkos. That may not be enough. If we're picking top top four, I take a forward and reserve my $10 million for FA/trade defensemen (2 at +/- $5 million per).

Picking at 5 is the tipping point. Finding a Moulson solution is another. He may cost us Kane.

Kane, Ennis, Girgensons, Foligno and draft picks are the cards you hold. Which do you play? The internal assessments of Fasching, Bailey and Baptiste will inform. Add McCabe and Pysk to the discussion.

I voted $10 to $10.9 million for each choice. I am not concerned by the position/captaincy issues. No promises. Stamkos gets the only vote on those issues. Stamkos at $10 million is a "best of the rest" contract I can live with at his age, our situation, and my expectations with regard to the cap. Elites will see $10 to $12 million during the next five years.

Good discussion, all. I've found my framework.

This is a very good take.

I may go for Stamkos even if I pick top four because then I have Kane's replacement.

 

I believe in Murray's philosophy of thinking big, acquiring assets then using them to acquire better players.

I don't want to go all Darcy and go for a bunt single when we have a power hitter at the plate.

 

We have perhaps the best cap situation in the league.

I want to use that on players that will help us win the cup, not players that fill holes

I will be disappointed if the best we can do is $12 million on Keith Yandle, Jamie McGinn and Yannick Weber.

[TrueBlueGED]

This is a very good take.

I may go for Stamkos even if I pick top four because then I have Kane's replacement.

 

I believe in Murray's philosophy of thinking big, acquiring assets then using them to acquire better players.

I don't want to go all Darcy and go for a bunt single when we have a power hitter at the plate.

 

We have perhaps the best cap situation in the league.

I want to use that on players that will help us win the cup, not players that fill holes

I will be disappointed if the best we can do is $12 million on Keith Yandle, Jamie McGinn and Yannick Weber.

Interesting take. I think the players that fill holes can easily be the ones that help us win Cups. In fact I'll take it one stop farther and say I think filling those holes is necessary to win a Cup, even if the names aren't super flashy. Your poopooing of Yandle makes me sad :(

 

That said, we're in agreement that McGinn is not one of those players ;)

[...]

Very interesting discussion, folks. I'm looking forward to seeing those stats on Stamkos. I'm in the he's not worth $9 million camp - for the Sabres, at least. But I'm willing to change my mind based on thorough data.

 

I guess I would like to see stats, or something, that would give insight into HOW he would fit in with Eichel, say, since he's the pairing that is mentioned all the time. Does his game fit Eichel's? Does his skill set match the game the Sabres will play in the Cup finals?

 

It's one thing to say a person has skills, and that you can afford him, and another to determine if he actually fits in with everything else. This latter point has been made already, but it seems to get lost in the "can we afford him" debate. For example, maybe you don't want to lose someone like Kane. Who is Kane's replacement at a better price?

[dudacek]

That wasn't meant to poo-poo Yandle.

He is the best UFA available to fill possibly our biggest hole and he would make this team better.

But he is 30 years old and defensively suspect. I don't think he makes us a cup contender now, or three years from now.

 

I would much rather have Stamkos than Yandle and McGinn, for approximately the same price.

[TrueBlueGED]

That wasn't meant to poo-poo Yandle.

He is the best UFA available to fill possibly our biggest hole and he would make this team better.

But he is 30 years old and defensively suspect. I don't think he makes us a cup contender now, or three years from now.

 

I would much rather have Stamkos than Yandle and McGinn, for approximately the same price.

Fair. I'd also rather have Stamkos than Yandle and McGinn, but that's more of a commentary on my feelings of paying McGinn $4 million :p

[dudacek]

Very interesting discussion, folks. I'm looking forward to seeing those stats on Stamkos. I'm in the he's not worth $9 million camp - for the Sabres, at least. But I'm willing to change my mind based on thorough data.

I guess I would like to see stats, or something, that would give insight into HOW he would fit in with Eichel, say, since he's the pairing that is mentioned all the time. Does his game fit Eichel's? Does his skill set match the game the Sabres will play in the Cup finals?

