[Signing] Flames re-sign Stone (3 yrs, $3.5 mil AAV)

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by united

The thing that bothered me about the Brouwer signing, and now Stone albeit to a lesser extent, is you have guys who by all accounts want to be here and only here, yet we are unable to sign them for a significantly discounted price. Obviously none of us are privy to negotiations, but one would think that their strong desire to live here would be a big leverage point on the part of the Flames. I guess not.

At your current job right now, would you take a 25% discount to stay?
I didn't think so.

People in any role, know their own worth and shouldn't take less.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Nothing CHL wrote in that post deserves this response.

However, as a collection of his work, it does.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by d_phaneuf

Don't think this is a good move, Stone was servicable with Brodie but has a history of really struggling if hes not playing with a top pairing guy

the term on this could be a real problem too, if any of the young guys turn out to be decent they will be better than Stone quickly, and then you have a 7th guy making 3.5m

Brodie was great down the stretch with Engellend in 2015. He was phenomenal against the Canucks in the playoffs you must have forgotten?

[djsFlames]

Stone was a notably better #4D in his few months than Wideman and Engelland (better 3rd pair guy) were. As was the consensus here and around the team.

So now that he is a #5, which is even more favorable, how are these other unwanted journeymen UFAs far better options to posters above? I don't understand.

Aside from after his injury where he likely wasn't fully healed, I thought he was great and loved his big shot from the point. And that was in a #4 role...

Don't understand people trashing this. You're setting yourself up for disaster by playing a ####ing pairing of Wotherspoon and Kulak (who are debatably even ready for a full NHL season) and then you have an injury to, say, Gio...

I look forward the people down on this eating much crow next season.

[Strange Brew]

Treliving had always shown a propensity for signing depth players to contracts with dollars and term so this isn't surprising.

It's nice having one of the better #5 defensemen in the league and I'm not complaining, but in the end rather save the money for high end players. If this doesn't work, I would expect one of our defensemen to be traded a year from now.

[DJones]

My god this was a horrendous thread to force myself to read too.

Might go read HFOilers, they'll be less whiny

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Ha - I didn't know bringing back Wideman @ $5.5M was our only other option. How about bringing in a depth D for $1.5M to to round out our bottom 6 with Kulak and use the savings on forward, where we can definitely use the help?

I guess my question is who is this $1.5MM defenseman?

[Table 5]

He might be overkill in the regular season, but Stone is the type of depth player that helps you win playoff rounds when attrition or injury comes into play...which if you want to go deep, it always does. Partly why we lost in 2004 is that we just ran out of gas due to a shallow lineup.

[Matata]

Worst case scenario he gets traded, it's a super move-able contract. I don't love the pool of FA defenseman, I have a hard time seeing the flames do better with someone else.

[Mony]

Well, what's done is done. If this works out for the better I will gladly eat pubes.

Michael stays and the Michael Club stays intact. Maybe we can see him with Kulak or Andersson or another prospect (disregarding handedness, can't remember who shoots what at the moment)

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Love

Perfect length.

That's what she said!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So don't give me this overpaid for a bottom pairing dman crap. That shows a misunderstanding of Stone or the UFA market

No, it's a difference in our evaluations of the quality of the player. You say (repeatedly) that he's a top four d-man playing in the #5 spot. I say he absolutely is not a top four d-man, and that he is bottom pairing quality. That is the source of the different opinions as to whether this is a defensible price for his services. We're likely to see who's right over the course of the next three years.

Originally Posted by Jbo

However, as a collection of his work, it does.

Oh? Please feel free to point out where in my posts about this topic I've personally attacked people who haven't personally attacked me. Hell, even when that sort of garbage is sent my way (which is all the damned time) I generally don't respond in kind.

[EldrickOnIce]

I do not like this deal at all, but it is Hamonic and Stone in for Wideman and Engelland for less money so...

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by Mony

Well, what's done is done. If this works out for the better I will gladly eat pubes.

Michael stays and the Michael Club stays intact. Maybe we can see him with Kulak or Andersson or another prospect (disregarding handedness, can't remember who shoots what at the moment)

Saving this right here.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Something for the naysayser to chew on, with this signing, and the inclusion of any two of our minor league defensemen, we are spending less money on the blueline than we did last year. Our blueline last year was this:

Giordano - $6.75
Hamilton - $5.75
Wideman - $5.25
Brodie - $4.65
Engelland - $2.9
Jokipakka - $.9
Kulak - $.66

Total: $26.86M

This year we have:

Giordano - $6.75
Hamilton - $5.75
Brodie - $4.65
Hamonic- $3.85
Stone - $3.5
Bartkowski - $.62
Kulak - $.66

Total: $25.78M

Treliving is scary with the budget!

[Mony]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Saving this right here.

I mean hell. Screenshot it.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Brodie was great down the stretch with Engellend in 2015. He was phenomenal against the Canucks in the playoffs you must have forgotten?

a comma is missing, Stone has the history of struggling

Brodie is a top pairing defenseman IMO, last years struggles can be explained easily based on what he went through

Stone when he hasn't been with Brodie or OEL hasn't even been very good

[Cecil Terwilliger]

[Stanley]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not "love", but he's better than Stone and probably won't make much more money (he might even make less). You think Stone's better defensively, but Franson allowed the lowest rate of shots against on a bad Buffalo team last year, while Stone allowed the highest rate of any Flames defenseman - to be fair a bunch of that is because he was with Arizona, but it didn't get much better in Calgary and for ####'s sake, his most frequent partners last season were Alex Goligoski and TJ Brodie. Not exactly garbage heap players.

And strategically, Franson would be a better fit for a team that doesn't need to play its bottom pairing much, and would be better suited to have a good 2nd unit PP quarterback in one of the 5-6 slots. Which is what I thought they were taking a flyer on with the Lack / Murphy trade - Murphy has a hell of a shot, and if he can stick in the lineup he'd fill that role on the cheap. Thereby allowing the 2.5+ difference to be spent elsewhere. It's just a waste of cap space to sign a guy to fill a relatively unimportant role.

Well, agree to disagree on Franson. I don't think he's strategically a better option, a better player, or a better fit.

..."to fill a relatively unimportant role". Dude. in a 7 game series, that;s a vital freakin role.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, it's a difference in our evaluations of the quality of the player. You say (repeatedly) that he's a top four d-man playing in the #5 spot. I say he absolutely is not a top four d-man, and that he is bottom pairing quality. That is the source of the different opinions as to whether this is a defensible price for his services. We're likely to see who's right over the course of the next three years.

You already asserted in a previous thread that the entire Flames organization and fan base was fooled into thinking he was a good fit for us like you absolutely and concretely know better.

That's the problem here.

And then when directly asked "How much of all Stone's minutes in Calgary did you *actually* watch?" You conveniently didn't answer.

It's why your opinion (and that's an important word when you throw out garbage like "absolutely not") on this shouldn't be taken seriously.