But Matt Moulson wanted to be here? Why wouldn't Stamkos?
- Sabresfan-365

I think Moulson wanted the $5M more than he wanted to be here.

I think he stays in Tampa. If they give him 10 it would be close to any other team giving him 12
- sbroads24

That math doesn't work. Top bracket tax rate in NYS is 8.82%.

http://taxfoundation.org/...tate-tax-climate/new-york

That math doesn't work. Top bracket tax rate in NYS is 8.82%.

http://taxfoundation.org/...tate-tax-climate/new-york
- Wetbandit1

That is still a significant amount though...
he'd make almost 900k less here with an equal 10mil per contract
We might have to offer 11mil to make up the difference

I don't understand how or why Buffalo sports fans still do this to themselves.
- buffalofan19

They will never change ..............

Looks like players with NMCs will NOT have their own separate category...
Like claimed by a certain poster here the other day

http://www.tsn.ca/mondaym...in-draft-lottery-1.456983
"Interestingly, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the New York Post on Sunday, “no matter where we go with no-moves, they would never be ‘exempt from the process.’ ” In other words, each player holding a ‘no-move clause will eat up one of 10 or 11 protected slots per team."


Some other interesting points...


"The NHL has not yet made a decision on whether teams will be allowed to trade players and/or picks to an expansion team in exchange for a guarantee to not select certain unprotected players"

"We will see a lot of roster jockeying this summer with GMs preparing for an expansion draft. Players who will likely be unprotected will be traded. Free agents will be signed to two-year deals to pad rosters with exposable players. But will we also see certain players, particularly with no-movement clauses, bought out this summer to avoid expansion draft wrangling?"

Looks like players with NMCs will NOT have their own separate category...
Like claimed by a certain poster here the other day

http://www.tsn.ca/mondaym...in-draft-lottery-1.456983
"Interestingly, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the New York Post on Sunday, “no matter where we go with no-moves, they would never be ‘exempt from the process.’ ” In other words, each player holding a ‘no-move clause will eat up one of 10 or 11 protected slots per team."


Some other interesting points...


"The NHL has not yet made a decision on whether teams will be allowed to trade players and/or picks to an expansion team in exchange for a guarantee to not select certain unprotected players"

"We will see a lot of roster jockeying this summer with GMs preparing for an expansion draft. Players who will likely be unprotected will be traded. Free agents will be signed to two-year deals to pad rosters with exposable players. But will we also see certain players, particularly with no-movement clauses, bought out this summer to avoid expansion draft wrangling?"
- jdfitz77

Yeah, I see a lot of movement coming this summer. Unless we see players with NMC having to be protected I don't force a lot of buyouts this summer unless a team is desperate and can't find someone to trade with. I think it's stupid to have to protect a player just because they have a NMC, but the league/Bettman hates them and that would certainly help to eliminate them given out until the second expansion team comes in in probably 2019 at the earliest. Also why would you choose to protect less players? You can protect 7 forwards, 3 defensemen and 1 goalie or 8 skaters and 1 goalie. Why would you purposely give up 2 players just so you can maybe save one more forward, but then you'd leave your entire defensive core wide open unless they're super young to be exempt or Dion Phaneuf. Also what roster are they using? The 23 man one? I think there'll be a couple teams that will have trouble complying no matter how they shake it out whether it's not being able to expose enough salary, having to protect too many guys because of NMC NTC, and the whole second year thing however that turns out. Alright I'm rambling, time for bed. Goodnight you wieners, and some ladies.

That is still a significant amount though...
he'd make almost 900k less here with an equal 10mil per contract
We might have to offer 11mil to make up the difference
- jdfitz77

We've gone over this in previous threads. Pro athletes pay state taxes based on the States they play in, so Stamkos would pay taxes to all states of away games. Thus, the tax ramification is cut in half. Factor in the cost if living in BUF and you're about equal with TB, though TB isn't expensive

That math doesn't work. Top bracket tax rate in NYS is 8.82%.

http://taxfoundation.org/...tate-tax-climate/new-york
- Wetbandit1

You're forgetting the extra year Tampa can offer, which is another 10 mil on top of that

You're forgetting the extra year Tampa can offer, which is another 10 mil on top of that
- sbroads24

This is my obligatory Sometimes It's Not Always About The Money post.

You're forgetting the extra year Tampa can offer, which is another 10 mil on top of that
- sbroads24

sabres will throw him 7 years 12 per

You're forgetting the extra year Tampa can offer, which is another 10 mil on top of that
- sbroads24

Feel as though Stamkos will stay in Tampa. Tampa will need to move outs assets to accommodate his salary requirements. If he does decide to test the market a question would be wether or not we spend big money on one free agent or spread that money over. Two or three players. Also need to weigh financial implications of signing him and having cap space on future contracts for Reinhart, Eichel and Ristoleinen. Yes Stamkos gives us a much better chance of winning sooner than later but their are more needs. Am I against trying to sign him, no, but I think GMTM will weigh all options.

sabres will throw him 7 years 12 per
- homiedclown

While I think 11 is inevitable, it would be nice to be able to avoid going up to 12.