It's one thing to say a person has skills, and that you can afford him, and another to determine if he actually fits in with everything else. This latter point has been made already, but it seems to get lost in the "can we afford him" debate. For example, maybe you don't want to lose someone like Kane. Who is Kane's replacement at a better price?

I'm glad you bring up chemistry because that is exactly why I want Stamkos.

How many times have we seen Jack set up Kane or others only to have them flub the pass?

Steven Stamkos knows how to find the hole better than pretty well anyone and when he finds it, he doesn't miss.

 

And on the off-chance he finds no chemistry with Jack, he will surely find some with Sam or ROR.

Those guys have chemistry with everyone.

 

I think the presence of our three young studs may be the single biggest reason we have a chance to sign him.

 

There isn't a better finisher on the market. There is no one even close.

Edited March 20, 2016 by dudacek

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm glad you bring up chemistry because that is exactly why I want Stamkos.

How many times have we seen Jack set up Kane or others only to have them flub the pass?

Steven Stamkos knows how to find the hole better than pretty well anyone and when he finds it, he doesn't miss.

 

And on the off-chance he finds no chemistry with Jack, he will surely find some with Sam or ROR.

Those guys have chemistry with everyone.

 

I think the presence of our three young studs may be the single biggest reason we have a chance to sign him.

 

There isn't a better finisher on the market. There is no one even close.

I agree. And in a delicious twist of irony, the presence of our three young studs is the single biggest reason I'm not more interested in signing him. The world is funny sometimes.

[jsb]

I'm not sure what Stamkos is really worth and I don't think there's a chance in hell Toronto doesn't outbid us. Having said that after the past few years of futility, we haven't won a playoff series in 10 years and we're going to quibble about if Jack and ROR are going to have hurt feelings if Stamkos is added to the mix??? If Stamkos gets a letter??? Who is he going to fit with?? With the cap space we have and the lower tenders we can throw our young guys when their time is due. As far as I'm concerned as long as they don't throw a Mario contract at  him..... GO FOR IT. With the expected growth of Jack, Samson and Risto plus adding Stamkos and you don't think we become a playoff team and Cup contender in 2 years??? 

If you have any chance, you HAVE to go for it for a 26 year old All Star. 

[dudacek]

I agree. And in a delicious twist of irony, the presence of our three young studs is the single biggest reason I'm not more interested in signing him. The world is funny sometimes.

This is good. Maybe we already have all the elite forwards we need and we are better off saving that cap space and crossing our fingers for Jack's Kunitz or Neal to arrive. They may already be in the system.

The single biggest improvement we are going to see is those two kids moving from good to elite and I have no doubt that is going to happen.

[Norcal]

How many times have we seen Jack set up Kane or others only to have them flub the pass?

Steven Stamkos knows how to find the hole better than pretty well anyone and when he finds it, he doesn't miss.

 

There isn't a better finisher on the market. There is no one even close.

This is why I would love to have Stamkos at $11/ tops.

 

I think Murray will be in it till the end regardless of his true intentions just to keep the Leafs honest.

 

If the Lightning win the cup Stamkos #1 stated goal would be accomplished, winning.

 

Stamkos would then be free to take the best deal and get his $ from a team like Toronto who is building but has shown they have some talent unfortunately, both in the NHL and on the way in Marner and a top pick this year.

 

Actually, those pricks have assembled some good players in a short period of time and sped up their rebuild IMO.

[...]

This is good. Maybe we already have all the elite forwards we need and we are better off saving that cap space and crossing our fingers for Jack's Kunitz or Neal to arrive. They may already be in the system.

The single biggest improvement we are going to see is those two kids moving from good to elite and I have no doubt that is going to happen.

Murray was asking this question a few game-day interviews ago. Is that guy Ennis (I don't think so)? Z (no - and, frankly, I don't see why he's brought up at all)? I guess we'll find out his answer over the summer.

[TrueBlueGED]

This is good. Maybe we already have all the elite forwards we need and we are better off saving that cap space and crossing our fingers for Jack's Kunitz or Neal to arrive. They may already be in the system.

The single biggest improvement we are going to see is those two kids moving from good to elite and I have no doubt that is going to happen.

 

This, in a nutshell, is my position. Bailey's apparent growth is particularly exciting to me.

