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

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I'm guessing top 5 all play 21-22 minutes, 6th D gets 12 minutes.

Gulutzan on the radio today said he'd play the top 4 22-23 minutes, the 5th guy 18 mins and the 6th guy 12.

[jg13]

Dreger/Alzner: "It's believed he's commanding six years and as much as $5 million per." Number of teams remain interested.

Give me stone at 3.5 over 3 years any day of the week over that garbage ^

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

And what about Stone leads you to believe he'll be "Terrible"?

Even if you don't agree with most that he was very solid for us, saying he'll be terrible seems like a massive stretch and worse case scenario.

The post I was replying to...

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

I agree. Either Stone is terrible and Anderson should be able to take his place, or Stone is good and this move is a positive for the team.

... I was just pointing out that there are consequences to Stone hypothetically being terrible beyond his own performance because of the opportunity cost his cap hit and term now present.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Haha, so funny that you use the word empirically, which means verifiable by observation rather than theory, when we know that you don't actually watch, but just spout arguments based on theory from spreadsheets.

Originally Posted by IrishSpring2013

destroyed.. CorsiHockeyLeague should be forced to change his user name to mike"phowned

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, you should know that while modern hockey analytics are proving to be useful, there remains a TONNE of debate about their actual long-term viability as scientific tools.

This is hilarious. As for each individual stat's usefulness in any given situation or in relation to any particular player, opinions may vary (though often without particularly good cause for discounting them). But there's absolutely no possible argument that they're not based on empirical data, which is the assertion that all three of these posts highlighted.

Are you suggesting that Stone didn't play 1030:27 at even strength last year? That he didn't put 62 pucks on net in that time? That the players he was on the ice against didn't average 32.66 shots on goal per 60 minutes of Stone's ES ice time? That Stone's own team didn't average 24.8 shots per 60 on the other team's net? That the goalie behind him didn't stop 93.94% of shots with him on the ice? That 7.8% of his team's shots didn't wind up in the net? None of that is "empirical" information to base conclusions on, to you?

I mean, you guys complain that I come off like I'm being a know-it-all and then you triumphantly post stuff like this. It would really help if the objections from the usual anti-stats crowd weren't totally insane.

[Love]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Gulutzan on the radio today said he'd play the top 4 22-23 minutes, the 5th guy 18 mins and the 6th guy 12.

Is it normal for a 5th and 6th d to have such a drastic difference in time? Is this just saying Stone will get a lot of special teams toi?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Because Anderson and Murphy are not ready to be regular NHLers that help a competitive team. The Flames also need depth because injuries WILL happen to the top 4.

Stone is also 27 and not even old. And Engelland was a more than serviceable player and earned most of his contract for the toughness he brought on top of defensive duties, so that's not even a valid example.

There is still room for two young d-men as the #6 and 7, so stop crying.

This post is terrible needed here for sure.

Well whatever, sign Huntwick or whoever. Putting 3.5 million on the bottom pairing is silly when it's only 10-13 minutes a night. He might get like 15 points this season.

I'm not complaining about Anderson not getting a fair shake, I'm saying Anderson making 975K to kill 10 minutes a night will suffice and doesn't handcuff the team. It would be different if Stone was making Versteeg money

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Love

Is it normal for a 5th and 6th d to have such a drastic difference in time? Is this just saying Stone will get a lot of special teams toi?

I think Stone will get a fair bit of power play time. He has a great shot from the point.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Parallex

The post I was replying to...



... I was just pointing out that there are consequences to Stone hypothetically being terrible beyond his own performance because of the opportunity cost his cap hit and term now present.

This is a concern with every contract that's not league minimum. It's not unique to this contract.

Also,how overpaid do the few in the minority think Stone is? If this contract was 2.5 mil would you be okay.

Just trying to quantify the monetary amount that you are so fussed about.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Well whatever, sign Huntwick or whoever. Putting 3.5 million on the bottom pairing is silly when it's only 10-13 minutes a night. He might get like 15 points this season.

Gulutzan said on the radio this AM that he wants his #5 to play 18:00/night.

I'm not complaining about Anderson not getting a fair shake, I'm saying Anderson making 975K to kill 10 minutes a night will suffice and doesn't handcuff the team. It would be different if Stone was making Versteeg money

But Andersson + Bartkowski playing 10 mins a night would likely be an unpleasant adventure. Moreover, it would require more work from everyone in the top-four. In the event an inevitable injury or two happens, then that would require a rookie + Bartkowski bottom pairing, and another rookie playing +20 mins a night in the top-four.

[PugnaciousIntern]

I think we can all agree that if a player were to be terrible, that is bad for us.

Why do you think we need to be told?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Love

Is this just saying Stone will get a lot of special teams toi?

That would be my guess. Probably PK1 duty.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Love

Is it normal for a 5th and 6th d to have such a drastic difference in time? Is this just saying Stone will get a lot of special teams toi?

