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

[vilzeh]

4 years? Makes me sick, gl trying to move him now.

[Da_Chief]

Positives
-Help meet the floor
-Keep it easy in locker room (as reported one of the most liked guys)
-Help us stay mediocre for next couple of years (top picks)
-He's exactly the type of guy playoff teams are looking for right now, so once we get good again we'll already have a solid veteran third liner in place.

Negatives
-Takes away a spot from a younger guy

I think positives outweigh the negatives.

As for as money is concerned, we're not brining in high salaried guys and need to find a way to meet the floor anyways. Also, its not my money.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Freeway

A bit taken aback that everyone's so against the Flames re-signing one of two bonafide NHL centers on their roster.

You shouldn't be.

Many of the complainers are still so bitter at the Phaneuf trade that they simply can't see straight when it comes to Stajan. The fact that he was pretty terrible for the first couple years didn't help. The end result is people so locked into opinions that they are outright fabricating reasons to hate the guy - i.e. "he pouts".

[Madman]

Ryan Pinder just stated that CapGeek shows him as receiving a modified NTC.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The job is warm body that wants to be there.

Cushy gig, where do I sign up?

There are warm bodies all over the place. Rookies, reclamation projects, over-the-hill vets. Anybody would want to be here if they had $12M coming their way that is undeserved (I don't care if the yearly cap hit is only $3M and change because his agent didn't care either. He just got a "warm body" four years of job security).

Hell, Eric Belanger really wanted to be in Edmonton for that extra year which is why they inked him for three (and he had much better stats at the time). Doesn't make it a good move for the team.

Signing stajan now means you don't have to compete with offers in the summer.

I'm sure a mediocre player, with mediocre speed, with mediocre hockey sense who has become sub-par at faceoffs and isn't really any good at hitting (but to his credit he just tries so hard at it) would have certainly been the subject to a bidding war.

You don't want to be left without a centre when the music stops in September, or stuck with a guy who is there for the paycheques waiting for an opportunity to leave.

No centres, bad centres, does it really matter? I'd take four different tries at finding a gem and failing at it than four more years of seeing a player who I didn't want on the team for the last four years either.

I could have lived with a one year deal. Hell, I could have stomached a two-year deal if you just needed a good guy in the room. But a four year deal when money and cap space isn't an issue for a player as replaceable and forgettable as Matt Stajan is just...ugh.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Madman

Ryan Pinder just stated that CapGeek shows him as receiving a modified NTC.

That might be from his current contract.

[Resolute 14]

Well, that and nobody wants to be traded to Edmonton.

[UKflames]

It would have been a total meltdown if Feaster had made this deal but because Burke makes the deal it's acceptable to the masses

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by UKflames

It would have been a total meltdown if Feaster had made this deal but because Burke makes the deal it's acceptable to the masses

When you have a proven track record people tend to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

This thread is just full of grumpy cat moments.

[CliffFletcher]

There's unlikely to be anyone better available on the UFA market, no prospects are ready to step into a top 3 role, and he's a good teammate. And most importantly, I doubt he gets you anything more than 3rd rounder in a trade. So do you really create a hole in your lineup you'll have to fill somehow in exchange for a 3rd round pick?

But yeah, I can't imagine this place if Fester had made the signing.

[VladtheImpaler]

I find the thought of Stajan being a Flame for 8+ years repugnant from a historical perspective - he is synonymous with boring, soft, non-playoff hockey. I appreciate the need to pay some veterans on a rebuilding team and Stajan is the very definition of "filler", but he just makes my skin crawl... By no means a rational reaction, but this just makes me less likely to want to watch Flames hockey.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by FAN

The idea is that you rebuild with players you can win with. I lean towards this myself. I don't like the idea of having players who are merely stopgaps and are on the team simply because the team is rebuilding. It's the reason why there are franchises who keep missing the playoffs. They build their team with players who accept losing. Stajan is one such player. Stajan is used to losing and he has accepted it. Stajan has long considered to be a player who is only good on a nonplayoff team. That means he's a guy that is decently productive on a nonplayoff team but he's not a guy you can win with so he's a player you have to get rid of before the team can contend.

My favourite part about the anti-Stajan crowd is that most of them seem to have found a door behind a filing cabinet that allows them to see inside the mind of Matt Stajan for fifteen minutes before ending up on the New Jersey turnpike.

[Camronius]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Positives
-Help meet the floor
-Keep it easy in locker room (as reported one of the most liked guys)
-Help us stay mediocre for next couple of years (top picks)
-He's exactly the type of guy playoff teams are looking for right now, so once we get good again we'll already have a solid veteran third liner in place.

Negatives
-Takes away a spot from a younger guy

I think positives outweigh the negatives.

As for as money is concerned, we're not brining in high salaried guys and need to find a way to meet the floor anyways. Also, its not my money.

This is a negative, if he is exactly what other teams are looking for (debatable) then we should be trading him for a pick. If you think you can either resign him in the off-season OR can easily find a slight upgrade or downgrade for a Matt Stajan type player in the off-season... why are we rushing to sign a 4 year deal now....

I think the signing is fair value and overall the deal is pretty meh for the club. That being said my preference would have been to try to deal him for a pick and then find a comparative player, whether that be a slight upgrade, downgrade or someone to take a chance on. I guess it depends on what free agents are out there...

I feel that if we are going to sign anyone long term (4 years is long term for me) then we should be getting good value from it. I dont really see that here. The value is exactly what he is worth. The timing is extremely strange, there was no real push or need to do this now that I can see. Why not at least wait till after the deadline as youve now changed what you can offer and what types of offers you can receive.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well the problem is that winners don't want to play on a loser team so good luck getting a really quality player that is accustomed to playing on contending teams to sign as UFA or waive his NTC to come to Calgary.

Besides acquiring winners is what contending teams do to get over the hump and they are a little overrated when you are referring to a bad team like the Flames that just don't have enough talent. Andrew Ference is what I would call a winner but it hasn't helped the Oilers. The Flames need to acquire good players and the Flames are essentially building from scratch and there's just not enough of a foundation right now. Going to take time and Matt Stajan is more of a bridge type player that can play quality minutes while the team rebuilds.

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.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I find the thought of Stajan being a Flame for 8+ years repugnant from a historical perspective - he is synonymous with boring, soft, non-playoff hockey. I appreciate the need to pay some veterans on a rebuilding team and Stajan is the very definition of "filler", but he just makes my skin crawl... By no means a rational reaction, but this just makes me less likely to want to watch Flames hockey.

I understand this perspective and don't think it's unwarranted.

[AcGold]

I remember Stajan got hurt a while back and was irate, slammed his stick and didn't want to walk down the hallway. He's not a loser, Bourque is a loser, happy with complacency, Stajan battles. I'm happy with this, finally some asset management. Hopefully he puts up some good numbers and gets traded to a contender.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

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.

Quoted for posterity. That's insanity. The whole paragraph.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why do people think that signing Stajan means we won't sign any UFAs? They are not mutually exclusive.

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.

[Flame19,289]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I'm sure a mediocre player, with mediocre speed, with mediocre hockey sense who has become sub-par at faceoffs and isn't really any good at hitting (but to his credit he just tries so hard at it) would have certainly been the subject to a bidding war.

Not that I entirely disagree with your assessment, but Matt Stajan does have the best faceoff percentage (48.5%) of any Centre currently on the Flames roster (really... can't the team bring in a faceoff specialist in the off-season???).

I guess maybe that's a good enough reason to keep him around for another year or two. I was surprised that a four year deal was agreed upon. Have we seen the structure of the deal yet?