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

[GoJetsGo]

Stone did play well with Broide. That was mentioned several times by Treliving in the stabilizing presence he brought to the 2nd pairing.

I don't see anyone over-reacting or losing sleep over losing him. That's an odd assertion.

I do see people thinking that - if the cap hit is reasonable - he'd be very good #5 that would give us depth. And that's two fold. Stone - (young player) is a lot better option than (young player) + (young player) if the price is right. And more importantly, if there's an injury to the top four, Stone is much better suited to step up and play those minutes.

Agreed, if he's looking to cash in at 4 or 5 Million, stay far away. But if he wants to stay in Calgary and is willing to take a friendly cap hit to do so, you absolutely look long and hard at it. No one's saying he's a top 3 defender, but he'd certainly be a very good #5 who stabilizes the bottom pairing and can step up if there's injuries.

[Computerjungle]

Can't we use new found cap space to take bad contract to regain a first round draft pick.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Computerjungle

Can't we use new found cap space to take bad contract to regain a first round draft pick.

Sure, maybe, but it depends on where management feel we are in the realm of competition because competing teams dont take on bad contracts for draft picks.

Thats what rebuilding teams do.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Computerjungle

Can't we use new found cap space to take bad contract to regain a first round draft pick.

What's more fun? Playoff hockey or spending two months obsessing over who might fall to 14?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sure, maybe, but it depends on where management feel we are in the realm of competition because competing teams dont take on bad contracts for draft picks.

Thats what rebuilding teams do.

Agreed, and since management just dealt away our 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks for the 2018 draft, and the 2nd round pick for the 2019 draft, in order to bolster the D with a 27 year old signed for three more seasons....I think it's safe to assume they aren't going to chew up cap space in order to recoup a 1st.

This team is in win now mode.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The results would indicate an entire different conclusion.

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

Just for accuracy sake, Stone missed a few games due to injury during that time so it's hard to credit him for those victories. His record in the line-up with the Flames was 13-10 if you include the 4 playoff games (which would seem odd to ignore). So right around our winning percentage for the year...despite being a part of a 10 game winning streak to start his tenure.

[wireframe]

Originally Posted by Locke

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.



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.

I don't see those two deals as related. Russell's own $3.1MM cap hit just came off the books. Only $0.9MM of their newfound cap room went to signing him.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Just for accuracy sake, Stone missed a few games due to injury during that time so it's hard to credit him for those victories. His record in the line-up with the Flames was 13-10 if you include the 4 playoff games (which would seem odd to ignore). So right around our winning percentage for the year...despite being a part of a 10 game winning streak to start his tenure.

If you want to lump those games into it fine...i know where im laying the entire blame on two of them and it sure isnt with any of the skaters.

All that aside, Stone was not "a drag" on Brodie as was claimed...simply because the team was better than not when he was in the line up.

Brodie struggled all season IMO and at some point maybe he needs to take that blame?

I suspect he was really struggling as a LD when he'd been so comfortable on the other side for years previous. Combine that with a new coach and new responsibilities within that system etc...it was a tough transition for him.

Hopefully a full TC and a year under his belt with Gulutzan's ways, leads to the TJ Brodie so many saw the previous years.

[jayswin]

I admittedly purposely watch hockey without a significant analytics understanding. All I will say is that by the eye test Brodie looked to have a huge turn around after being paired with Stone and Stone himself seemed to calm our defensive core down. You could just see when you were watching the games.

I don't know, I guess if the cold, calculated side of hockey "watching" says the opposite I'll defer to that, but geez it's hard to see it that way simply from physically watching the games.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

...If they finish bottom 10 and draft high it's really not worth it IMO.

There is an inherent risk with every trade, but here is the thing: while I concede that technically speaking anything is possible, the chances that the Flames finish in the bottom ten of the League are practically negligible. I would say that the risk is an acceptable one.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I admittedly purposely watch hockey without a significant analytics understanding. All I will say is that by the eye test Brodie looked to have a huge turn around after being paired with Stone and Stone himself seemed to calm our defensive core down. You could just see when you were watching the games.

I don't know, I guess if the cold, calculated side of hockey "watching" says the opposite I'll defer to that, but geez it's hard to see it that way simply from physically watching the games.

Couldnt agree more.

As Treliving always says...its about slotting guys in the right spots. Wideman was a tire fire in that pairing which truly affected Brodie and his own game to a degree it made him look bad. When Stone joined...it was a completely different game from TJ.

If Hamonic and Brodie can click like is hoped, that makes adding Stone back at a friendly cap hit a huge plus and truly would create the single deepest blueline in the league, regardless of who plays on the other side of him.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I admittedly purposely watch hockey without a significant analytics understanding. All I will say is that by the eye test Brodie looked to have a huge turn around after being paired with Stone and Stone himself seemed to calm our defensive core down. You could just see when you were watching the games.

