[Signing] Flames re-sign Michael Stone (1 yr, $750k)

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

There's only 3 options. Which of the other 2 makes more sense to you?


He doesn't require waivers to be sent down and is likely better off actually playing in Stockton than being a healthy scratch in Calgary. His cap hit is $162,500 more than Stone's if he's in Calgary. He has no cap hit if he's in Stockton.

My point is that signing so many defensemen to one way contracts doesn’t inspire me with confidence that this is a well run organization. It’s not my money but whatever.

For all the reasons you mentioned, signing Mackey to the contract they did and then making it that hard for him to make the big club just seems dumb.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Funny, all this bet talking and Jiri is nowhere to be found.

No one needs to read us bickering again in another thread.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by bax

Also, NHL teams don’t make personnel decision based off “the pulse of the fan base”. Thinking that any team should operate that way is just silly.

[SeanCharles]

Hanifin-Tanev
Valimaki-Andersson
Zadarov-Gudbranson
Stone

This kinda sucks for Mackey…

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Hanifin-Tanev
Valimaki-Andersson
Zadarov-Gudbranson
Stone

This kinda sucks for Mackey…

If he can't outplay Gudbranson and Stone then yeah it sucks for him because he would never have the skill to be an NHL defenseman.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

If he can't outplay Gudbranson and Stone then yeah it sucks for him because he would never have the skill to be an NHL defenseman.

Yet the Flames are paying him like one.

[btimbit]

Stone, at the price, no problem.

But Stone AND Gudbranson?.... Not nessesary

[868904]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Hanifin-Tanev
Valimaki-Andersson
Zadarov-Gudbranson
Stone

This kinda sucks for Mackey…

I don't think it's a guarantee that Valimaki plays before Mackey. Mackey is more the Sutter type of player.

From what I've seen, Mackey is the better defender, Valimaki has the better offense but is weaker in his own end.

They won't risk putting either Valimaki or Mackey on waivers, both guys would get claimed. I could see the Flames carrying 8 defensemen all year and running with 13 forwards.

It is odd that they signed Kylington. Would have been better to just release him and let him sign with whoever he wants.

None of the bubble forward prospects are at risk of actually being claimed on waivers, that's how "great" and "ready" they are.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by 868904

I don't think it's a guarantee that Valimaki plays before Mackey. Mackey is more the Sutter type of player.

From what I've seen, Mackey is the better defender, Valimaki has the better offense but is weaker in his own end.

They won't risk putting either Valimaki or Mackey on waivers, both guys would get claimed. I could see the Flames carrying 8 defensemen all year and running with 13 forwards.

It is odd that they signed Kylington. Would have been better to just release him and let him sign with whoever he wants.

None of the bubble forward prospects are at risk of actually being claimed on waivers, that's how "great" and "ready" they are.

Mackey is waiver exempt.

Valimaki is going to have a huge season IMO to boot.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Mackey is waiver exempt.

Valimaki is going to have a huge season IMO to boot.

Doesnt Mackey only have to play like 10 more games and then have to go through waivers tho? may hurt his chance getting those games if so.

Edit: looks like 44.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

No one needs to read us bickering again in another thread.

True. Just wanted to prove my point.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yet the Flames are paying him like one.

I just don't get how it's a bad thing that Mackey has to earn his spot. Valamaki didn't have to last year and it showed with gaffe after gaffe. He only started sitting with Sutter in charge as I recall.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

I just don't get how it's a bad thing that Mackey has to earn his spot. Valamaki didn't have to last year and it showed with gaffe after gaffe. He only started sitting with Sutter in charge as I recall.

I’m good with Mackey needing to earn his spot, that is not my question. If he hasn’t earned his spot yet, why give him a one way contract? I know there’s no salary cap in the AHL, it just reeks of poor management. That’s about a half a million dollars that could go into something like pro scouting which it seems this team could really use.

Signing a guy you have ear marked for the A to a one year deal, overpaying for Gudbranson. I just get tired of the head scratching decisions, even if some can pawn them off as no big deal.

Once upon a time I thought we were getting a moneyball GM who would be steps ahead of his peers. Instead this team still seems to operate in the prehistoric era.

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m good with Mackey needing to earn his spot, that is not my question. If he hasn’t earned his spot yet, why give him a one way contract? I know there’s no salary cap in the AHL, it just reeks of poor management. That’s about a half a million dollars that could go into something like pro scouting which it seems this team could really use.

Signing a guy you have ear marked for the A to a one year deal, overpaying for Gudbranson. I just get tired of the head scratching decisions, even if some can pawn them off as no big deal.

Once upon a time I thought we were getting a moneyball GM who would be steps ahead of his peers. Instead this team still seems to operate in the prehistoric era.

I've thought about this quite a bit recently. I believe that ownership has allotted the vast majority of their budget on players and very little on support staff.

I don't know the specific numbers around the NHL, but let's assume and say that on average an NHL team allots 75% of their total budget on players and 25% on staff, including front office, coaching staff, scouts, trainers, medical staff, and arena employees, then maybe the Flames allot 90%/10%. I would be very curious to know the actual numbers.

It seems to me like ownership decided that the best way to maximize revenue is to sell fans on players and pinch pennies everywhere else. Our pro scouting staff is tiny. Our amateur scouting staff is not great (although a lot better recently), our GM is definitely a budget GM, Conroy and Pascall seem like budget AGMs, our coaching staff has consistently been a budget staff. Like the number of coaching and assistant coaching roles we have given to first-time coaches at this level is ridiculous.

