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

[SwampD]

Ovechkin, Doughty, Benn, Shea Weber are all elite players I would be very happy to see in a Sabres uniform. It has nothing to do with a defense mechanisms and and rationalizing why it wouldn't work. Stamkos wants to be Captain, Play Center, and is guesstimated to want 11mil. I just don't think he is worth the money or hassle for that.

Don't we have a guy on the team now who made that much money this year? He hasn't scored in over 2 months and people still want to have his baby.

 

Stamkos is worth 11 mil a year, and I don't even care about salaries. That's GMTM's job, not mine.

[WildCard]

Don't we have a guy on the team now who made that much money this year? He hasn't scored in over 2 months and people still want to have his baby.

 

Stamkos is worth 11 mil a year, and I don't even care about salaries. That's GMTM's job, not mine.

Who on this team makes $11m per year? I'll take Stamkos at $7.5m if that's what you're referring to

 

Stamkos thinks he's worth that, I disagree. Either way, we're all pretend GM's here, so in our pretend world we're going to care about cap

[LGR4GM]

Don't we have a guy on the team now who made that much money this year? He hasn't scored in over 2 months and people still want to have his baby.

 

Stamkos is worth 11 mil a year, and I don't even care about salaries. That's GMTM's job, not mine.

 

I would assume you mean ROR. If Stamkos wants 8mil a year (inflation) to play for Buffalo, I am easily in. 

 

ROR is one of the reasons I would be hesitant to bring in Stamkos.

[SwampD]

Who on this team makes $11m per year? I'll take Stamkos at $7.5m if that's what you're referring to

 

Stamkos thinks he's worth that, I disagree. Either way, we're all pretend GM's here, so in our pretend world we're going to care about cap

ROR made 11 mil this year (not per year).

 

In a league where fans complain ad nauseam about the lack of scoring, you have to pay for a guy who actually can, and I think he'd be worth it.

And I'm still waiting for the Devils to finish below us in the standings since being told that the Kovalchuk contract would be the death of that franchise.

[WildCard]

ROR made 11 mil this year (not per year).

 

In a league where fans complain ad nauseam about the lack of scoring, you have to pay for a guy who actually can, and I think he'd be worth it.

I don't care what he makes at all I guess, only what his cap hit is

 

Going 72-10 with 400 goals won't mean to me if we don't win the Cup.

[LGR4GM]

ROR made 11 mil this year (not per year).

 

In a league where fans complain ad nauseam about the lack of scoring, you have to pay for a guy who actually can, and I think he'd be worth it.

Actually salary isn't as important to this discussion as cap hit.  Also someone correct me if I am wrong but ROR's contract where he will make 11million in pay doesn't actually happen until next year right? Or did he get a signing bonus that applies to his pay this year?

[JJFIVEOH]

I think O'Reilly brings way more to the table than Stamkos.

[pi2000]

I think O'Reilly brings way more to the table than Stamkos.

 

The Stamkos/O'Reilly comparisons are way off the mark.   They're two completely different players.    O'Reilly is an all-around guy, Stamkos scores goals.   You need both to be successful.

 

To find a better comparision, who are the Sabres paying to fill the role of goal scorer?   Moulson?   Kane?   Stamkos is on another level.

Edited March 21, 2016 by pi2000

[JJFIVEOH]

ROR made 11 mil this year (not per year).

 

In a league where fans complain ad nauseam about the lack of scoring, you have to pay for a guy who actually can, and I think he'd be worth it.

And I'm still waiting for the Devils to finish below us in the standings since being told that the Kovalchuk contract would be the death of that franchise.

 

They haven't had to deal with the Kovalchuk contract for six years now. 

[LGR4GM]

They haven't had to deal with the Kovalchuk contract for six years now. 

 

[JJFIVEOH]

The Stamkos/O'Reilly comparisons are way off the mark.   They're two completely different players.    O'Reilly is an all-around guy, Stamkos scores goals.   You need both to be successful.