I don't know, I guess if the cold, calculated side of hockey "watching" says the opposite I'll defer to that, but geez it's hard to see it that way simply from physically watching the games.

Agreed.

I am also not a huge advanced stats guy, but i would be interested to see how Brodie did with Stone compared to anyone else... i sure felt like Brodie got his groove back once he was paired with Stone...

While i don't think there's a "Stone Bump" like a Backlund Bump, Stone definitely wasn't a drag on Brodie as TJ wasn't having a very good year from what I can recall until we got Stone...

Maybe advanced stats tell a different story?...

[IrishSpring2013]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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

Originally Posted by jayswin

I admittedly purposely watch hockey without a significant analytics understanding. All I will say is that by the eye test Brodie looked to have a huge turn around after being paired with Stone and Stone himself seemed to calm our defensive core down. You could just see when you were watching the games.

I don't know, I guess if the cold, calculated side of hockey "watching" says the opposite I'll defer to that, but geez it's hard to see it that way simply from physically watching the games.

thank u jayswin... corsis statement was ludicrous...

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I admittedly purposely watch hockey without a significant analytics understanding. All I will say is that by the eye test Brodie looked to have a huge turn around after being paired with Stone and Stone himself seemed to calm our defensive core down. You could just see when you were watching the games.

I don't know, I guess if the cold, calculated side of hockey "watching" says the opposite I'll defer to that, but geez it's hard to see it that way simply from physically watching the games.

Brodie-Stone had what were probably average shot attempt numbers for their role (defensive skew, playing with younger forward lines). They weren't necessarily a "great" pair (like Giordano-Hamilton or Ekholm-Subban) but they weren't a poor one either for their role. Their role-adjusted close-score shot attempt percentage of 47.9% wasn't great, but understable and acceptable. But any time you're under 50%, it still means the other team is getting more opportunities to score. Not scoring chances, but shot attempts. And yes, I know the difference and yes I watched the games with my eyes just like you but let's pause and think about it for a second:

What they did have, and what you and I saw - were solid scoring chance numbers as they kept the play to the outside, but even over a full season, scoring chance numbers don't build up to be as sustainable as shot attempt numbers, which have more predictive value for future goals - especially goals against (skill forwards like Laine, Stamkos or Monahan can influence shooting percentages through sheer skill, and vice versa for stone hands fourth liners).

It often happens that teams have high scoring chance numbers over a small sample size despite poor shot attempt numbers, but eventually little details like rebounds and simply preparation/video analysis by opponents cause those scoring chance numbers to eventually follow the shot attempt numbers. If a goalie, like Brian Elliott in February is hot, he's probably on-point with his rebound control which makes perimeter shots just perimeter shots. But what happens when the same goalie is even off his game, which is going to happen at unpredictable points throughout the year?



Bad things. The best thing you can do as a defenseman over a season is limit the opportunities for something like the above to happen.

Even playing seemingly solid defense away from the puck means nothing if the team still gets a puck through to the net - so many dirty goals are scored off deflections and rebounds - at both ends - that a defenseman who might not pass the "eye test" at all, like Jake Gardiner, can be so good at preventing goals.

That's probably why there is not much real evidence to support that defensemen actually influence SV% from year-to-year.

So basically, yes, Brodie and Stone played "well" together, but no, they didn't play well enough together that we could expect consistently strong results.

A comparable pairing might have been Washington's Alzner-Carlson second pair. Even though Carlson is an elite defenseman, that is a pairing that is simply a bad pairing especially in close score situations, where they only score 51.6% of the goals. Wait, more than half of the goals is a good thing - what am I talking about? I am talking about the fact that a pairing featuring John Carlson (easily a top 30, probably top 20 defenseman), that spends most of its time with Braden Holtby/Philip Grubauer, Alexander Ovechkin, Nick Backstrom, TJ Oshie, Evgeny Kuznetsov, and Justin Williams only scored 52% of the goals. Why? Because they only had the puck less than half the time (44.6% of the shot attempts).

All things considered Brodie-Stone were a better pairing than Alzner-Carlson. But neither of these pairings is getting the most out of the good defenseman on the pairing (Brodie / Carlson). Both were pairings that were beneficiaries of shooting-percentage driving forwards (Monahan/Gaudreau/Backstrom/Ovechkin/Oshie), as well as elite goaltending (February Elliott, Holtby).

So yes, Brodie-Stone probably did pass the eye test and you're not wrong to have your opinion that they fit well together. But that doesn't mean the eye test is telling you the right things about the events on the ice.