[WildCard]

Here's a good place to start for looking at Stamkos stats

http://ownthepuck.blogspot.ca/2016/01/warrior-charts-forwards.html

And 2 good articles on his worth and status

 

http://thehockeywriters.com/steven-stamkos-the-term-elite-might-be-an-understatement/

 

(Hey, Flagg, who's that guy up in the top right? Right below Seguin, and miles above Kopitar?

 

TBF with that line of reasoning, we have Kadri > ROR, and Eric Staal > Kopitar 

http://www.si.com/nhl/2016/01/08/steven-stamkos-tampa-bay-lightning-contract-advanced-analytics

So exactly what we thought; decline, so much decline. He's not going to get any better with age, folks

 

*points* AND YOU GET FREE STAMKOS GRAPHS! *points* AND YOU GET FREE STAMKOS GRAPHS! 

Read the article, guys, it's a good one and will help explain the graphs

Edited March 21, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

The trend since the leg injury remains by far my biggest concern about him, and something that I really don't think gets enough discussion. Even if you believe adding an elite forward is the most important thing this team can do, backing up the truck for 50-goal 90-point Stamkos is quite a bit different than for 40-goal 70-point Stamkos.

 

FWIW I don't think his drop in production is due to losing St. Louis (I've seen/heard it mentioned that his linemates may be the cause of his declining production). I saw some numbers on a Tampa forum that showed his production with and without St. Louis before the trade to be nearly identical--there was some dropoff without St. Louis, but nothing I'd be concerned about. Stamkos was producing because he was great, not because he was with St. Louis. The change since the injury, however, has been stark. We're going on two full seasons now since the injury, so it's not like the sample size is tiny.

Edited March 21, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[dudacek]

It really depends on how you perceive this year though doesn't it?

Is a blip, or does it mark the beginning of a serious downfall?

.

For example, compare his graph to Patrick Kane, who is a year older.

If you remove this year, he's better than Kane and the graph gives no indication that Kane would be having the type of year he has this year.

 

His points per 60 look pretty impressive every year prior to this year and no one is even close to him as a goal scorer, which is what we would be bringing him in for.

 

Haven't seen the most recent numbers, but historically top centres have career years at around 22-24 then mostly settle in with slightly lower numbers for another 5-8 years with a few blips in either direction before starting their eventual real decline.

 

What I see there from Seguin and Crosby seems to bear that out.

Not sure why we shouldn't expect Stamkos to deliver 2.5 to 3 points per 60 for another 3 or 4 years.

 

Also, should we be wondering whether it is a coincidence that an elite player still in his prime had his two worst seasons coinciding with the arrival of a new coach?

 

Should this make us wonder if he is a poorly utilized asset that might actually be undervalued and worth more than what his past two seasons might lead us to expect?

 

(Damn fancy stats are more fun than I thought)

Edited March 21, 2016 by dudacek

[WildCard]

It really depends on how you perceive this year though doesn't it?

Is a blip, or does it mark the beginning of a serious downfall?

.

For example, compare his graph to Patrick Kane, who is a year older.

If you remove this year, he's better than Kane and the graph gives no indication that Kane would be having the type of year he has this year.

 

=> Where are the stats for this?

 

His points per 60 look pretty impressive every year prior to this year and no one is even close to him as a goal scorer, which is what we would be bringing him in for.

 

=> Impressive or not, he's declining in every single category, and that's not good for a 1-dimensional player. Especially one seeking $11m per

 

Haven't seen the most recent numbers, but historically top centres have career years at around 22-24 then mostly settle in with slightly lower numbers for another 5-8 years with a few blips in either direction before starting their eventual real decline.

 

=> This is true. But it averages out. Stamkos' trend is just down, not level.

 

What I see there from Seguin and Crosby seems to bear that out.

Not sure why we shouldn't expect Stamkos to deliver 2.5 to 3 points per 60 for another 3 or 4 years.

 

=> Sorry, where?

 

Also, should we be wondering whether it is a coincidence that an elite player still in his prime had his two worst seasons coinciding with the arrival of a new coach?