 

To find a better comparision, who are the Sabres paying to fill the role of goal scorer?   Moulson?   Kane?   Stamkos is on another level.

 

It's a perfect comparison when it comes to contracts. One player is elite at only one aspect of the game, the other is great at many aspects. I'm not willing to pay a one dimensional player more than O'Reilly. 

[pi2000]

It's a perfect comparison when it comes to contracts. One player is elite at only one aspect of the game, the other is great at many aspects. I'm not willing to pay a one dimensional player more than O'Reilly. 

 

You can't win with a team of O'Reilly's.    You need pure goal scorers mixed in with your O'Reilly's.    They're both valuable in their own way, and if you're going to pay for a goal scorer, Stamkos is as good as it gets.  

 

Would you rather have 2 Matt Moulsons or 1 Steven Stamkos?

[SwampD]

They haven't had to deal with the Kovalchuk contract for six years now. 

Not sure where you got the six years from, but I get your point.

 

I just don't understand people whose first instinct when an elite player comes up is to come up with every reason why they wouldn't work in Buffalo. My first instinct is, "Yes! I want them!" 

 

It's a perfect comparison when it comes to contracts. One player is elite at only one aspect of the game, the other is great at many aspects. I'm not willing to pay a one dimensional player more than O'Reilly. 

Yeah, I'd rather watch a whole bunch of losses by one goal than watch someone pot 30+ a year turning them into wins. At least we really tried.

 

Darcy Regeir's "Rasputin" like magic still hangs over this place.

Edited March 21, 2016 by SwampD

[pi2000]

Not sure where you got the six years from, but I get your point.

 

I just don't understand people whose first instinct when an elite player comes up is to come up with every reason why they wouldn't work in Buffalo. My first instinct is, "Yes! I want them!" 

 

Yeah, I'd rather watch a whole bunch of losses by one goal that to watch someone pot 30+ a year turning them into wins. At least we really tried.

 

Darcy Regeir's "Rasputin" like magic still hangs over this place.

 

Haha, yeah, thankfully Tim Murray is quite the opposite of Rieger.... if he wants Stamkos (which I think he does) he'll do just about whatever it takes.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Oh, my a Rasputin sighting ...

 

 

*oh, those Russians* ... I don't mind them, no not at all ........

[JJFIVEOH]

Not sure where you got the six years from, but I get your point.

 

I just don't understand people whose first instinct when an elite player comes up is to come up with every reason why they wouldn't work in Buffalo. My first instinct is, "Yes! I want them!"

 

Yeah, I'd rather watch a whole bunch of losses by one goal than watch someone pot 30+ a year turning them into wins. At least we really tried.

 

Darcy Regeir's "Rasputin" like magic still hangs over this place.

You can't use a Kovalchuk comparison when they didn't have to live up to the contract in the first place.

 

Stamkos wants money in the range of elite players that bring much more to the table than he does. When O'Reilly doesn't score he still brings something to the table. When Stamkos doesn't score, he brings nothing. Nothing. That cap space needs to be had for Eichel, Risto, Reinhart, Girgensons, and anybody else brought in as complementary pieces. A Toews type contract for a regressing one dimensional player carries a tremendous risk of handcuffing a team in the future. The Blackhawks are the exception to the rule making two superstars work. Pittsburgh is proof it doesn't.

30+ goals can be had for much less than 10/yr.

[MattPie]

You can't win with a team of O'Reilly's.    You need pure goal scorers mixed in with your O'Reilly's.    They're both valuable in their own way, and if you're going to pay for a goal scorer, Stamkos is as good as it gets.  

 

Would you rather have 2 Matt Moulsons or 1 Steven Stamkos?

 

Didn't Boston win in 2011 with no one you'd call a pure goal scorer? They didn't have a "top line center".

[dudacek]

Really enjoying this discussion.

And as much as I have disagreed with Blue and Wild, they make great points.

 

I think there are four questions that need to be answered:

What is Stamkos - the player he has shown this year, the elite offensive force he was from age 20 to 25, or something in between?

