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

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

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.

Interesting, because I don't remember saying that. You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was that he came in and the team won some games, and a bunch of people assumed that one was because of the other. Correlation implying causation, which happens all the time... and in fact, there were people saying precisely this in that thread. "Well, he came in and we started winning". So obviously that characterization of why many people liked him as a player wasn't unfair.

In fact, and I posted this earlier, Flamesnation even wrote an article about it that now appears downright prescient.

https://flamesnation.ca/2017/03/18/m...-being-better/

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

Yeah, because it's the usual tired old "watch the games", as if I don't have gamecenter and don't watch a borderline embarrassing amount of hockey, especially when I'm working late. So yeah, I saw quite a bit of Stone, including some in Arizona, so I wouldn't be surprised if I saw him more than you did last year. Which, if so, wouldn't in itself be a reason to think that my analysis of him was better or worse than yours.

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.

I tend to actually have statistical evidence to back up my views. You might not like the evidence, you might want to discount it (which, go nuts), but your constant visceral anger at having someone disagree with you for actual empirically based reasons is kind of revealing. It's every thread with you doing this foaming at the mouth routine.

[Flash Walken]

There are two stones to look at with analytics, the stone with a mangled leg and the stone without a mangled leg.

I thought he looked pretty good last season for Calgary after recovering from mangled leg syndrome. Maybe that's actually the player he is and the one legged guy is an impostor.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Mony

Never mind, forgot about that.

Still think there could've been better options than Stone, though.

Then list the better options. All the information is out there. Don't just say "I think". So tired of posters coming on here without any research and just bashing the decisions of the people who get paid to make the decisions.

The list of UFA RHS defencemen on the market is really small.

Girardi - 33 years old;
Wideman - really;
Shattenkirk - too pricey and doubt he wants to sign here,and the term "defenceman" should be used very loosely;
Franson - 29 year old, bounced around, can't seem to find a long term deal for years, tells ya something;
Matt Greene - I would have loved it just to see the minority freak out;
Polak - 31 years old with major injury in the playoffs;
Tom Gilber - interested?

Which of those guys would you have preferred to Stone?

[Imported_Aussie]

with how much defencemen get in trades, I don't mind this deal. It basically means guys on ELC/league min. as 6/7, then if more rookies push out Stone, then trade him

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The only reason not to like this deal is opportunity cost. Signing Stone forces either Andersson or Kulak back to Stockton - since the Flames likely won't want either eating popcorn as the 7th guy. For myself, and as much as I like both of those kids, they are both relatively unproven. I like having the extra veteran presence of Stone.

A two year deal would have been nice, but I can't get too mad at the extra year, even if $3.5 million is pricey for a third pair guy.

Andersson/Kulak/Kylington/Tspoon have not yet proved they are regular NHLers yet. In the case one of them are, management will happily bring them up.
The Stone signing more than anything else, covers the downside that none of those guys ever make the jump. I'd rather have too many NHL ready defensemen than not enough.

[Hackey]

That is one stacked defense.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed 100%
This smells like Brouwer all over again.
Treliving is a master at trading and a disaster in free agency.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure, but pointing out a bad contract doesn't make a less bad contract good.

People are pointing out market value comparables to you because you seem to not be getting a good grasp on how much UFA defencemen get paid

Can't call anyone overpaid or a bad contract if you really don't understand market value for 4/5 dmen. Your posts are suggesting you don't really understand market value for these guys

[gvitaly]

I think its a very good signing. Stone could've gotten an extra million per year in the open market. Those that criticize Stone over analyze the advanced stats a little. Here are a few elements he brought that the Flames were lacking-
1)Ability to staple large forwards like Getzlaf or Perry to the boards, long enough for his partner to recover the puck.(something Brodie and Gio have trouble with)
2)Clear the front of the net and make sure the opposing forwards pay the price, he was really making it harder for them to set up shop to screen/ deflect pucks.
3)He has a very hard accurate shot, and keeps the puck well in the offensive zone.