While I think 11 is inevitable, it would be nice to be able to avoid going up to 12.
- stashu

I have to think at some point tampa will offer him 10 per

he loves it down here, so unless the damage is already done from their negotiation, 12 per would be the knock out blow, assuming he hits free agents

for those worried about the cap with stamkos


ror is locked up 7.5 per
risto, skunk and eichel, while being decent at times, have not shown they will be anything more than 6 per in the near future


the problem if they signed stamkos isn't the money for the top half of the roster, it's having to part ways with the scrubs on the bottom half of the roster

moulson, franson, and legwand covers pretty much what stamkos would get

I have to think at some point tampa will offer him 10 per

he loves it down here, so unless the damage is already done from their negotiation, 12 per would be the knock out blow, assuming he hits free agents
- homiedclown

If they were going to do that they would have done it already. They were millions apart. Also, I think it is more than just the money.

If they were going to do that they would have done it already. They were millions apart. Also, I think it is more than just the money.
- Slump Buster

oh it's much more then money now


the question is can yzerman heal that issue before july 1st



if they offered him 10 per instead of low balling him at 8 per, it's a non story because he loves the tampa area



now it's probably much too late to heal this wound


connolly
drouin
stamkos



at some point yzmerman will be put under the microscope and this may be a case of sticking with your coach costing you your job

No real point with this:

Drew Stafford: 19g, 15a. Still a soft 3rd-line winger dressed up as a 2nd liner
Jamie McGinn: 19g, 14a. Still won't overpay for him.
Joel Armia: 4g, 4a. But he did have that one really nice goal (and we had to suffer through a few days of the sword-swallowers lamenting giving him)
Tyler Myers: 9g, 18a. I still like him but he is a #3 on a good team.
Mikael Grigorenko: 5g, 18a. Still a lightning rod.
Thomas Vanek: 18g, 23a. Kinda funny that the guy with the most points on this list has been a healthy scratch recently. It is a shame that his prime years were wasted on gutless teams.

If they were going to do that they would have done it already. They were millions apart. Also, I think it is more than just the money.
- Slump Buster

I think a lot hinges on what happens in the post season

No real point with this:

Drew Stafford: 19g, 15a. Still a soft 3rd-line winger dressed up as a 2nd liner
Jamie McGinn: 19g, 14a. Still won't overpay for him.
Joel Armia: 4g, 4a. But he did have that one really nice goal (and we had to suffer through a few days of the sword-swallowers lamenting giving him)

- Slump Buster[b]Tyler Myers: 9g, 18a. I still like him but he is a #3 on a good team.
Mikael Grigorenko: 5g, 18a. Still a lightning rod.
Thomas Vanek: 18g, 23a. Kinda funny that the guy with the most points on this list has been a healthy scratch recently. It is a shame that his prime years were wasted on gutless teams.

#2 IMO.

He scores at even strength like a mid range #1, has average to below average possession numbers, but in part because he is treated like a shut down defensemen.

After watching Winnipeg, I'm pretty sure I'd rather pay him 5.5 then Byfuglien 7+

Vanek is Vanek.

We want to make the playoffs and a cup but we don't want Stamkos

#2 IMO.

He scores at even strength like a mid range #1, has average to below average possession numbers, but in part because he is treated like a shut down defensemen.

After watching Winnipeg, I'm pretty sure I'd rather pay him 5.5 then Byfuglien 7+

Vanek is Vanek.
- sbroads24

Vanek=

#2 IMO.

He scores at even strength like a mid range #1, has average to below average possession numbers, but in part because he is treated like a shut down defensemen.

After watching Winnipeg, I'm pretty sure I'd rather pay him 5.5 then Byfuglien 7+

Vanek is Vanek.
- sbroads24

I'd pay him that money over Buff's money any day of the week. He still isn't a top-pairing D because he doesn't have that makeup.

We want to make the playoffs and a cup but we don't want Stamkos
- SABRES 89

kane, stamkos, reihart equates to the stinky cheese line

S
T
A
M
K
O
S

I'd pay him that money over Buff's money any day of the week. He still isn't a top-pairing D because he doesn't have that makeup.
- Slump Buster

I'd agree if he had ever in his career not been treated like one. Every coach has used him as a #1 or #2.

IMO he's a better version of Phanuef. Good scorer, good in his end. But in the end will never drive a top pair.