If the Flames entire budget is limited, which I'm sure it is because all businesses have budgets, then perhaps it would actually be better for ownership to come out and say that we are a 75M cap budget team, for example, and use the remaining budget on a front office, coaching staff and scouting department that can actually maximize the value of a 75M team, rather than have a mismanaged 82M team.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’m good with Mackey needing to earn his spot, that is not my question. If he hasn’t earned his spot yet, why give him a one way contract?

Mackey knows that most of the teams in the league were interested in him as a free agent. He chose the Flames partly because he expected them to treat him well, and he has a bit of leverage to back it up. I suspect he would have refused to sign a two-way deal. If the Flames hadn't offered one, he could have done a Giordano, gone to the KHL for a year, and if necessary, forced a trade to a team that would give him a one-way contract.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

If the Flames entire budget is limited, which I'm sure it is because all businesses have budgets, then perhaps it would actually be better for ownership to come out and say that we are a 75M cap budget team, for example, and use the remaining budget on a front office, coaching staff and scouting department that can actually maximize the value of a 75M team, rather than have a mismanaged 82M team.

The Flames aren't cheaping out on coaching. Neither Sutter nor Muller is a bargain hire. Their amateur scouting has been doing its job. Pro scouting is an area that may not need much in the way of staff, because every play in every NHL game is captured on video and it's almost certainly more efficient to analyse them in detail from the video room than to go chasing around in person hoping to catch something the cameras missed. That doesn't require a large staff.

That leaves the GM and AGM positions. Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that the market for hockey managers is efficient in the slightest. Some teams spend a lot on GMs and get garbage (I'm looking at you, Edmonton), some spend very little and get great results. I believe the problem is not with the money the Flames are willing to spend, but with the quality of candidates who are willing to work in a small Canadian market, with all its disadvantages in attracting talent, and risk sewering their careers in a bad situation.

I do know that the organization put too much into players and too little into GMs, scouts, and coaches at one time. They were trying to cut costs across the board and cut things they should have left alone. Craig Button cost the team more money by idiotic signings and waiver moves than it would have cost to hire a GM who would have avoided those mistakes. But that was before the salary cap, and a different group of owners, and I don't know of any reason to believe that the current group have the same attitude.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Mackey knows that most of the teams in the league were interested in him as a free agent. He chose the Flames partly because he expected them to treat him well, and he has a bit of leverage to back it up. I suspect he would have refused to sign a two-way deal. If the Flames hadn't offered one, he could have done a Giordano, gone to the KHL for a year, and if necessary, forced a trade to a team that would give him a one-way contract.

That’s not much leverage. The KHL?

[RedHawk12]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The Flames aren't cheaping out on coaching. Neither Sutter nor Muller is a bargain hire. Their amateur scouting has been doing its job. Pro scouting is an area that may not need much in the way of staff, because every play in every NHL game is captured on video and it's almost certainly more efficient to analyse them in detail from the video room than to go chasing around in person hoping to catch something the cameras missed. That doesn't require a large staff.

That leaves the GM and AGM positions. Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that the market for hockey managers is efficient in the slightest. Some teams spend a lot on GMs and get garbage (I'm looking at you, Edmonton), some spend very little and get great results. I believe the problem is not with the money the Flames are willing to spend, but with the quality of candidates who are willing to work in a small Canadian market, with all its disadvantages in attracting talent, and risk sewering their careers in a bad situation.

I do know that the organization put too much into players and too little into GMs, scouts, and coaches at one time. They were trying to cut costs across the board and cut things they should have left alone. Craig Button cost the team more money by idiotic signings and waiver moves than it would have cost to hire a GM who would have avoided those mistakes. But that was before the salary cap, and a different group of owners, and I don't know of any reason to believe that the current group have the same attitude.

This is probably true, but I wonder if it would be more productive to overpay and bring in a top coach and GM at above-market value rather than overpay a UFA or current player the same amount.

[Roof-Daddy]

Hanifin - Tanev
Zadarov - Andersson
Valimaki - Gudbranson
Mackey - Stone
Kylington - Kinvall

Honestly, that's a pretty deep D core, but IMO it certainly is lacking in high end offensive talent.

One positive I can see, is that if the Flames are in the hunt for a playoff spot, Treliving won't be bleeding more picks at the deadline for depth defensemen. And on the flip side, if they are not in the hunt for a playoff spot he can add picks by trading away Dmen at the deadline with Zadarov and Gudbranson on 1 year deals and pending UFA's

One thing I hate about it, is the younger guys might not get a real shot. Mackey, Kylington and Kinvall are all 24, we need to see what we have with them at the NHL level. People will say "well, if they can't beat out Gudbranson and Stone, they're not good enough anyways" but that may not be true. Coaches tend to give more rope to veterans they know whether they deserve it or not. So a rookie who might grow to better than the vet over the course of a season learning and growing at the NHL level, may end up buried in the AHL or stuck in the press box and stagnate.

The Flames already have a hard time getting high profile college and European free agents to pick them, the adding of borderline NHL veteran depth players like this is the type of thing that makes it even more difficult IMO.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RedHawk12

This is probably true, but I wonder if it would be more productive to overpay and bring in a top coach and GM at above-market value rather than overpay a UFA or current player the same amount.

Which top GMs are looking for work? And out of those candidates who are looking for work, which ones actually have the chops to be top GMs? The answer to the first question seems to be ‘None’, and to the second, ‘There's no good way to tell.’

Coaches are a little easier, but are you seriously arguing that the Flames need to fire Darryl Sutter to bring in a top coach?