All those are skills that compliment our mobile defenseman very well. I think he would be the perfect fit for a partner like Kulak next year, with added PK time.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Sure, but pointing out a bad contract doesn't make a less bad contract good.

sure, but the Stone contract being a bad one is where we clearly disagree.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Agreed 100%
This smells like Brouwer all over again.
Treliving is a master at trading and a disaster in free agency.

His record is mixed - Frolik has been a home run.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Bunk

His record is mixed - Frolik has been a home run.

Yes. Absolutely

[Classic_Sniper]

Great character player for the team and he should flourish on the bottom pair. His contract is a bit high for where he slots, but Hamonic's contract allows for that.

I really like the fact that players like Mike Stone, Kris Versteeg, Travis Hamonic and Mike Smith are so excited to stay here or are really excited to be Flames. Hopefully that enthusiasm rubs off of other players on the team.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

His record is mixed - Frolik has been a home run.

I'd also argue Engelland was a big success. Unanimously thought to be overpaid at the time, but proved to be a key cog in Flames defence and leadership group.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by devo22

sure, but the Stone contract being a bad one is where we clearly disagree.

Indeed we do... I just don't like "It's a bargain compared to X" arguments where "X" is of dubious value.

[Insane_Flame]

Originally Posted by New Era

Holy crap, what a blueline! This is almost too good to be true. Does Treliving think about moving Gio or Brodie for help up front? This is some serious flexibility on the backend, and you have a glut of prospects back there with high potential. Great situation to be in, that is for certain.

Yeah, I was thinking Gio for a hard nosed number 4 and legit top six RW and probably a second.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

That's one of the best Flames top 5 I can recall in a long, long time. Excellent.

[Mony]

Originally Posted by 868904

Then list the better options. All the information is out there. Don't just say "I think". So tired of posters coming on here without any research and just bashing the decisions of the people who get paid to make the decisions.

The list of UFA RHS defencemen on the market is really small.

Girardi - 33 years old;
Wideman - really;
Shattenkirk - too pricey and doubt he wants to sign here,and the term "defenceman" should be used very loosely;
Franson - 29 year old, bounced around, can't seem to find a long term deal for years, tells ya something;
Matt Greene - I would have loved it just to see the minority freak out;
Polak - 31 years old with major injury in the playoffs;
Tom Gilber - interested?

Which of those guys would you have preferred to Stone?

Lol, dude. Who says I haven't done my research? It's just a message board.

Also, I would've preferred Franson, if you really, really needed me to answer your question so much. And if not Franson, I would've been fine with a kid. I don't think I need to explain my reasoning. However, since all the information is out there, I would say there's lots of reasoning available out there for why re-signing Stone should've been treated with more caution than this. I'm not an overly negative poster (in fact, I don't really post much to begin with). I generally pop in and I pop out sometimes with some pube bets along the way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I recognize you want to instill a higher quality of the message board but some people say their piece and go. In which case, looks like that's my time.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Anduril]

It only takes one injury for us to be playing basically two rookies in our lineup.

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Flames are the new Nashville for enviable blue lines with good prospects stacked up the pipeline. If the defense is as good on the ice as it looks on paper in the fall then the team can look to deal from a position of strength with their d prospects to address their needs up front.

Like most feel, it is perhaps a little more term and dollars than we would have liked but that´s ok. This contract won´t cripple us. The difference is that we don´t have a Smid, Wideman, Engelland, Bollig AND Grosssman, et al on our cap to make the situation worse.

Say what you want about Brouwer, but Stajan comes off the cap next year, meaning Brouwer is our only potentially bad contract. That´s not a bad position to be in. Good cap management by Tre in my mind.

And Stone´s cap hit is friendly, I am sure in a year or two there will be takers for Stone at 3.5 instead of having to deal one of our prospects that are ready