[Trade] Flames get Travis Hamonic + 4th for a 1st and 2x2nds

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

On the other hand, the thing about having that extra guy who can play top 4 in a pinch is that you know if they go into opening night with the best top 4 in the league someone's getting hurt in game 3. It's just depth. But really, I think you just let training camp play out and see who takes those two spots. If Kylington's ready, amazing (I doubt he is though).

This is why myself and most fans, it seems want Stone back. A little overkill for the third pairing for sure, but we've saved money in our top four by having Brodie and Hamonic at a combined 8.3mil.

If we're starting to go for it this season it would be really nice not to be one (almost guaranteed) top four injury away from the second pairing struggling, along with the third pairing, so now you struggle more than you don't on defense, like last season. Teams load up on defense for a reason, usually beyond what most fans think is necessary, and that's because a D injury is immediately felt and much harder to replace than a forward injury.



It doesn't have to be Stone either, I think people are just going for A) The familiarity and the fact that him and Brodie gelled well and B) That his family is from here and he seems to want to come back so we figure we may get him at a discount.

If he's pushing too high then absolutely you move on and look at other options. But I'm not comfortable at all with leaving two full NHL positions PLUS the seventh Dman spot open to prospects, that's just setting yourself up for a world of hurt if the injury bug comes calling.

Thankfully Brad isn't the type to do that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

$3.5 million would put our entire D core (including a 7th) at around $26 million. A tad high, but it wouldn't hold this team back IMO.

Maybe not, but it might not be a question of whether you can afford it and instead a question of whether you should. If Stone comes in at 2.5 or does a 1 year deal at 3, then sure, but I think it's generally a bad idea to put money and term on the bottom pairing because it takes away your flexibility.

I wouldn't argue guys like Engelland or Stajan are bad to have on the team, they're great in their roles, but that type of money on the bottom pairing and bottom line means you have less to spend up the lineup. We're out from Engelland's contract, let's not do it again immediately.

Any time you put a 3 as the starting number for a bottom lineup contract you're making a mistake, so at least limit the term to a year or two max so you preserve some sense of flexibility.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe not, but it might not be a question of whether you can afford it and instead a question of whether you should. If Stone comes in at 2.5 or does a 1 year deal at 3, then sure, but I think it's generally a bad idea to put money and term on the bottom pairing because it takes away your flexibility.

I wouldn't argue guys like Engelland or Stajan are bad to have on the team, they're great in their roles, but that type of money on the bottom pairing and bottom line means you have less to spend up the lineup. We're out from Engelland's contract, let's not do it again immediately.

Any time you put a 3 as the starting number for a bottom lineup contract you're making a mistake, so at least limit the term to a year or two max so you preserve some sense of flexibility.

Preferably, I'd love to give him either

3/4 years at 2.5 - 2.75mil or;
2 years at 3.0 or;
1 year at 3.25 - 3.5mil

I could handle any of those scenarios and I think it would be very beneficial to our D core and help us through the assured injury periods that will come to our top four.

Of course he will likely be looking a bit higher and then at that point it's pretty easy to move on to a cheaper solution. I just think he's your guy if you can get him at the right price due to familiarity and his desire to play here.

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ah, got it.

Stone just shouldn't impact on whether you keep Hamonic or Brodie, he's in a totally different category. 3.5M is probably too much to pay for Stone. 3 or less could be stomached but it still wouldn't be a great deal or anything.

I think people here overrate him. He gives up a lot of shots. You don't lose much by putting Kulak in instead and that money is better spent up front.

If you think they are anywhere in the same breathe you are out to lunch. Kulak hasn't been able to establish himself as a bottom pairing d-man and at times struggled for Stockton. Stone just stepped in and stabilized our second pair and has the GM saying how he was part of the turn around.

Whether we can find a spot for him now at a good price is to be seen but having a bottom pair anchored with stone and kulak or bart is far and away better than kulak and bart

[Strange Brew]

I think given the organizational assets that have been invested in the top 4, Stone is an unnecessary luxury in the bottom pairing now. Keep some flexibility and dry powder for other needs as they arise. As a UFA, Stone will demand both dollars and term.

