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

[Poe969]

I should have been more clear, I mean trading Wideman and retaining salary. If a team made a good enough offer, I agree with trading Wideman but I don't agree with retaining salary since next year we'll need that cap space. I think Wideman's deal next year isn't too bad but I think Russell is going to want too much of a raise and he can be replaced next year by within if need be. I actually don't see Russell here next year at all so if we trade Wideman and lose Russell we've lost 2 top 4/5 guys. If we trade Russell this year and keep Wideman then next year we only have to replace one of them and then do the same the following year but if we lose both this year, we're left with a big hole in the roster next year.

[CaptainCrunch]

Way to soon for this team to be giving up futures and currents for upcoming high dollar free agents.

There's no chance that Stamkos is not going to market and getting the max cake.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Some of the posts in here hurt my brain. The fact that 1) some people don't want Steven Freaking Stamkos and 2) some people assume Treliving is dumb enough to trade for Stamkos without having a deal in place first blows my mind.

I know what you mean, the posts that blow my mind are the ones that cant understand the actual costs of acquiring Steven Freaking Stamkos.

I mean, you're going to have to give up players, prospects and picks to get him, then you're going to have to pay him, and by paying him you tie up cap room ergo unless other moves happen you risk losing other to players in Gaudreau or Monahan for little to no return.

So its going to cost a lot to get him, its going to cost a lot to keep him, and its going to cost a lot to have him.

Do you do: Stamkos for Bennett, Hudler, 1st, Monahan?

Costs Bennett and a first to get him, but by having him we have to let Hudler walk and then theres no money left for Monahan and everyone knows it so we get crap return trying to move him.

Now, is that team now better? Or worse?

Its not just Steven Freaking Stamkos for 3 magic beans and a thimble full of wishes.

[genetic_phreek]

What I don't understand is posters thinking you need to give up the world to get Stamkos. He's an upcoming UFA that's going to command lots of money.

I think Hudler, Monahan/Bennett, and a 1st is more than enough to get it done.

[Flames_F.T.W]

With the need for big centres in the Western conference, I think Monahan is pretty much untouchable... I'd do Bennett, Hudler and a 1st for Stamkos (with a contract extension obviously.. wouldn't make the trade without assurances of an extension)

[devo22]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

What I don't understand is posters thinking you need to give up the world to get Stamkos. He's an upcoming UFA that's going to command lots of money.

I think Hudler, Monahan/Bennett, and a 1st is more than enough to get it done.

same. Monahan has to be as untouchable as possible right now (along with Gaudreau and Brodie) though, so there's no chance that happens IMO. So if they ask for Hudler+Bennett+1st ... I probably wouldn't do that either. I really, really, really like Steven Stamkos, but if I have to choose between Steven Stamkos at 10m a year and a 19 year old Sam Bennett and a 1st, I choose Bennett and the 1st.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

With the need for big centres in the Western conference, I think Monahan is pretty much untouchable... I'd do Bennett, Hudler and a 1st for Stamkos (with a contract extension obviously.. wouldn't make the trade without assurances of an extension)

I almost agree with all of this but Bennett is listed as 6'1 and 186 while Monahan is 6'2 and 185. While Monahan has probably gained more weight the past year so I'm sure he's closer to 200, Bennett plays way more physical so I'd want to keep Bennett.

Personally I think Monahan is a great young player but I also think this might be the best he's going to be. Just IMO.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Locke

I know what you mean, the posts that blow my mind are the ones that cant understand the actual costs of acquiring Steven Freaking Stamkos.

I mean, you're going to have to give up players, prospects and picks to get him, then you're going to have to pay him, and by paying him you tie up cap room ergo unless other moves happen you risk losing other to players in Gaudreau or Monahan for little to no return.

So its going to cost a lot to get him, its going to cost a lot to keep him, and its going to cost a lot to have him.

Do you do: Stamkos for Bennett, Hudler, 1st, Monahan?

Costs Bennett and a first to get him, but by having him we have to let Hudler walk and then theres no money left for Monahan and everyone knows it so we get crap return trying to move him.

Now, is that team now better? Or worse?

Its not just Steven Freaking Stamkos for 3 magic beans and a thimble full of wishes.