Hamonic should be an upgrade on Stone, naturally, but I'll reserve judgement to see if he can regain his form from 2014-15. The Travis Hamonic from last year is not much of an upgrade on Stone. But injuries and personal issues may well be to blame. I can't say.

[GoJetsGo]

^ Which is why they went and got Hamonic.

But the point now being discussed, is that Stone (if the salary is agreeable) would be a good addition to the bottom pairing, capable of stepping up and playing in that top four role if there are injuries.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

So yes, Brodie-Stone probably did pass the eye test and you're not wrong to have your opinion that they fit well together. But that doesn't mean the eye test is telling you the right things about the events on the ice.

Especially not in this case, when the team went on a winning streak after acquiring Stone, which makes people associate the two events (as someone did several posts ago) in spite of the fact that Stone wasn't the cause of same based on what happened on the ice. People have warm and fuzzy feelings and see causation where there's only correlation. That is why this article was so important at the time:

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

Simple reality from the numbers front: Brodie and Stone were outshot when on the ice by a significant margin. That's pretty bad, when you consider that Brodie is quite good at this - he even dragged Wideman last year into positive territory (barely). Pairing him with someone objectively great (Dougie Hamilton) has produced great results.

Instead, Brodie's possession stats were worse in his ~300 minutes with Stone at even strength than with any other blueliner the flames played with him last year, except Jokipakka (who only played 12 minutes with him). So yes, there is fairly strong evidence to state that Stone was a drag on Brodie, and there's a pretty obvious reason to point to when it comes to peoples' positive views about Stone's impact on the defense. That's how the human brain works.

Hamonic should be an upgrade on Stone, naturally, but I'll reserve judgement to see if he can regain his form from 2014-15. The Travis Hamonic from last year is not much of an upgrade on Stone.

That's true, but literally every other Travis Hamonic is a massive upgrade on Stone and a borderline top pairing defender, which is why this was the perfect time to buy low on him. The Hamonic from two years ago couldn't be had for anything remotely close to this price. It's worth assuming he didn't just suddenly forget how to play hockey at 26 years of age.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Especially not in this case, when the team went on a winning streak after acquiring Stone, which makes people associate the two events (as someone did several posts ago) in spite of the fact that Stone wasn't the cause of same based on what happened on the ice. People have warm and fuzzy feelings and see causation where there's only correlation. That is why this article was so important at the time:

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

Simple reality from the numbers front: Brodie and Stone were outshot when on the ice by a significant margin. That's pretty bad, when you consider that Brodie is quite good at this - he even dragged Wideman last year into positive territory (barely). Pairing him with someone objectively great (Dougie Hamilton) has produced great results.

Instead, Brodie's possession stats were worse in his ~300 minutes with Stone at even strength than with any other blueliner the flames played with him last year, except Jokipakka (who only played 12 minutes with him). So yes, there is fairly strong evidence to state that Stone was a drag on Brodie, and there's a pretty obvious reason to point to when it comes to peoples' positive views about Stone's impact on the defense. That's how the human brain works.

You might want to tell this to Treliving, who spoke at length about how well Stone played with Brodie and attributed much of the late season success to how the move solidified the position.

It's honestly outright insufferable reading posts like yours that spew a bunch of statistics and reek of condescension when it's clear as a fan or a rival team, you haven't watched the bulk of the play.


I don't think anyone will say Stone would have been a better option than Hamonic, it's a clear upgrade.

But your "Stone was a huge drag on Brodie" comment was utter nonsense.

[Mister Yamoto]

I hope Treliving doesn't go out of his way to get those picks back.

Daryl Sutter did very well trading away his 2nd just about every season. The mistake was trading up his first to get those picks back.

established players > picks

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, and after Sbisa got selected, Benning called him one of their better defenders last season. I know everyone liked to think Dim Jim is an idiot, but surely even he knows that's nonsense. GM's lie to the media for political reasons. They sometimes try to play up their own decisions, like player acquisitions. They're also sometimes wrong. They're also sometimes driven by fan reaction. Read the article. Look at the evidence. Take that information and combine it with a viewing of Stone's play. You're not the first hockey fan to be taken in by a PDO spike - it happens constantly.

As for insufferable, coming from you, I'll take that as the highest form of compliment.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's true, but literally every other Travis Hamonic is a massive upgrade on Stone and a borderline top pairing defender, which is why this was the perfect time to buy low on him. The Hamonic from two years ago couldn't be had for anything remotely close to this price. It's worth assuming he didn't just suddenly forget how to play hockey at 26 years of age.

We're talking about a guy who blew out an MCL to end his season in April 2015, and again had a knee injury in April 2016, and then had a knee injury in January 2017. The issue I'm concerned about is physical, not mental.