[Rumour] UPD: Friedman: Flames discussing 1st, pick, and prospect for Hamonic

[Tinordi]

Stone being paid bottom pairing money is fine. Stone being paid #4 D money is a problem. I'm glad to hear the Flames are exploring options for a #4 D there's better options out there for trade and on the FA market.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

IMO the chemistry with Brodie wore off after a while. And to some extent he looked better than he actually was due to comparisons with Brodie's previous partner.

I like Stone a lot, but to me he's a fringe 4 at best, and more suited to a 5 that can move up if something happens.

In Stone's defence, he was coming off a serious knee injury which also impeded his ability to train in the off-season. I expect him to be better next season.

[badradio]

I'd be happy with Stone as the #4 guy. What we do need is an upgrade in the 5/6 spots. Bartkowski needs to be shot into the sun... if he's on the opening day roster I would consider that a failure, he's on a two way though so I'm hoping he's not. Not sure if any kids are ready either, guess you could have them rotate in and out through the season, but would rather have a dedicated stable 5/6 pairing that keeps it simple and plays the system (which bartowski does not)

[megatron]

I thought Stone played pretty well with Brodie last year, so I thought he would be a lock to return.

I assume this means BT doesn't want 2 kids playing the 5/6 roles and if an injury were to happen, then you'd have to use one of those kids in a top 4 role before they were ready.

So I guess it makes sense to inquire the cost, I just hope it's not too much.

I would just sign Stone and a cheaper guy for the #5 spot and leave the 6/7 spot for the kids. We should promote youth sometime on the backend.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is why you take so much heat. Attempting to evaluate a player solely (or primarily) on stats is very foolish - the stats aren't that accurate. They are not a complete picture, but are merely an attempt to add supplemental information, within context.

Some people ignore the context and take the statistical information as full evidence, in and of itself. And that is a flat-out wrong way to use them.

So don't ever have an opinion about players on other teams? Because a guy like you or FDW pumping up the Hamonics and Brouwers before we actually have to deal with 82 games of them isn't exactly based on you having watched every shift of all 300+ games of their careers. It's just based on the moments that you remember complete with all your aesthetic biases.

No one said stats are "100% accurate" but outright ignoring what they indicate because a player "looks" like you want them to "look" is more foolish

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

So don't ever have an opinion about players on other teams? Because a guy like you or FDW pumping up the Hamonics and Brouwers before we actually have to deal with 82 games of them isn't exactly based on you having watched every shift of all 300+ games of their careers. It's just based on the moments that you remember complete with all your aesthetic biases.

Your ability to mention Brouwer in any post must make ricardodw blush.

Also, way to take your argument to the extreme - that always helps make your case.

[Ashasx]

I really don't think it would be a good idea to sign Stone and trade for Methot or Hamonic. That's too much money tied up for defence.

And unlikely any of these defencemen will be worth the cost.

[GioforPM]

Stone made $4M last year. Got paid after a big season (stupid AZ). I have no idea what he will demand. On one hand, he was pretty terrible for the balance of last year with AZ. On the other, he was decent with Calgary (though nowhere near a $4M player IMO).

[IrishSpring2013]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

So don't ever have an opinion about players on other teams? Because a guy like you or FDW pumping up the Hamonics and Brouwers before we actually have to deal with 82 games of them isn't exactly based on you having watched every shift of all 300+ games of their careers. It's just based on the moments that you remember complete with all your aesthetic biases.

No one said stats are "100% accurate" but outright ignoring what they indicate because a player "looks" like you want them to "look" is more foolish

youve never been wrong about a player... ???careful now...

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Your ability to mention Brouwer in any post must make ricardodw blush.

Also, way to take your argument to the extreme - that always helps make your case.

You took it to the extreme first talking about taking heat for "solely" using stats. Everyone uses stats and what they see. Some just choose to handwave the incovenient ones (like Hamonic getting shelled) to push their half baked agenda.

[OutOfTheCube]

A very unreliable Twitter source says they are offering Bennett.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

A very unreliable Twitter source says they are offering Bennett.

Same knob that said Bennett had asked for a trade and then a month later said he was on the table for OV?

Or a different knob this time?

[Ashasx]

There is no chance the Flames would offer Bennett for Hamonic or Methot.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Same knob that said Bennett had asked for a trade and then a month later said he was on the table for OV?