Once you have determined who he is, then what is he worth?

Once you've figured out what he is worth, can you afford him under the cap?

Finally, is he a good fit for your team?

 

I say something in between, $9 million, easily and yes.

I hope Sabres have the inside info to make a more informed answer

[WildCard]

You can't win with a team of O'Reilly's.    You need pure goal scorers mixed in with your O'Reilly's.    They're both valuable in their own way, and if you're going to pay for a goal scorer, Stamkos is as good as it gets.  

 

Would you rather have 2 Matt Moulsons or 1 Steven Stamkos?

Oh, I think you can entirely win with a team of O'Reilly's. Boston says 'Hello' 

Not sure where you got the six years from, but I get your point.

 

I just don't understand people whose first instinct when an elite player comes up is to come up with every reason why they wouldn't work in Buffalo. My first instinct is, "Yes! I want them!" 

I need new pants contemplating the impossibility of Hall, or even the possibility of OEL through Matthews. Stamkos does nothing for me though

[JJFIVEOH]

You can't win with a team of O'Reilly's. You need pure goal scorers mixed in with your O'Reilly's. They're both valuable in their own way, and if you're going to pay for a goal scorer, Stamkos is as good as it gets.

 

Would you rather have 2 Matt Moulsons or 1 Steven Stamkos?

I'd rather have the 10 mil to spend elsewhere. Moulson's contract is easier to make go away.

[MattPie]

Oh, I think you can entirely win with a team of O'Reilly's. Boston says 'Hello' 

I need new pants contemplating the impossibility of Hall, or even the possibility of OEL through Matthews. Stamkos does nothing for me though

 

My MAN!

[WildCard]

Didn't Boston win in 2011 with no one you'd call a pure goal scorer? They didn't have a "top line center".

My MAN!

Beat me to it  :beer:

 

Though Flagg and True may kill you if you don't recognize Bergeron as a 'top line center'  :lol:

[SwampD]

Didn't Boston win in 2011 with no one you'd call a pure goal scorer? They didn't have a "top line center".

Bergeron? If ROR is a first line center, then Bergeron certainly is.

 

Oh, I think you can entirely win with a team of O'Reilly's. Boston says 'Hello' 

I need new pants contemplating the impossibility of Hall, or even the possibility of OEL through Matthews. Stamkos does nothing for me though

Those are both trades though and you have to give something up besides money. Who are you giving up?

Edited March 21, 2016 by SwampD

[pi2000]

Didn't Boston win in 2011 with no one you'd call a pure goal scorer? They didn't have a "top line center".

 

Didn't 90% of other Cup winning teams in the history of the NHL have pure goal scorers?   Just because you can name one team that didn't, doesn't make it the rule.   You increase your chances of winning significantly with players who can score 30+ goals.    

[WildCard]

Bergeron?

 

Those are both trades though and you have to give something up besides money. Who are you giving up?

But that wasn't the point. The point was I get excited with the possibility of good players coming here, not miserable thinking they won't 'because Buffalo'

 

If we get Matthews, I trade him, all day. 

Didn't 90% of other Cup winning teams in the history of the NHL have pure goal scorers?   Just because you can name one team that didn't, doesn't make it the rule.   You increase your chances of winning significantly with players who can score 30+ goals.    

Well, no, they didn't.

 

Name the pure goal scorers on the Cup winning teams in the last decade:

 

2015 -- Chicago Blackhawks (nope)

2014 -- Los Angeles Kings (defniitely nope)

2013 -- Chicago Blackhawks (nope again)

2012 -- Los Angeles Kings (still, nope)

2011 -- Boston Bruins (hell nope)

2010 -- Chicago Blackhawks (nope some more)

2009 -- Pittsburgh Penguins (maybe?)

2008 -- Detroit Red Wings (maybe) 

2007 -- Anaheim Ducks (Perry) 

2006 -- Carolina Hurricanes (nope. I'd say Staal and Brindamour brought much more than pure goal scoring)

Edited March 21, 2016 by WildCard