I know he'd cost a lot, but I can't see him costing Bennett, Monahan, Hudler, and a 1st. I don't think I'd trade that for Crosby.

EDIT: misread your post. Yeah I guess those are good points too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

What I don't understand is posters thinking you need to give up the world to get Stamkos. He's an upcoming UFA that's going to command lots of money.

I think Hudler, Monahan/Bennett, and a 1st is more than enough to get it done.

So, two roster players, one of which is either our highest drafted player ever or our future #1 centre both of which were high 1st round picks and another 1st round pick?

And thats considered 'cheap?'

And again, this is the last time I'm saying this:

Say you trade Bennett in the Stamkos deal, you still have to pay Monahan. Can you keep Monahan, Gaudreau and Stamkos under the cap? Probably not.

Which means someone has to go.

So, while not included in the trade, is a cost of acquisition none the less.

[Ashasx]

I just can't recall the last time a big name, to-be-UFA, was traded for a king's ransom.

I mean, look at what Kovalchuk got.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Locke

So, two roster players, one of which is either our highest drafted player ever or our future #1 centre both of which were high 1st round picks and another 1st round pick?

And thats considered 'cheap?'

And again, this is the last time I'm saying this:

Say you trade Bennett in the Stamkos deal, you still have to pay Monahan. Can you keep Monahan, Gaudreau and Stamkos under the cap? Probably not.

Which means someone has to go.

So, while not included in the trade, is a cost of acquisition none the less.

First of all I never said it would be cheap. I'm saying you don't need to give up both Mony and Bennett along with a 1st.

Secondly, you can get under the cap. Wideman, Smid, and Raymond are likely to be gone after this season, Jones and Hudler are also UFA's.

[polak]

No way it takes both Monahan and Bennett to get UFA Stamkos.

I'd send Bennett the other way for Stamkos with a good shot at a workable extension though no questions asked. Stamkos is a proven ELITE center. Bennett hasn't proven anything yet and chances he becomes as good as Stamkos are pretty small.

[Split98]

It would have to be Monahan going the other way if we have a hope of making it under the cap.

Unless they want Stajan, Backlund () and Wideman

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Locke

Say you trade Bennett in the Stamkos deal, you still have to pay Monahan. Can you keep Monahan, Gaudreau and Stamkos under the cap? Probably not.

Why not?

Stamkos $10m, Johnny $7m, Monahan $6m for a total of $23m between our top 3 guys. Make it $24m if you think Mony is going to get $7m.

Plenty of other teams have approximately the same amount of cap tied up in their top 3 forwards (or just a $2-3 million less), it's not unheard of. It just means BT would have to shed a bunch of dead weight and trade some combination of Hudler, Russell and Wideman for futures.

We might take a small step back but in the long run, it would be worth it as Stamkos will be playing for another 10-15 years still.

A core of Stamkos, Monahan, Gaudreau, Giordano, Brodie and Hamilton is drool worthy and very possible to fit under the cap. It would just require a bunch of other moves to take place, which is hardly impossible.

Doesn't matter though because it's not happening. Some other team will get Stamkos or he'll just re-sign in Tampa.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Split98

It would have to be Monahan going the other way if we have a hope of making it under the cap.

Unless they want Stajan, Backlund () and Wideman

There's no reason guys like that can't be moved in separate deals for picks and prospects. Happens every year.

[Day Tripper]

Doesn't Stamkos have a No Trade Clause anyway?

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Doesn't Stamkos have a No Trade Clause anyway?

That is correct

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Doesn't Stamkos have a No Trade Clause anyway?

Yes but who knows, maybe he's open to a move to an unlikely team? Hard to say but NTCs and NMCs are waived time and time again, every year it seems. It's not something that should stop people from speculating.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I just can't recall the last time a big name, to-be-UFA, was traded for a king's ransom.

I mean, look at what Kovalchuk got.

Not a kings ransom due to any number of reasons someone wants to make up, but probably Iginla? Which of coarse was Agostini, Hanowski and a 1st.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Not a kings ransom due to any number of reasons someone wants to make up, but probably Iginla? Which of coarse was Agostini, Hanowski and a 1st.

We're not even in the same universe with this comparison as Iginla was clearly past his best with his down-trending years ahead.

That is nothing like a 24 year old Stamkos possibly getting dealt.