Brawndo Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Umm.... https://twitter.com/sabresoptimist/status/697976961621069824 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Umm.... https://twitter.com/sabresoptimist/status/697976961621069824 WTF? We're Stamkos' first choice according to McKenzie? Edited February 12, 2016 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) WTF? We're Stamkos' first choice according to MvKenzie? I believe second choice. Next to the "B." Didn't see the broadcast though, could be wrong. Edit: Nvm, watched again and I think you're right. So that's cool. It all makes sense, for the same reasons we were saying in the '16-'17 lineup thread. Wonder what Bob would have to say about the long-term ramifications. Edited February 12, 2016 by thesportsbuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Umm.... https://twitter.com/sabresoptimist/status/697976961621069824 It's probably worth noting McKenzie is not only the gold standard for insiders, but he's gotten a bunch of stuff Sabres-specific right. Definitely interesting to hear him mention us. I'm almost ready to reverse my stance on Stamkos solely for the reaction of Leaf fans. New get rid of Moulson plan if the crowd funding bribe doesn't work: have him party with McCoy and steal his champagne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would he want to come here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would he want to come here? The beer? The food? The women? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Sunset Bay, duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#freejame Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 The beer? The food? The women? Marshawn talked to him about the Applebee's and Dave and Buster's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2uN28EJRlA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Sunset Bay, duh. Oh man, some of my best college memories are from renting cottages down there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Maybe GMTM told his agent we ain't keepin' Disco Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would he want to come here? 1. Eichel, O'Reilly, Reinhart, Ristolainen. Pretty short list of players, but there's some high-end talent here to build on. 2. It's close to home. Very close to home. As close to home as he can get without playing for a Toronto team devoid of talent. 3. Ownership with the $$$$$$ Basically, what McKenzie already said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would he want to come here? We have everything Toronto has due to proximity with none of the drawbacks in terms of media pressure. We also have a couple years on Toronto in terms of the rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 We can't seriously afford to pay him, right? We'd have to overpay as it is, so we're looking at $9m plus, minimum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 We can't seriously afford to pay him, right? We'd have to overpay as it is, so we're looking at $9m plus, minimum Yeah, but, a guy who scores goals. Think of it. It's a radical notion, but, just...think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Yeah, but, a guy who scores goals. Think of it. It's a radical notion, but, just...think of it. I'm picturing a lot of Rick Nash, that's about it 1. Eichel, O'Reilly, Reinhart, Ristolainen. Pretty short list of players, but there's some high-end talent here to build on. 2. It's close to home. Very close to home. As close to home as he can get without playing for a Toronto team devoid of talent. 3. Ownership with the $$$$$$ Basically, what McKenzie already said. My bad, I couldn't watch the video on mobile. Thanks for the summary though To me, #2 is the biggest thing here for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 As Hoss said a few days ago, signing Stamkos would mean moving on from Kane and probably Reinhart in two to three seasons. Kane via free agency and Reinhart as a trade, I would have to say it would be worth it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 As Hoss said a few days ago, signing Stamkos would mean moving on from Kane and probably Reinhart in two to three seasons. Kane via free agency and Reinhart as a trade, I would have to say it would be worth it though. Sorry, I missed this. We get Stamkos, and lose Reinhart? Can we break this down for a second? IMO, Reinahrt > Stamkos, any day of the week. If they were both 19, then sure, go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Why would he want to come here?The $, proximity to Toronto without all the scrutiny and what not like McKenzie said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 It moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Sorry, I missed this. We get Stamkos, and lose Reinhart? Can we break this down for a second? IMO, Reinahrt > Stamkos, any day of the week. If they were both 19, then sure, go for it. I was going to ask the same thing. You get Stamkos, you keep Jack and Samson. You also keep ROR and Risto. The rest, well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I was going to ask the same thing. You get Stamkos, you keep Jack and Samson. You also keep ROR and Risto. The rest, well... Stamkos will probably cost about as much as Ennis + Moulson, no? If only there was a way to say bye to Moulson... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) We can't seriously afford to pay him, right? We'd have to overpay as it is, so we're looking at $9m plus, minimum Honestly despite my reservations about overall team building long-term we probably could, in the abstract. But making it happen is hard--we'd have to shed some contracts I don't know we can. Note: the following is just me playing with numbers under what I think are reasonable price assumptions, not advocacy (except Risto...ssssiiiigggnnnn hhhhiiiimmmmm). Using this year's cap figures, we had a hair over $9 million free. Coming off the books we have Legwand, Johnson, McGinn, Weber, Colaiacovo, Foligno (RFA), Larsson (RFA), Girgensons (RFA), Risto (RFA), McCabe (RFA), Deslauriers (RFA) for approximately $16 million. Let's say a small cap increase to $73 million, and we have about $26.5 million to play with and 8 forwards, 4 defensemen, and 1 goalie under contract. So let's say we want to add 6 forwards, 3 Dmen, and a goalie. Let's take care of the RFA's first: Girgensons: bridge $2.5M x2 Larsson: bridge $1.8M x2 Foligno: standard 10% raise ~$2M x2 Deslaurier: little more than standard raise, $850k x 3 Risto: pay this man! $7M x8 McCabe: bridge $2M x2 So with that done, we're down to about $10 million in cap space while still needing 1 non-Stamkos forward, 1 goalie, and 1 D. Goalie: Ullmark $775k D: street UFA $900k (some may want Weber back, but he'd probably be around $2 million, and remember we're trying to afford Stamkos here) Forward: Fasching on an ELC, ~$900k With that we're at about $9.5 million free. Let's say Stamkos wants $10.5 million a la Kane and Toews, or he wants less and we have to overpay, whatever. We're about $1 million in the hole. We could just try to bridge Risto and that takes care of that and then some, but with respect to anyone who would do this, I think that would be an unbelievably short-sighted move, so let's not. Ideal solutions to free cap, in order of desirability: Trade Moulson for not a contract (hahahahahahahaha): $5M Gionta retires/traded (hahahahahaha): $4.25M - $1.25M replacement = $3M Trade Franson for pucks: $3.325M - $900k replacement - $1M retained salary = $1.2M Trade Foligno: $2M - $700k replacement = $1.3M Trade Gorges: $3.9M - $2M replacement (Weber?) = $1.9M Of those, I think Gorges, Foligno, and Franson could actually happen, and that'd free up (barely) enough money. But it's doable. I can't imagine finding a taker for Moulson's contract, and I'd be awfully surprised if Gionta retired or we found a taker for that contract. Plus they both have some form of NTC and would likely only waive to go to a contender who couldn't afford the cap hits anyway. Other options could be trying to trade Bogosian ($5.1M) or Ennis ($4.6M) and replace them with cheaper options, but really I think any deals involving them would mean bringing back salary and real players--not the type of thing to cap dump to clear room. So purely from a cap perspective, we'd basically be looking at this year's team + 1 year experience + Stamkos heading into next season. Maybe Bogo/Ennis deals materialize, but I don't think you're looking at upgrades really so much as better fits for what we need. What say you? I was going to ask the same thing. You get Stamkos, you keep Jack and Samson. You also keep ROR and Risto. The rest, well... Affectionately known as the Pittsburgh approach to team building :P More seriously, I don't see how you keep all five of those guys when Jack and Samson want to get paid like Stamkos, barring some unexpected giant cap jump or new fandangled cap circumvention tool. Edited February 12, 2016 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Sorry, I missed this. We get Stamkos, and lose Reinhart? Can we break this down for a second? IMO, Reinahrt > Stamkos, any day of the week. If they were both 19, then sure, go for it. It's close for me. There are few players I would give up Reinhart for, but Stamkos would be one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 As Hoss said a few days ago, signing Stamkos would mean moving on from Kane and probably Reinhart in two to three seasons. Kane via free agency and Reinhart as a trade, I would have to say it would be worth it though. I don't think we are going to trade Sam. I could see us losing Kane, but I don't think we will be losing Reinhart. Just a hunch. He's going to be too valuable and as much as Murray says not to get attached to kids, he was Murray's first ever pick. He believes in Sam and is fulfilling that belief so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I don't think we are going to trade Sam. I could see us losing Kane, but I don't think we will be losing Reinhart. Just a hunch. He's going to be too valuable and as much as Murray says not to get attached to kids, he was Murray's first ever pick. He believes in Sam and is fulfilling that belief so far. I LOVED your stat about Stamkos currently having only 5 more goals than rookie Samson. It really crystallized why trading Reinhart for the sake of 27 year old Stamkos, to me, is lunacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.