Pretty good reffing tonight all around
Speaking of dummies
^
Hockey play?
If a guy like Stamkos is going to hit UFA, you make a need for him. Obviously there's a lot of teams that simply couldn't afford him under the cap, but if you could, you make an opening if he's willing to come play for you.I don't usually lean on Kypreos, but this morning on 590 he said Stamkos hadn't even been given a contract offer yet. Not even an offer.
Also said he's expecting to be paid in the $11 million range, and that TB likely can't commit that.
From a trade standpoint in-season, that's anybody's guess. If Stamkos is dead-set on heading to free agency, no matter at what point he's traded it will be as a rental so Yzerman would likely either move him soon or not at all (might as well keep him at the deadline as your own rental if you can't move him earlier).
Looking at teams with space and need, and obviously things could change by July 1, it seems 5 teams in particular would have both the cap space and the position open for Stamkos - Calgary, Detroit, Florida, St. Louis and Toronto. Some have more space than others (Florida and Toronto both will have $30 mil+ to play with), some are closer to contention than others (St. Louis and Detroit would probably become Cup faves overnight with Stamkos on board), some have things to spend their money on first (Gaudreau and Monahan are both RFA and I doubt they're taking bridge deals and Calgary will have to do something about their goaltending and try to re-sign Russell, while Florida is going to need 3 or 4 defencemen).
This is going to be very interesting to watch.
True, but just glancing over rosters and cap hits. Teams like Philly, Boston, Montreal and NYR that would usually be in on him simply don't have the space, the Sharks are still tied down by Thornton and Marleau for another year, Buffalo has the centre position set for the next decade etc.If a guy like Stamkos is going to hit UFA, you make a need for him. Obviously there's a lot of teams that simply couldn't afford him under the cap, but if you could, you make an opening if he's willing to come play for you.
It's not often that a top 3-5 player in the world hits UFA in his prime.
At this point, bringing in Stamkos wouldn't help Calgary much. They need a goalie; everything else rides on that. Trading for him wouldn't make any sense.Regarding Stamkos, I've changed my mind regarding including Bennett in a package based on his play this last week. The Flames need to hold onto this guy, I think he's going to be really good.
If a guy like Stamkos is going to hit UFA, you make a need for him. Obviously there's a lot of teams that simply couldn't afford him under the cap, but if you could, you make an opening if he's willing to come play for you.
It's not often that a top 3-5 player in the world hits UFA in his prime.
For instance, if Calgary seriously decides they can't be in on Stamkos simply because they need to re-sign Russell I expect Poonerman to re-emerge and fire away with no mercy.
Yeah, there's definitely teams that can't afford him under the cap and wouldn't really have any chance of making the space.True, but just glancing over rosters and cap hits. Teams like Philly, Boston, Montreal and NYR that would usually be in on him simply don't have the space, the Sharks are still tied down by Thornton and Marleau for another year, Buffalo has the centre position set for the next decade etc.
As I said lots can change by July, but as of today I'd say those 5 would be the favourites in the UFA market.
Gotta factor in RFA deals for Monahan, Gaudreau and (the year after) Bennett. That's gonna likely be somewhere between $15-20 mil combined. Leaves Calgary in the same position Tampa is in right now.This. A hundred times this. It's not like goaltending where there's only one job on the team, everyone can fit another #1 centre.
For instance, if Calgary seriously decides they can't be in on Stamkos simply because they need to re-sign Russell and/or get some goalie who's not likely to be a star I expect Poonerman to re-emerge and fire away with no mercy.
I'm sure Buffalo would make a play for him if they saw it as logical. I'm just not sure it's very logical - that would leave one of Eichel or Stamkos as a second line centre. That's a pretty tough sell to either player.Yeah, there's definitely teams that can't afford him under the cap and wouldn't really have any chance of making the space.
But even teams that seem to be set, like Buffalo, would make it work, IMO. A few of their centres (ROR, Ennis, Girgensons) are all capable of playing the wing. So imagine having the option to put Stamkos, Eichel, and Reinhart (who would probably be the odd man out when it comes time for the big raises) as your top 3 centres down the middle.
I'm not saying that they would actually make a play for him, but if they could make it work under the cap, I'd be all in favor of it.
Agreed, but I'd be willing to bet that if they had a chance to win multiple Stanley Cups (I'd happily settle for one for starters ) it would make it a little easier to get over.I'm sure Buffalo would make a play for him if they saw it as logical. I'm just not sure it's very logical - that would leave one of Eichel or Stamkos as a second line centre. That's a pretty tough sell to either player.
lol - One of Wideman or Russell won't be with the team next season. My preference would be Wideman (the way things are going, move him at the trade deadline).
That's what they said about Sid and Geno, and, um....Agreed, but I'd be willing to bet that if they had a chance to win multiple Stanley Cups (I'd happily settle for one for starters ) it would make it a little easier to get over.
Why not both?
Honestly, Russell feels to me like he might get one of those Andy MacDonald deals.
I'm sure Buffalo would make a play for him if they saw it as logical. I'm just not sure it's very logical - that would leave one of Eichel or Stamkos as a second line centre. That's a pretty tough sell to either player.
That's what they said about Sid and Geno, and, um....