[Signing] Stajan signs 4yrs $3.125Mil AAV contract extension (limited NTC)

[CaptainCrunch]

Captain why do you like the Stajan signing?

Because it makes people upset and agitated

Its introducing a little chaos into the anarchy

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Similarly, why does a player signing a contract mean we are that much less likely to trade him?
A well signed contract would make a player more valuable in the current NHL.

And an absolute PR nightmare to trade him now

Burke is a player GM. Stajan isn't going anywhere until AT LEAST next year's trade deadline

[Enoch Root]

Having slept on it, I am not happy with this signing.

I am fully in the we-need-vets camp, and I don't have an irrational hate for Stajan like some.

But I can't get past the term. It's just too much commitment to a guy who's game doesn't do anything for me.

Yes, he plays well defensively and he has a role. All fine.

Just not 4 years fine.

I know he can be traded before the 4 years are up - and likely will be. I just don't want to have to sit around, hoping for a trade.

If it were 2 years, or even 3, I would have no problem with it.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How is it a waste? A waste of what? This centre depth is good enough for dead last in the league. Calgary could sign 3 more of the guys you listed with the cap they have and still not make the playoffs.

How on earth is Stajan being on the team holding anyone back? He is the #1 centre by default.

More pressing though is who the fark wants to play in Calgary for rebuild years 2-4 that is both an upgrade on Stajan while simultaneously suffering because of his presense?

Boiled down, this post was probably what was the incentive for Burke to sign Stajan. If you don't like the Stajan signing you basically have to convincingly refute this post. I haven't seen anyone do that yet.

[CliffFletcher]

Considering how much the cap is expected to go up over the next few years, Stajan will be a bargain. And if the Flames want to turn around and trade him in a couple years, that contract will probably make him more valuable than he is now.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Having slept on it, I am not happy with this signing.

I am fully in the we-need-vets camp, and I don't have an irrational hate for Stajan like some.

But I can't get past the term. It's just too much commitment to a guy who's game doesn't do anything for me.

Yes, he plays well defensively and he has a role. All fine.

Just not 4 years fine.

I know he can be traded before the 4 years are up - and likely will be. I just don't want to have to sit around, hoping for a trade.

If it were 2 years, or even 3, I would have no problem with it.

Explain why a four year term is bad. Beyond thinking that it's "too long."

How would it negatively impact the team?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Hudler and Wideman are UFA's the Flames signed that are more used to being in the playoffs than out of them.

O'Brien and Galliardi were added with significant time on playoff teams.

Stoll was only in the playoffs for 1 year out his first 6 but now is solid in the playoffs as the 3rd line centre.

I think that Burke might be planning that Stajan can be the Flames version of Stoll when they are in the playoffs in 2015-16.

Hudler and Wideman signed on with a Flames team that was still in "win now" mode with Igina, Kipper, and Bouwmeester on the roster. O'Brien and Galliardi are just happy to have full time work. Burke has looked at the list of free agents and has simply chosen the lesser of two evils here by re-signing Stajan to keep above the salary cap floor and maintain some semblance of a competitive roster.

[Saqe]

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

[Ashasx]

It always hurts my side of the argument when Doug MacLean agrees with it.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

Well now I definitely agree with the term if Maclean was upset about it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

As far as I'm concerned that means it's probably a pretty good deal as generally anything McLean did as a GM was counterproductive to winning.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

Doug MacLean doesn't like it? Oh, it must be good then, Perfect

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

Yes because UFA's that are capable of playing top line minutes are going to sign on a last place team for 2 year term?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Explain why a four year term is bad. Beyond thinking that it's "too long."

How would it negatively impact the team?

Because 3 years from now it still exists.

And because, if you were looking to trade a player, having 3 or 4 years left on a deal can be somewhat of an anchor.

Typically, when you trade for a player, you want him to be in the last, or second last year of his contract so that, if things don't work out, if he doesn't fit with your team and fill the role you intended, it isn't a big deal. You aren't left with a lengthy albatross of a contract.

For a guy like Stajan, if things don't work out, whether it be with Calgary or another team, that could likely be it for him. So a longer contract becomes a negative.

It isn't a huge deal, but it is a factor. And that's why the term just tips this into negative territory for me.

I don't have a huge hate for the signing, just think the term is a mistake.

Edit: McLean agrees with me? Damn.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Yes because UFA's that are capable of playing top line minutes are going to sign on a last place team for 2 year term?

Capable players? Absolutely. Being good at it is a whole different story though.


edit: Also I don't really agree with Macleans "ripping" part about the length of the contract but with the notion that something similar could have been found in the UFA market for a lesser term.

[Tinordi]

Why do we care that three years from now it exists? We should be very clear that this team is taking at least a three year walk in the woods. Be under no illusions that by year four Stajan will still not be holding any players back. And even if he is, we trade him or waive him. There's really no downside to the extra year and some possible upside. That upside is that we get a dependable guy that can play tough minutes and shield developing players.

I think what many people are getting hung up on is that Stajan is somehow preventing some other player to come in and play better. But the reality is that it is extremely unlikely we could replace Stajan with a better UFA at this kind of contract, and not only that, that we could attract a single decent UFA center at all.

Hey come to Calgary, where the only team we're better than is the Oilers! If you think that attracting even UFAs like Boyd Gordon is a problem limited to Edmonton than I think these next 3 years is going to be a rude awakening.

So getting back to the point, here we have a bird in the hand. Sure he isn't great, I personally don't like him as a player at all, but he's definitely above replacement, playing a position we are terminally thin in, and he has hundreds of games of experience. That's something. That's someone you hold on to because it would actually be a stretch to think that we could sign a person that wouldn't be an even more ridiculous contract that would replace him even-steven on the ice.

[Ashasx]

The thing is, if we still need Stajan around in even 2 years to shelter players, the rebuild will have already failed.

So if the rebuild goes according to plan and we don't need him to shelter players anymore, what do we do with his contract?

In both scenarios it's a mistake.

[Savvy27]

Hopefully it will be a good bottom floor for our upcoming centers. "If you want to play top 6 minutes then you need to be better at hockey than Matt Stajan. If not you can work on your game in the minors."

That's not to say there isn't a danger of keeping guys in the minors to justify paying Stajan's salary, but there are always injuries and guys will get opportunities to establish themselves.

So long as the deal doesn't have a prohibitive NMC, the deal is okay. Nothing to get too excited about either way.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Doug Maclean ripped the term of Stajan's contract on Hockey Central a moment ago and I have to agree. Could have probably found something similar in the UFA market for two years instead of four.

I'm not a fan of the term either, but Doug Maclean's opinions on how to run a hockey team should only be appreciated for their comedy as a result of his GMing history. He's a straight clown.

[Tinordi]

If Stajan is sheltering young centers two years from now the rebuild is a fail.

My god.