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

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah but the only one over 27 in our top 5 is Giordano. And it's arguably the deepest in the league.

To add to that, wasn't Gio ~23 when he got a full time shot? Giving defencemen lots of time before they start in the NHL benefits the players development.

[Fire]

I would have been happy with Stone as the #4, this is just a bonus. Didn't think Stone would have been happy to be the #5, good for him to seeing the silver lining. A possible championship.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

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?

I'll be on 17th ave with everyone else. That's not the question, though, the question is whether this helps them get there. And for many reasons, I don't think it does.

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.

I have literally never suggested this, ever.

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.

I have literally never done this, ever.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Don't do It!

Jersey foul!

Can I get a Gulutzan then?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

To add to that, wasn't Gio ~23 when he got a full time shot? Giving defencemen lots of time before they start in the NHL benefits the players development.

Yes. Nothing wrong with guys like Kylington and Andersson getting over cooked a bit while seeing spot duty on the big club for a couple years. It's normal. 19-20 year old defensemen in the NHL is not normal.

[devo22]

Stone talking about the new contract on SN 960.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/the-big-...t-three-years/

[getbak]

After someone went to the trouble of knitting those sweaters, he probably wouldn't have been invited to Christmas if he didn't re-sign in Calgary...




On the radio, he was asked how many other teams had reached out and he said he'd have to ask his agent. Sounds like he told his agent to gauge the interest, but get a deal done with the Flames if one was available.



Also, look Ken, even sweater-knitting Grandmas want the Flames to go retro.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Stone and Tre almost look related in that picture.

[FireGilbert]

Wow what a week for Treliving! I thought Stone would for sure by signing elsewhere tomorrow for upwards of $4.5M and was preparing myself to be disappointed in whatever FA the Flames did sign to be the 5th defenceman. Instead they got Stone at a discount drastically improving the 3rd pairing and providing a great insurance policy if injuries hit the top 4.

[PepsiFree]

Even if I feel it's too much and too long for a 3rd pairing guy, I have to scoff at the people who think it's a bad contract for Michael Stone.

Good contract, did we need as good a player for the bottom pairing? Maybe not, but you got the sense Gulutzan wanted that flexibility. He said prior to this signing on the fan that he'd like the top 4 to play around 23 minutes, #5 to play 18, and #6 to play 12, so you knew he wanted someone that could carry the load.

This allows for a minor addition at RW, which could be a vet like Sharp on a decent deal. Offensively we don't need much more than that.

We'll be right up against the cap and I don't like that lack of flexibility. But do I like having a top 5 of Gio, Hamilton, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone? Of course. That's a great looking group of guys. Most of whom have already had some success under Gulutzan and all of whom want to be here.

Despite my own feelings on overspending on the bottom pair, I've had no reason not to trust what Treliving is doing.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Also, Stone's wife's hair makes the kid on the right look like he/she has got a wicked combover going on.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

Can I get a Gulutzan then?

No!

But feel free to pick up a discount Bouma

[saXon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Even if I feel it's too much and too long for a 3rd pairing guy, I have to scoff at the people who think it's a bad contract for Michael Stone.

Good contract, did we need as good a player for the bottom pairing? Maybe not, but you got the sense Gulutzan wanted that flexibility. He said prior to this signing on the fan that he'd like the top 4 to play around 23 minutes, #5 to play 18, and #6 to play 12, so you knew he wanted someone that could carry the load.

This allows for a minor addition at RW, which could be a vet like Sharp on a decent deal. Offensively we don't need much more than that.

We'll be right up against the cap and I don't like that lack of flexibility. But do I like having a top 5 of Gio, Hamilton, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone? Of course. That's a great looking group of guys. Most of whom have already had some success under Gulutzan and all of whom want to be here.

Despite my own feelings on overspending on the bottom pair, I've had no reason not to trust what Treliving is doing.

[Textcritic]

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.

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

This may have all been posturing while trying to attract Stone

I sincerely doubt that Stone heard Gulutzan on the radio this AM and said, "Well, that settles it."

People put way too much stock into the impact that interviews or opinions from talking heads have on the day-to-day economics of the NHL. The same sort of thing is presently taking place in Edmonton, and it is pure nonsense.

· No, Stone did not agree to re-sign in Calgary on the basis of a radio interview.
· No, McDavid has now not suddenly had second thoughts about signing at a $13.25 m cap hit because of the backlash on internet message boards.
· No, Draisaitl has not just now dramatically inflated his asking price on the basis of McDavid's reported contract number.

[Enoch Root]

The Flames' D is bigger, faster, younger, more talented, and arguably tougher than last year, and people are upset because $3.5M is 'too much for a #5 defenseman'?

Are you fricking kidding me? "He's too good to be a #5 defenseman, we should have signed somebody crappier". Umm, the idea is to ice the best team possible.

Someone argued that, just because you saved money on other contracts (Brodie and Hamonic, for example), doesn't mean you should spend it on another contract. Umm, yes it does. That is exactly what you do with saved cap space - you go get another good player to make your team better!

For those arguing that we should have kept the spots for kids... insane argument. YOu can't run with two rookie kids as a pairing. I would argue that the acquisition of Stone actually facilitates playing a rookie, because he can protect and mentor whoever wins the spot. One rookie defenseman? Good. Two rookie defensemen? Lottery team.

Another thing I like about this signing: it probably ensures that, while the team is healthy at least, Bartkowski is eating popcorn.

And of course, as many have mentioned, injuries happen. If 2 of the top 4 were down at the same time, could you imagine a lineup that included Bartkowski and 3 rookies? Byebye playoffs.

This is a great signing. And for less money and term than I expected. Not saying it's cheap, because it isn't. But for a FA signing? No complaints at all.

The Flames are legit, this year!

[dissentowner]

I knew he would be back. We have the best D group in the NHL

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by saXon

Spongebob

I'm not sure what this means.

[Roof-Daddy]

What bugs me about the people complaining that $3.5 million is too much for a bottom pairing D, is that you have to look at the whole picture.

Flames have their top 5 locked in for 3 years now and will pay just shy of $26 million total cap for 7 D-men during this 3 year period. That's not an over payment for a teams D. It's on the high end of the scale, sure...but it should be because on paper it's one of the best all round D groups in the NHL.

$3.5 million might be too much for a bottom pairing Dman if you didn't have Brodie and Hamonic on sweetheart deals, but we do and because of that we can afford a $3.5 million 5th Dman.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you fricking kidding me? "He's too good to be a #5 defenseman, we should have signed somebody crappier".

I'd like you to point to a quote from someone in this thread who said this.

Someone argued that, just because you saved money on other contracts (Brodie and Hamonic, for example), doesn't mean you should spend it on another contract.

... Or this.

Who are you responding to here?

[Lil Pedro]

HF Oilers is definitely worth a read today if you are in need of a laugh. Those losers are so out of touch it isn't even funny. Looking forward to the BOA this year.