[Rumour] Spector: Bennett for Stamkos? Hudler asking $7 mil/yr. Russell available

[saillias]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Bennett is a good prospect still, but I am not convinced that he will ever be a ppg player. He beings other elements to his game of course, so that is not a knock on him.

We're in an age where generational talents are struggling to be PPG guys anyway. And frankly the importance of having that guy is overstated. Top forward ice-time is going down. Last year's highest TOI forward barely got 21 minutes per game I believe. The difference between a 90 point guy and a 70 point guy is marginal, especially in the playoffs.

If you're productive enough for a top line centre role in this league and have the all-around game and intangibles to help your team win, you're as valuable a player as a Crosby or Ovechkin. Guys like Toews, Bergeron, Krejci. I have no idea if Bennett came become that but I'd sure as hell like to keep him and see if he does, and not turn ourselves into a team with the cap structure of the Blackhawks before we win anything because we're chasing a superstar. Let the Torontos and NYRs do that.

[Cflames_12.5]

It's Steven Stamkos. These players don't ever reach the open market. You have to make that trade. It will never happen though so all the nah sayers can calm down.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because if we want to build a winner, signing one player to a contract like that is a good way to not be able to do it.

If the goal of the Flames is to sell a bunch of jerseys, it's awesome. If the goal is to put together a complete team that can win the Cup, it's not awesome.

Stamkos is an elite player, but signing him to the cap hit he's going to get sinks our chances of ever being a Chicago, LA or even a Boston.

You mean the Chicago that is playing 2 players 10.5mil each?

You don't sink your cap by paying elite players top salary. You sink your cap by giving the Mason Raymonds or the Derek Engellands $3mil.

[Poe969]

People jumping on what I said about how Bennett could turn out to be like Stamkos: I agree. I'm saying that whenever the roles are reversed and someone suggest trading one of our proven players for a prospect, people come up with that response and it's a terrible one.

It would be a dream if Bennett could be close to the same as Stamkos. Stamkos is a proven top player in the league with elite talent. He's what every team hopes for with their prospects.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

You mean the Chicago that is playing 2 players 10.5mil each?

You don't sink your cap by paying elite players top salary. You sink your cap by giving the Mason Raymonds or the Derek Engellands $3mil.

Those contracts just started, so that's a pretty poor counter. We'll see how they do in the coming years when they have to start paying others and lose their depth like they've already lost Saad. No teams are winning with players paid like that. Even Pittsburgh only won once and won't again, and they had the two best players in the game.

[Flames_F.T.W]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because if we want to build a winner, signing one player to a contract like that is a good way to not be able to do it.

If the goal of the Flames is to sell a bunch of jerseys, it's awesome. If the goal is to put together a complete team that can win the Cup, it's not awesome.

Stamkos is an elite player, but signing him to the cap hit he's going to get sinks our chances of ever being a Chicago, LA or even a Boston.

Chicago is already doing this with Toews and Kane and Kopitar is about to sign a similar deal. Boston is in ruins. I understand your point, but elite players make big money

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

Chicago is already doing this with Toews and Kane and Kopitar is about to sign a similar deal. Boston is in ruins. I understand your point, but elite players make big money

Except they're not, because those huge contracts just kicked in. They've never made more than 6.5 and won.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Yeah Nik's point stands. All those teams are trending downwards now that they have to pay their stars UFA dollars. They can't afford excellent complimentary pieces anymore. If they remain competitive, it's because many of their young players step up and play above their contract value in their RFA years.

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Of course, some also think it would cost Monahan, Giordano, Bennett, and a 2016 1st

In other words, it isn't happening.

TB want to win a cup, and while that is the case they're not going to trade Stamkos. End of story!

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by azzarish

TB want to win a cup, and while that is the case they're not going to trade Stamkos. End of story!

If they can't extend him they will. I doubt Yzerman is going to put all his eggs in this years basket, he surely wants to keep Tampa as a contender down the road. Letting Stamkos walk for nothing would be a disaster when they could trade for some very nice assets.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jg13

I think most of the people that are opposed to trading Bennett for Stamkos are assuming we wouldn't be able to resign him.