Or a different knob this time?

A knob noteworthy enough to share it seems. Must be Bennett + + + to get Hamonic. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Same knob that said Bennett had asked for a trade and then a month later said he was on the table for OV?

Or a different knob this time?

I dunno?

Last night he said Carolina was offering a 2nd round pick for TVR and it happened so he must not be completely out to lunch?

[dissentowner]

Backlund for Hamonic? Gives Bennett a chance to move up to 2nd line C and Jankowski can work the 3rd line C. Just for the record I would rather keep Backs, just spitballing.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Backlund for Hamonic? Gives Bennett a chance to move up to 2nd line C and Jankowski can work the 3rd line C. Just for the record I would rather keep Backs, just spitballing.

I think there needs to be a big + coming from the Islanders. Maybe Nelson?

I rather keep Backlund myself

[CsInMyBlood]

Jesus.

If either Bennett or Backlund is traded for Hamonic I will have officially lost all faith in Flames management.

[theslymonkey]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Backlund for Hamonic? Gives Bennett a chance to move up to 2nd line C and Jankowski can work the 3rd line C. Just for the record I would rather keep Backs, just spitballing.

Bennett has the chance every night to move up to 2nd line center. He just has to be better than Backlund. If he can't do that, why should he just be gifted with that spot?

[Savvy27]

Alright... so this "Hamonic gets shelled" stuff has made me curious. Here's some content from an Oilers blog with a focus on advanced stats on him (https://www.coppernblue.com/2016/5/1...-in-disguise):

What we see with Hamonic is a player who's either a low-end top pairing or high-end second pairing defenseman. The fact that his rank doesn't change much from stat to stat means that his quality of teammates and competition is fairly standard. I'd lean towards calling him a low-end top pairing defenseman, because he managed to put up these number while playing top minutes, while a few players ahead of him have been extremely effective in their ice-time, but haven't had to carry the burden of playing 25 minutes a night.

Defensive Play:

His shot suppression is pretty average. According to stats.hockeyanalysis.com, his CA60RelTM was -0.80 last season. Since the start of 2012, it's -0.22, meaning that he's 0.22 shot-attempts worse than his most common linemates are defensively per 60 minutes. But while his defense is slightly worse than average, his offence still makes up for it, and more. His CF60RelTM was +7.22 last year, and it's +5.26 since the start of 2012-13.

CF%RelTM: the derivative of CF%-CF%QoT. This represents how much better a player was than the players he shared the ice with, weighted by how much ice-time he shared with each player.
Hamonic Rank: 61 of 197 Defencemen

xGF%RelTM: The same idea as the previous stat, but based on expected goals. This gives a higher weight to shots from high-danger locations.
Hamonic Rank: 58

Adj.CF%: CF%RelTM+CF%QoC. This stat gives a player who faces tough competition credit for who they play against. Since CF%RelTM is centered around zero and the average CF%QoC is 50%, this stat provides an estimate of what a player's CF% would be if he faced league-average competition, while also playing alongside league average talent.
Hamonic Rank: 62

Adj.xGF%: The same concept as the previous stat, but based on xG stats, rather than Corsi.
Hamonic Rank: 59

Mod.CF%: Short for Modified CF%- (((CF%RelTM+50)*0.8)+(CF%*0.2))+(CF%QoC-50). This stat is similar to Adj.CF%, but it's 80% based on outperforming teammates and 20% based on raw on-ice percentages.
Hamonic Rank: 64

Mod.xGF%: same as Mod.CF%, but with xG instead of Corsi
Hamonic Rank 63

Here are his Shot Attempts Relative % and Shot Attempts % the last four seasons:
2013-14: 1.4% / 50.2%
2014-15: -3.4% / 50.9%
2015-16: 1.7% / 50.6%
2016-17: -4.7% / 43.9%

Here are Brodie's:
2013-14: 8.1% / 51.4%
2014-15: 1.8% / 45.4%
2015-16: 1.9% / 49.4%
2016-17: -1.4% / 44.3%

Hamonic definitely had a very rough season this past year. His points per game stayed steady with last year at .29, but his hits per game have dropped dramatically from 3 per game to 2.1 to 1.2 this past season.

I dunno, I am still interested in bringing him in. The cost of acquisition might prove to be too high, but as a player and cap hit he appeals to me. That being said, I am counting on a bounceback.