Yeah special teams would probably account for most of the difference.

Stone will likely be a fixture on the PK. Would he be paired with Kulak or Gio there? Probably Gio. Brodie-Hamonic would probably be the other pair.

Would Stone get PP time? That I don't know. Did he see any time there with the Flames last season?

[Anduril]

Pretty obvious that the bigger caphit is a direct result of the short 3 year contract for a RH defenseman in the prime of his career.

Brodie (27) 4.65m
Hamonic (26) 3.86m
Stone (27) 3.5m

All signed for the next 3 seasons. This current team's core and main supporting cast is set, aiming to contend with only a couple major question marks of Backlund, Bennett and Tkachuk's future contracts over the next couple years.

Aside from a couple accessory pieces here (Sharp UFA signing) or there and barring major cap clearing trades (Brouwer), our wild cards for how well and how long this team is successful for will depend on the prospects. No doubt they'll all be spending more time in the AHL but with the inevitable injuries, it'll be up to them to take those jobs when those opportunities come.

Naturally this applies to our goalie situation as well.

[FlamesAddiction]

Another reason to like this deal is that it gives us a bonafide position of strength to deal from in the future as well. Something we didn't really have before IMO.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yeah special teams would probably account for most of the difference.

Stone will likely be a fixture on the PK. Would he be paired with Kulak or Gio there? Probably Gio. Brodie-Hamonic would probably be the other pair.

Would Stone get PP time? That I don't know. Did he see any time there with the Flames last season?

It seems that Stone played only 6:38 of PP time in total last year.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Well whatever, sign Huntwick or whoever. Putting 3.5 million on the bottom pairing is silly when it's only 10-13 minutes a night.

Let's play a bit of pretend. Imagine the Flames are in the playoff chase. Imagine Brodie sustains a freak injury. Now imagine Hamilton goes down for a while as well.

You gonna be happy you cheaped out on the 3rd pairing who are now both playing top 4 minutes for you while multiple rookies are in the lineup? Or are you gonna rest easy knowing we've got Stone who can and has played top 4 defense and now every defenceman slots one spot lower in the lineup?

Some people need to stop imagining the defense will be 100% healthy the next 3 years. In reality depth is what makes the strongest teams great and Calgary now has contending depth on the blue line.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is hilarious. As for each individual stat's usefulness in any given situation or in relation to any particular player, opinions may vary (though often without particularly good cause for discounting them). But there's absolutely no possible argument that they're not based on empirical data, which is the assertion that all three of these posts highlighted.

Are you suggesting that Stone didn't play 1030:27 at even strength last year? That he didn't put 62 pucks on net in that time? That the players he was on the ice against didn't average 32.66 shots on goal per 60 minutes of Stone's ES ice time? That Stone's own team didn't average 24.8 shots per 60 on the other team's net? That the goalie behind him didn't stop 93.94% of shots with him on the ice? That 7.8% of his team's shots didn't wind up in the net? None of that is "empirical" information to base conclusions on, to you?

I mean, you guys complain that I come off like I'm being a know-it-all and then you triumphantly post stuff like this. It would really help if the objections from the usual anti-stats crowd weren't totally insane.

Serious question CHL. If the Flames win the Stanley Cup In the next 3-5 years, but have a CF% below 50% would you still enjoy it?

Nobody denies those numbers, but what people disagree with you about is their absolute application in determining a player's worth. Nobody, other than the virtuous organization that is the Coyotes, blindly follows analytics like this.

Analytics are part of the story, a very important part of the story even. But they are not THE story, as you continue to assert from your soap box.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Serious question CHL. If the Flames win the Stanley Cup In the next 3-5 years, but have a CF% below 50% would you still enjoy it?

Nobody denies those numbers, but what people disagree with you about is their absolute application in determining a player's worth. Nobody, other than the virtuous organization that is the Coyotes, blindly follows analytics like this.

Analytics are part of the story, a very important part of the story even. But they are not THE story, as you continue to assert from your soap box.

Even more damning might be the case of Florida. Promoted analytics people above Tallon and their team literally fell apart. They went from one of the most promising young teams in the league to a complete disaster. So much so that they immediately reversed the direction and put control back in the hands of a hockey guy who uses his eyes more than a spreadsheet.

[OzSome]

Oh yeah!!! Happy to see Michael Stone back with the Flames. I think the Flames will be quiet tomorrow. Awesome news!

[megatron]

I really liked Stone when he was acquired and wanted him back to play with Brodie. I didn't think that would happen after the Hamonic trade.

However, I didn't expect the team to run with 2 rookies on the blue line for the 5/6 spots, so this is awesome. Maybe $500K too much, but he would have likely gotten a similar contract to Russell (lol) as a UFA.

This also allows the 3rd pairing to play more and if anyone in the top 4 goes down, he can fill in.

Win. Win. Win.