WildCard Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Remember when I did the Blackhawks comparison and somebody pointed out we still needed our Hossa? This would certainly qualify as our Hossa. You think Stamkos plays the same game Hossa does? To me, Reinhart/ROR are our Toews/Hossa I think TBphD makes a good point about Stamkos wanting Toews/Kane money, but not deserving it. If the $8.5m/8 year offer by Tampa is considered a low ball offer, then I don't think we should bother with him. Agreed. $7m is where I start to get interested in him. $8m I'm not happy but not losing my mind. $9m and I've lost it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 WC, would you feel comfortable saying he's worth $9-10M to another team but not to us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 You think Stamkos plays the same game Hossa does? To me, Reinhart/ROR are our Toews/Hossa No I don't. I think he fits the role of veteran weapon who signs a good-value free agent contract and pushed the young core over the top. You guys have done a good job at pointing out everything that could go wrong with signing him. There are circumstances however, where signing him make good sense. I feel very strongly that if Murray can find a way to make it happen on those terms, he will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 WC, would you feel comfortable saying he's worth $9-10M to another team but not to us? A little less than that, but that's really all I'm trying to say. He's not worth to us what he really is to most other teams. That's why McKenzie saying our owner is so wealthy doesn't make sense to me. This isn't baseball, there's a cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Again, I think what's making the future part of this discussion difficult is the present. Presently, contender teams have active contracts from the old CBA. That makes it look like those shenanigans are still possible, when they aren't. And with the economies stagnant, at best, the cap isn't going to go up and allow for big, fat contracts. So either the players screwed themselves out of big pay-days, or the owners screwed themselves from assembling the teams they need to win, with this new CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) I think it's safe to say he does not love Tampa. If it's all about money, then he is a Leaf. But what if he doesn't want to be a Leaf? Compare then what Buffalo can offer to beat the field. How many teams: a) are willing to spend to the cap? b) are willing to invest a minimum of $60 million in a player with Stamkos' question marks that have been so well spelled out? c) have room under the cap for that kind of cap hit, especially with stagnant cap concerns? d) are in a location that might be attractive to Stamkos? e) have an organization that has a good reputation to work for — i.e. treating players well and willing to do what it takes to win? f) have a core of players that seem poised for long-term success? g) have a role available for him that sets him up to be successful? Read something about Newport Sports giving their FA players a checklist of dozens of factors to consider. I'd like to see how we stack up. Edited February 13, 2016 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 If there ever were a good cause for an "ignore thread" feature, this would be it for me. Stamkos will not play for the Sabres in the next five years. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 I think it's safe to say he does not love Tampa. If it's all about money, then he is a Leaf. But what if he doesn't want to be a Leaf? Compare then what Buffalo can offer to beat the field. How many teams: a) are willing to spend to the cap? b) are willing to invest a minimum of $60 million in a player with Stamkos' question marks that have been so well spelled out? c) have room under the cap for that kind of cap hit, especially with stagnant cap concerns? d) are in a location that might be attractive to Stamkos? e) have an organization that has a good reputation to work for — i.e. treating players well and willing to do what it takes to win? f) have a core of players that seem poised for long-term success? g) have a role available for him that sets him up to be successful? Read something about Newport Sports giving their FA players a checklist of dozens of factors to consider. I'd like to see how we stack up. We end up sort of the Goldielocks of the two teams since we have a rebuild further along than Toronto yet far closer to his home town than Tampa. Now all we have to do is get him to sign for 8.75mil for 7 years. And for all we know Buffalo is his #1 target due to its location while avoiding Toronto's media. I have a question for all of you, more out of curiosity than anything. You are Steven Stamkos, Buffalo offers you 7x8.75, and Toronto offers 7x12; which do you take? For me, if I'm determined to "go home" I'd have reduced it down to those two teams pretty quickly. (Detroit would likely be another if they had the money), from there I have to decide who you think will win, and rather or not the 3.25x7 is worth the media pressure and stress of being the next Captain of the Leafs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Maybe this is a play by the Canadian media. Maybe they're tweaking us. Ya think. This reeka is backroom shenanigans between the agent and McKenzie to drive up the price. I wouldn't be surprised if money even changed hands. Remember when we were convinced we were getting Babcock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 No I don't. I think he fits the role of veteran weapon who signs a good-value free agent contract and pushed the young core over the top. You guys have done a good job at pointing out everything that could go wrong with signing him. There are circumstances however, where signing him make good sense. I feel very strongly that if Murray can find a way to make it happen on those terms, he will. And has SCF experience with no ring. Hossa has said that the chance to get rings plural swayed him to sign with the Hawks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Answering my own questions: Boston, Buffalo, Calgary, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, LA, Minnesota, Montreal, Rangers, Flyers, Pittsburgh, Sharks, Blues, Vancouver and Washington are cap teams. Not sure about Columbus, Edmonton and NYI . Of the cap teams: Sabres have $19 million available next year, minus Risto's big raise, Calgary $17 minus fat raises for Gaudreau and Monahan, Dallas $14 with no significant RFAs, Detroit has $9 minus Mrazek's raise, Rangers have $11 million minus Kreider,Hayes and Miller, (plus they have to replace Yandle and Boyle), Philadelphia $10 minus Schenn, St. Lou $13 minus Schwartz, Vancouver $13, but they need to sign three top-six d-men. Islanders have $13 million Oilers have $8, $12 if they don't qualify Schultz That's 10 teams. Trades can happen, but right now the other