 

=> Because the last graph shows his relative performance to everyone on his team. That, and you've stated above, he's past his prime, and has a recent injury, so it stands to reason that this isn't Cooper's fault

 

Should this make us wonder if he is a poorly utilized asset that might actually be undervalued and worth more than what has past two seasons might lead us to expect?

 

=> Not IMO, no. 

Edited March 21, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

Dudacek, I'm not sure why you're isolating this season. There was clearly a drop last year from his career numbers as well.

 

Tampa's entire team is having a down year, but this year isn't happening in a vacuum--it's following last year which was also down significantly from his career. I'm willing to write off this year as inordinately low and likely to uptick (and he has been better for the past month, though still well short of his heyday), but two years in a row of lower production that just happens to coincide with a devastating injury that fused a 16" rod to his leg? That's tough for me to write off.

 

Edit: On Cooper, I'd be more open to that explanation if last season didn't happen. They were the best offensive team in the league and Stamkos' numbers were still down. Is it really likely he knew how to use everyone except Stamkos?

Edited March 21, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[WildCard]

Dudacek, I'm not sure why you're isolating this season. There was clearly a drop last year from his career numbers as well.

 

Tampa's entire team is having a down year, but this year isn't happening in a vacuum--it's following last year which was also down significantly from his career. I'm willing to write off this year as inordinately low and likely to uptick (and he has been better for the past month, though still well short of his heyday), but two years in a row of lower production that just happens to coincide with a devastating injury that fused a 16" rod to his leg? That's tough for me to write off.

 

Edit: On Cooper, I'd be more open to that explanation if last season didn't happen. They were the best offensive team in the league and Stamkos' numbers were still down. Is it really likely he knew how to use everyone except Stamkos?

Beat me to the edit. Everyone did well last year, and he still declines. I wish he would stay in Tampa one more year, just to see if he declines again or levels out under Cooper and the same roster. I think he'd still decline.

 

How much do you attribute his decline to his leg injury, and not just him being past his prime? Does his poor shot selection really have to do with his leg?

[dudacek]

@WC
1) reading your third graph, points per 60.
2) pretty much everyone in that same graph has a three-year downward trend. Hall and Kane are having bounce back years, why can't Stamkos?
3) see above and remember my question about whether this season marks a blip or a trend? The difference in the previous season is not huge and the previous year he actually improved. Check out Hall last year, or Seguin in 2013 to see what I'm getting at.
And the shooting chart at the end seems to indicate this year may be a blip as well.
4) the second graph shows very consistent points per 60 prior to falling off a bit last year and lot this year. Give his age that shouldn't be expected, blue makes a good point about the injury. Coaching is another question.
5) he is not past his prime. That should not happen for another three to five years. He may be past his peak. Cooper brought significant change when he brought, what , six players from the minors with him? Again, your case is really based on his performance this year. Throw this year out, or watch him bounce back like Kane next year and the graph will tell a completely different story.
 

Dudacek, I'm not sure why you're isolating this season. There was clearly a drop last year from his career numbers as well.
Tampa's entire team is having a down year, but this year isn't happening in a vacuum--it's following last year which was also down significantly from his career. I'm willing to write off this year as inordinately low and likely to uptick (and he has been better for the past month, though still well short of his heyday), but two years in a row of lower production that just happens to coincide with a devastating injury that fused a 16" rod to his leg? That's tough for me to write off.
Edit: On Cooper, I'd be more open to that explanation if last season didn't happen. They were the best offensive team in the league and Stamkos' numbers were still down. Is it really likely he knew how to use everyone except Stamkos?

Last season was a pretty normal blip for a top centre in his 20s - the 80-90 point guy coughs up a 73 for some reason. Perreault went five years between 100-point seasons. This year is not normal and is reason for concern. You are right to question the leg. His numbers last year with the leg were much better. Why? Did it get worse?
I don't think we can know. It's up to the Sabres to do the Intel to discover the best answer.

Many people said ROR was carried by McKinnon, and was a money-hungry cancer. There was evidence supporting that argument, but those people were wrong, Murray was right. This is how he and his scouts will earn their money.

Edited March 21, 2016 by dudacek