[devo22]

I'd probably go as high as 3x3.5m for Stone ... if he doesn't want to take that, then go with a cheaper UFA and/or trust the kids.

[bob-loblaw]

I think this deal is a fairly big win for us. I wonder how many GM's would have been on it if they knew they could get him for that price?

I'm not concerned about the lack of picks in the next two drafts because we re-stocked the cupboards a bit over the last few drafts, and all those guys are going to improve at different rates and at different time. Especially at the defence position - let these guys overcook in the minors and shelter them on the third pairing when they get into the league.

I'm sure Treliving will also recoup some of our expiring assets with picks anyways.

I just wish they could have traded for Schlemko too. A Hamonic/Schlemko pairing could be the Hammacher Schlemmer pairing.

[Roof-Daddy]

During the UFA courting period, Stone is probably going to get the notion he will get more on the open market from other teams than he will with Calgary.

So he's going to have weigh that extra $$ against being in Calgary (where his wife's family is from) and having what looks like a legit chance at contending while being part of one of the best D cores in the league.

If it's me I take more money and a bigger role with another team, but what do they say "happy wife...happy life"?

Winning is fun though, and Stone just spent some miserable years with a basement dweller, and seemed to be pumped after getting here just in time for a big win streak. That'll be a consideration as well I imagine.

I wonder if the Oilers take a big run at him after missing out on Hamonic?

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Around the League Report

Spoiler!

Everything sucks






















Everyone hates us






Fear the Wizard







GM in disguise




Will be missed







The Scouting Report

You rock.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It doesn't have to be Stone either, I think people are just going for A) The familiarity and the fact that him and Brodie gelled well

They didn't really though. He was a huge drag on Brodie.

If he's pushing too high then absolutely you move on and look at other options. But I'm not comfortable at all with leaving two full NHL positions PLUS the seventh Dman spot open to prospects.

Well, I was suggesting that one of them be Brett Kulak, also known as the only guy to somehow manage to be in the black possession-wise while playing next to Deryk Engelland last year. But I have no problem with them going into the UFA market and finding a veteran 7th D for under a mil. I'm saying cap space is a precious asset and having 3.5 million of it sitting on the bench for 50 minutes a night isn't going to help you when you could be using it to buy goals.

I understand the argument about depth as I said, but it's like spending 3+M on a backup goalie. Yes, if your starter goes down you'll be glad you had it - even more than if you lose a top 4 D - but in the meantime, you're just wasting assets. It's not the best way to spend cap.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by devo22

I am usually never on HF, but I went over and read the Hamonic trade yesterday. A few things there:

- I am amazed how many deluded people over there still think Burke is our GM, and who also laugh at people who correct them. Crazy.
- I like draft picks too ... a lot. But it's crazy how most users overvalue them over there. It's like some fans don't know that rebuilds eventually have to end and that teams should at some point switch into win mode.
- The notion that the cupboards are bare is hilarious. Especially on D ... the fact that the Flames now have one of the best top 4s in the whole league and also have Valimaki, Fox, Andersson and Kylington in the system makes me feel giddy. Bare cupboards my arse.

That Oilers article is top notch, by the way. Would read again.

Further to which, Draft picks could be anything from nothing to even a Hamonic, but Hamonic is a Hamonic. At times it makes sense to pay more for a sure thing.

And the 'Bare Cupboards' is laughable. If anything we have a logjam on our back-end. People have been crying about our prospects never getting a shot, and while thats not strictly true its not without basis either.

Originally Posted by dash_pinched

Dimitri Filipovic with a good write-up on the Hamonic trade and at the same time is puzzled by the Eberle trade (and the low return).

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/l...wer-structure/

The Eberle trade makes total sense to me, if Oiler fans are wondering about the low return then phrase it like this:

Eberle to NYI for Strome and $3.5M in cap (which pretty immediately went to Kris Russell).

So: Eberle for Strome and Russell.