teams have no realistic space or budget. Given their team makeup, the Oilers would be foolish to pursue him. I never count the Flyers and the Rangers out in these situations, but the Flyers aren't a realistic Cup contender now or in the future and the Rangers would basically have to gut their depth. Vancouver is a long way from contention I don't think Calgary has enough room after locking up their young stars, and just doesn't seem like geographic fit, but if I'm wrong they could make it happen That leaves: St. Louis, which is a great fit IMO, but will definitely have to dump a contract to sign Stamkos and Schwartz The Islanders — offer New York, Tavares, some good young talent, aggressive new ownership Detroit, who would have to trade some salary away to get into the conversation And Dallas, which offers Benn, Seguin and an exciting brand of hockey, but doesn't have a huge need. If Tampa and Toronto aren't in Steven's sights than I would submit the Sabres are in as good a position as anyone and better than most to sign him. And, given the market, I think they can do it for under $10 million per. I will also submit that Murray has set the table for this. It has been part of the tank strategy since Day One. Not saying they will get him. I am saying he is a goal. Edited February 13, 2016 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 If there ever were a good cause for an "ignore thread" feature, this would be it for me. Stamkos will not play for the Sabres in the next five years. Period. Word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Interesting... watching NHL On The Fly while I read this thread, and the TB highlights come on. Wouldn't it be nice if TB won the Cup this year and Stamkos brought that mojo to the Sabres? Yeah I know.... too good to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 It's not just about goals, to me. His overall point production is way down, and that was true last year when Tampa was lethal offensively. His possession stats are all on a lengthy slide as well. I posted the numbers somewhere on the forum awhile back, so no, I won't look them up again :) It's no one thing to me in isolation, it's everything put together that has me gun shy. Lower production two years in a row, worse possession stats multiple years in a row, griping over position played, injury, age, cap, contract structures, our homegrown stars, roster holes we have to fill with no cap room, how much he'll cost and role he'll want. Each of these things alone and I wouldn't be as hesitant as I am; even a couple of them and whatever. But I have like 6 things concern me. I expect this'll be my last post on this for awhile, as I'm just getting agitated at the misrepresentation of the argument. I think he's a great player and a great scorer and we desperately need some scoring. I would happily pay him as a great scorer, but if he wants to be paid like Toews/Kane or more, I think I can build a better team long term without paying him that than if I cough it up because I really don't think he's in that class. And that's really it. There are reasons to disagree. You're not nuts if you want to pay him. I and others don't, and I think we've presented well thought out reasons for that position. Disagree all you want, but at least have the decency to disagree with the arguments that are actually being made. Very well said, I think this is where I am at. That's twice recently you have posted this, great both times. My Dad loves this video. No I don't. I think he fits the role of veteran weapon who signs a good-value free agent contract and pushed the young core over the top. You guys have done a good job at pointing out everything that could go wrong with signing him. There are circumstances however, where signing him make good sense. I feel very strongly that if Murray can find a way to make it happen on those terms, he will. Also very fair. This is representing the other side of the coin, and it is an intriguing side, for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 he'll sign with tampa, lets not kid ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 That's twice recently you have posted this, great both times. My Dad loves this video. You know your old when... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just for fun... Garret Wolowski posted this on his Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBs5pLSMPGP/?taken-by=garretw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#freejame Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Just for fun... Garret Wolowski posted this on his Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBs5pLSMPGP/?taken-by=garretw But now what number will I wear when I make the big squad? Edited February 13, 2016 by IrwinNelson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just for fun... Garret Wolowski posted this on his Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBs5pLSMPGP/?taken-by=garretw That's impressive work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Just for fun... Garret Wolowski posted this on his Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBs5pLSMPGP/?taken-by=garretw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 McKenzie dismissing the whole Stamkos thing as mostly BS on Twitter just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 McKenzie dismissing the whole Stamkos thing as mostly BS on Twitter just now. Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie @john_wawrow John, you do realize the Stamkos stuff was from a Quiz question, right? The Quiz is like WWE. Sorry, @TSNquizmaster. Haha. John Wawrow is saying McKenzie's comments prompted a discussion between him and another person who gave him reason to believe McKenzie's comments are accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 John Wawrow is making a complete fool of himself on twitter right now... As usual. What are our local reporters such dickheads? Seriously... It's old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie @john_wawrow John, you do realize the Stamkos stuff was from a Quiz question, right? The Quiz is like WWE. Sorry, @TSNquizmaster. Haha. John Wawrow is saying McKenzie's comments prompted a discussion between him and another person who gave him reason to believe McKenzie's comments are accurate. Yeah, that's what I wrote upthread. John Wawrow is making a complete fool of himself on twitter right now... As usual. What are our local reporters such dickheads? Seriously... It's old. I don't usually see JW being a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie @john_wawrow John, you do realize the Stamkos stuff was from a Quiz question, right? The Quiz is like WWE. Sorry, @TSNquizmaster. Haha. John Wawrow is saying McKenzie's comments prompted a discussion between him and another person who gave him reason to believe McKenzie's comments are accurate. How can an opinion be accurate? 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.