How often are GMs allowed to negotiate a deal with the player before trading for him as a UFA?

Thats not the impression that I'm getting, its that if we acquire and sign Stamkos then Hudler and one of Monahan or Gaudreau will not be able to be re-signed.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Plekanec just signed for 6M. Hudler has better numbers.

Yeah, but I see that his cap hit is only $5M and it was a short term deal.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because if we want to build a winner, signing one player to a contract like that is a good way to not be able to do it.

If the goal of the Flames is to sell a bunch of jerseys, it's awesome. If the goal is to put together a complete team that can win the Cup, it's not awesome.

Stamkos is an elite player, but signing him to the cap hit he's going to get sinks our chances of ever being a Chicago, LA or even a Boston.

The Bruins won their cup in large part by signing free agent Chara to a huge contract. He was one of the highest paid players in the league. It didn't hamper Boston from winning a Cup.


When the Kings won their second cup, all of their stars were getting paid. Ditto with the cups 2 and 3 for the Hawks.

Winning in the salary cap era is about efficiency. Having a star player doesn't hurt efficiency if you can fill out your depth cheaply and effectively.

There are more ways than one to build a championship team. Having Stamkos isn't going to hurt your chances IMO.

[Benched]

Would love to have Stamkos.

Stamkos for Bennett straight up? Probably a great deal for us, time would tell.

Stamkos for Bennnett straight up and then Stamkos doesn't re-sign? Un-mitigated disaster for us.

We like Bennnett, we think he's going to be good, but it's just a very good chance. Stamkos is proven, top tier, elite.


Contract is no small issue, but I think if you can re-sign Stamkos to even a somewhat reasonable deal, and the ask is Bennett...you have to think about that.



PS. Love Hudler. Might love last year Hudler @5.5/yr. Dont' like him @7/yr. Dont' like his play so far @ 5.5 or 7. Don't like him long term regardless.

[Dagger]

The whole point of rebuilding is to acquire elite players. The easiest way to do so is to do is usually to draft one. Once you have one, you pay whatever it takes to keep them - it's that simple. In this case, there's an elite player, who happens to be relatively young, potentially available in Steven Stamkos. As was the case with Dougie, if you are reasonably confident that a deal can be reached, you pull the trigger.

[gilligans_off]

An elite player for a "elite" PROSPECT... where do I sign.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

The Bruins won their cup in large part by signing free agent Chara to a huge contract. He was one of the highest paid players in the league. It didn't hamper Boston from winning a Cup.


When the Kings won their second cup, all of their stars were getting paid. Ditto with the cups 2 and 3 for the Hawks.

Winning in the salary cap era is about efficiency. Having a star player doesn't hurt efficiency if you can fill out your depth cheaply and effectively.

There are more ways than one to build a championship team. Having Stamkos isn't going to hurt your chances IMO.

If the Flames have to gut their depth just to trade for him, before we even sign him, then yes, it does hurt the efficiency you are talking about.

[Erick Estrada]

I don't see Stamkos becoming a Flame and I'm not surprised Wideman and Russell are available but if Hudler is really looking for $7 million and term I have no doubt he's going to be traded between now and the deadline.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by gilligans_off

An elite player for a "elite" PROSPECT... where do I sign.

Don't you mean an elite 70 games player for for an "elite" 7 year PROSPECT?

I doubt Stamkos gets re-signed. What loyalty does he have to Calgary? If you were him, why wouldn't you test out free agency? Even if you enjoy Calgary, you can always re-sign with them afterwards if the other offers aren't up to snuff in the summer.

[polak]

Gaudreau - Stamkos - Hudler
Player who sucks - Monahan - Frolik

??

Or would we put Stamkos on the wing and make what is without a doubt the best line in the NHL in Gaudreau - Monahan - Stamkos?

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by polak

Gaudreau - Stamkos - Hudler
Player who sucks - Monahan - Frolik

??

Or would we put Stamkos on the wing and make what is without a doubt the best line in the NHL in Gaudreau - Monahan - Stamkos?

Benn - Seguin - Sharp trumps that line, but I agree it would be a dynamite line.

One can dream, right?