They seem to completely ignore the value of the cap space which is why most NHL deals tend to be 'cap-neutral' otherwise part of the value in the trade is the space and sometimes the real dollars depending on various scenarios.

Not seeing that is just shortsighted.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

I think this deal is a fairly big win for us. I wonder how many GM's would have been on it if they knew they could get him for that price?

According to most people in the league this wasn't a Dougie Hamilton or Dion Phaneuf (with Calgary) situation where half the league goes "What?! He was available and that's what it took??!! I would have given more!".

This was a very talked about trade amongst GM's before and after, with many offering up a package, then a few near the end (including Toronto offering a pretty big package) and then Calgary eventually winning out with a fairly substantial price.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Locke

They seem to completely ignore the value of the cap space which is why most NHL deals tend to be 'cap-neutral' otherwise part of the value in the trade is the space and sometimes the real dollars depending on various scenarios.

Not seeing that is just shortsighted.

Oilers fans are some of the most loyal and loud fans in the league and I give them huge credit for that, but when you get beyond cheerleading and being excited they actually seem to be the most uneducated Canadian hockey fans around.

It's baffling how they can be so passionate and so into everything that's going on yet lack basic understanding of how the cap works, why GM's do things certain ways, why things can't happen etc. It's fascinating.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Lmao "hearing Monahan"



Who, who in the h#ll was saying Monahan?? What basement blogger was this? FFS

Spector.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Oilers fans are some of the most loyal and loud fans in the league and I give them huge credit for that, but when you get beyond cheerleading and being excited they actually seem to be the most uneducated Canadian hockey fans around.

It's baffling how they can be so passionate and so into everything that's going on yet lack basic understanding of how the cap works, why GM's do things certain ways, why things can't happen etc. It's fascinating.

And yet they wonder why we mock them so.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Oilers fans are some of the most loyal and loud fans in the league and I give them huge credit for that, but when you get beyond cheerleading and being excited they actually seem to be the most uneducated Canadian hockey fans around.

It's baffling how they can be so passionate and so into everything that's going on yet lack basic understanding of how the cap works, why GM's do things certain ways, why things can't happen etc. It's fascinating.

They also have the most sycophantic media group in the league. Their propaganda operations spent a whole year convincing a fanbase that Eberle had to go. They did such a good job they even convinced some Flames fans of the narrative (he's soft, he just has to go because, he doesn't try hard, etc )

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by saillias

They did such a good job they even convinced some Flames fans of the narrative (he's soft, he just has to go because, he doesn't try hard, etc )

Hahaha as if Flames fans need Edmonton media to convince them to call Oiler players soft.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

The history of the pick that was used by the Islanders to draft Hamonic is really interesting:

Hamonic was drafted 53rd OA in the 2008 draft. The pick was originally the 2nd round pick of the Ducks.

The pick was traded to the Oilers as part of the Pronger to Anaheim trade after he demanded a trade out of Edmonton.

In a sperate deal the Oilers had sent their 3rd round pick in 2008 and Marc Andre Bergeron to the Islanders for Grebeshkov.

However, the Oilers then traded Anaheim's 2008 2nd round pick to the Islanders to re-acquire their 2008 3rd round pick (1 for 1 trade). Why? Because they needed that pick back to offersheet Dustin Penner. Offer sheets require the team who made the offer sheet to have their original picks.

So, Pronger leaving, Grebeshkov, MAB, and Penner offer sheets all associated with the pick.

Here is to hoping that Hamonic will haunt the Oilers like the pick does.

Wow. That is a "special" kind of no good. Can you re-post this in the Edmonton is no good thread?

[topfiverecords]

If the team sees Stone as a number 4 type guy, he's willing to be #5, and you can sign him to a few year deal for good value why wouldn't you do that? Even if it puts our 5/6 cost a little higher than preferred, once the young guys prove they're capable you have an asset to move for those picks you're all hoping we recover.

Take the insurance now if he'll sign or fear the Bart in your top 4 if injuries happen.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

They didn't really though. He was a huge drag on Brodie.

The results would indicate an entire different conclusion.

16-7 after the club acquired him which is more than a coincidence i would suggest.