Jump to content

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


LGR4GM

Stamkos' show me the money poll  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. How much $$$$$ will Stamkos get per year?

    • $8 - 9.9million
      6
    • $10 - 10.9million
      37
    • $11 - 11.9million
      34
    • $12mil or more
      23
  2. 2. How much $$$$$ would YOU pay Stamkos per year? It is safe to assume he gets max deal of 7 years.

    • $8 - 9.9million
      40
    • $10 - 10.9million
      34
    • $11 - 11.9million
      15
    • $12mil or more
      11


Recommended Posts

Hard to argue that, honestly. Ovechkin is a top 5 pure scorer this league has ever seen, not sure Jack will ever hit his level unless this league really changes. Hopefully they do

And they don't even have to go back that far. If the game returned to its 2005/06 after-lockout form? Five 50 goalers that year. Brian Gionta had 48. Eichel in his prime scores 50 that year, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it does. Adding Stamkos is nothing but cap hit. You lose no prospects, picks or roster players. Immediately you make your team better with no subtraction. He, or someone like him (who is not available) instantly transforms your team. It makes you a potential destination for a vet looking for a ring and allows you to manage prospects to either bolster your d or develop them to take the place of cap casualties down the road. I think if your are trying to transform the identity of the franchise a cap hit is the least painful way to do it. I also am not on the Stamkos bandwagon, but I think there is a sound argument for acquiring a player of his ilk.

Transform the team? The hell did we tank for 2 years to get Eichel and Samson for?

 

There is a sound argument, he could give you 40 goals a year but for how long. There is a subtraction, 11 million in cap on a team with Eichel and Reinhart.

 

I feel Sam and Jack suddenly got really underrated in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading Pavel Datsyuk's contract is going to be a lot harder now that it appears players with expiring contracts after next season with NMC will automatically be one of your team's protected players:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/

 

This is very good news for the Stamkos bidding. Could take one team completely out of the chase which would lower the price and make it more likely he comes to your team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading Pavel Datsyuk's contract is going to be a lot harder now that it appears players with expiring contracts after next season with NMC will automatically be one of your team's protected players:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/

 

This is very good news for the Stamkos bidding. Could take one team completely out of the chase which would lower the price and make it more likely he comes to your team.

After next season as in, the 2017-18 season? Or contracts expiring after 2016-17? So all OTHER NMCs are exempt?

 

Edit - just read the article. It seems to make little sense that teams have to protect players they are going to lose in potentially a matter of days. Any contracts ending after the 16/17 season. Weird.

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After next season as in, the 2017-18 season? Or contracts expiring after 2016-17? So all OTHER NMCs are exempt?

No. All players with NMC are exempt from being exposed but their teams will still be required to use a slot to protect them according to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. All players with NMC are exempt from being exposed but their teams will still be required to use a slot to protect them according to this report.

Ok, so all NMCs must be protected. The only players with free exemptions, not requiring slots to be used for protection, are players with 2 pro seasons played or less. Got it.

 

I suppose it makes sense that NMCs have to be protected, or teams would start giving them out liberally if it meant free exemptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Gionta and Zach Bogosian. Although Brian Gionta's contract will expire next July 1st so not sure he would get protected. 

 

 

From what I can tell, Bogo does not have a NMC as of now, it won't kick in until '17-'18.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gionta does not have a NMC. He has a limited no-trade clause. His no-movement clause expired after this season.

Bogo's no-movement clause expired when he waived it to come to Buffalo.

So no players that we automatically have to protect. That's good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Brooks went back on his report that teams will have to protect players with NMC that end after this season...

http://nyp.st/2163v5D

It didn't make a lot of sense. Say player A's contract expires on july 1 2017 and the expansion draft takes place on June 15th, why the hell should the team with player A protect him when he's an expiring UFA who just happens to have a NMC. As an NHL gm there is no way they would or should agree to that, it doesn't make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't make a lot of sense. Say player A's contract expires on july 1 2017 and the expansion draft takes place on June 15th, why the hell should the team with player A protect him when he's an expiring UFA who just happens to have a NMC. As an NHL gm there is no way they would or should agree to that, it doesn't make sense. 

 

It didn't make any sense at all. 

 

I'll say it again:  Brooksie is a bozo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good article on why depth matters, not your star players. Looks at the current Cup finalists as examples

 

http://www.tsn.ca/is-the-nhl-still-superstar-driven-1.503383

Having guys like Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Phil Kessel allows a guy like Nick Bonino to be a role player. Crosby has been out of his mind this series and I don't think they'd be riding on the backs of their role players if that wasn't the case.

 

Then look at San Jose. Joe Pavelski was having a historic postseason and they were winning - now there's an APB out for him and they're getting spanked. A guy like Brent Burns suddenly doesn't know how to avoid shot blockers, Joe Thornton still has no idea how to put the puck in the net on his own and Logan Couture isn't finishing.

 

I almost feel like this finals is the exact opposite of showing that role players are what drives teams.

Edited by Hoss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

 

Interesting topic and debate. 

 

I think that, as per usual, the answer is "both," "all," and somewhere in the middle. 

 

You do need stars, you need role players, you need role players who can resemble a star for a few games, you need a few courageous plugs, and you need all of them to mesh in an elusive and magical (and lucky) way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...