Flames Defense

[cross16]

30 minutes ago, kehatch said:

The challenge of putting a couple of kids on the bottom pairing is that you have no depth if there is an injury. I would prefer to see Stone, Fransen, or someone like that paired with one of the kids. Gives us depth when an inevitable injury occurs.

 

Reason I disagree is I think the A has depth. Between Kylington, Wotherspoon, if he's back, Morrison, a depth signing, and there is Bartowski.

most teams that are good at development trust kids to play in the case of injuries once they've had a few years. I don't understand why the flames can't be the same. If it doesn't work, pick up some vets at the trade deadline. I really don't like the idea of having to give term to someone to play bottom pair again 

[Flyerfan52]

34 minutes ago, kehatch said:

The challenge of putting a couple of kids on the bottom pairing is that you have no depth if there is an injury. I would prefer to see Stone, Fransen, or someone like that paired with one of the kids. Gives us depth when an inevitable injury occurs.

Makes more sense to have @ least 1 vet on the 3rd pairing given that players do get hurt. Heck, last year 3 of the Jets top 5 were out for extended periods.

Ideally I'd want a 4/5 D to have the depth to fill in 1 of the top 4 spots rather than a rookie. If 2 get injured & we have 2 rookies in the top 4 with 2 more as bottom pairing we'd have a scenario that could end up a disaster. There are a # of those available as UFAs so Stone, MDZ or Franson would fit the bill depending on the $s/term but there are lesser lights like Postma or older guys like Oduya/Hainsley we do on a short term, bonus laden contract as insurance.

[kehatch]

19 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Reason I disagree is I think the A has depth. Between Kylington, Wotherspoon, if he's back, Morrison, a depth signing, and there is Bartowski.

most teams that are good at development trust kids to play in the case of injuries once they've had a few years. I don't understand why the flames can't be the same. If it doesn't work, pick up some vets at the trade deadline. I really don't like the idea of having to give term to someone to play bottom pair again 

 

If we had NHL ready prospects with top 4 potential I would agree with you. But we don't have that in my opinion. 

[Flyerfan52]

55 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Reason I disagree is I think the A has depth. Between Kylington, Wotherspoon, if he's back, Morrison, a depth signing, and there is Bartowski.

most teams that are good at development trust kids to play in the case of injuries once they've had a few years. I don't understand why the flames can't be the same. If it doesn't work, pick up some vets at the trade deadline. I really don't like the idea of having to give term to someone to play bottom pair again 

Injuries don't wait for the trade deadline.

I believe in being proactive. Like a boy scout it's better to be prepared.

[cross16]

27 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Injuries don't wait for the trade deadline.

I believe in being proactive. Like a boy scout it's better to be prepared.

 

Being prepared means drafting and accumulating assets, which the Flames have already done. I'm just saying use what you already have. 

The trade deadline would just be a way to add additional depth if you want more, which pretty much everyone does irregardless of what they have. 

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Being prepared means drafting and accumulating assets, which the Flames have already done. I'm just saying use what you already have. 

The trade deadline would just be a way to add additional depth if you want more, which pretty much everyone does irregardless of what they have. 

So if 2 of our top 4 D were injured around Christmas you believe we are prepared ?

 

I agree the TD is when you augment what you have but the lesser the need to add when costs run high the less expenditure. Rather than rent a player that was signed as UFA for a run use that player all year in hopes of finishing higher & maybe getting the home ice (& the associated gate revenue).

[Thebrewcrew]

I wonder about Jon Merrill as a cheap #5, guess it depends on what VGK is asking in return

[kehatch]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Being prepared means drafting and accumulating assets, which the Flames have already done. I'm just saying use what you already have. 

The trade deadline would just be a way to add additional depth if you want more, which pretty much everyone does irregardless of what they have. 

 

It took Brodie and Giordano three seasons of part time and sheltered NHL minutes before they slowly started to take top 4 minutes. 

 

Bartowski, Kulak, and Wotherspoon will probably never be suitable options for the top 4. Anderson, Kylington, etc may be, but they aren't ready yet. 

 

I agree with playing them. But having no legitimate top 4 options in case of injury isn't only bad for the teams success, it's bad development because it forces you to put prospects in a place they aren't ready for. 

 

Leave a spot open for the kids sure. Also, injury will dictate more call ups from the farm. Hut you need a 5D to give you options to manage injury time when it occurs. If a kid is ready at that time great, but at least your hand isn't forces. 

[travel_dude]

So are you prepared to give up the 5th rounder in 2018 to sign Stone for depth?

If not, then Franson or other may be a better bet in FA.  At least all you are paying is money.

Stone as a #5 is fine, except for that extra pick.  Any other year a 5th wouldn't be a big deal, but at some point we have to either recoup some of stop dealing them.  

[cross16]

I'm as comfortable putting guys like Andersson in a top 4 role as I am stone. 

 

Unless you want to pay upwards of 3 mill plus it's not easy to find guys that will play bottom pairing and step into top 4 roles. Look at Engelland, he was exactly thst and most people here ripped him for being overpaid. If people are fine continuing to spend thst on the bottom pairing that's ok, but imo this teams needs another scorer and cap space is starting to run out. 

[kehatch]

23 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I'm as comfortable putting guys like Andersson in a top 4 role as I am stone. 

 

Unless you want to pay upwards of 3 mill plus it's not easy to find guys that will play bottom pairing and step into top 4 roles. Look at Engelland, he was exactly thst and most people here ripped him for being overpaid. If people are fine continuing to spend thst on the bottom pairing that's ok, but imo this teams needs another scorer and cap space is starting to run out. 

 

Anderson has one year of pro under his belt. He needs to have a great camp to even make the team. Stone stabilized our D when he arrived. 

 

The Flames are clearly positioning our D as a position of strength. Not having the depth to maintain it during an injury would be counter productive to that end. 

 

I will be shocked if they don't bring on a veteran for the third pairing. 

[redfire11]

I hope we sign Stone. A 3 year 3.25 contract would be ideal. Worst case we could get our 2018 1st rnd back at tdl. I would rather have Stone than Russel back.

[MAC331]

3 hours ago, redfire11 said:

I hope we sign Stone. A 3 year 3.25 contract would be ideal. Worst case we could get our 2018 1st rnd back at tdl. I would rather have Stone than Russel back.

I don't think it has to be Stone and I don't think it needs to be for more than 2.5M and 2 years. Kehatch is correct in that we have a lag in our prepared prospects on defense and even working Andersson in needs some support. The balancing act will be getting all of Andersson, Kulak, Wotherspoon and Bartkowski playing time at the NHL level. If BT brings back Stone I would say Andersson will remain in the AHL with Wotherspoon again and they would be the first call ups. Bartkowski and Kulak likely work the LSD on the 3rd pairing.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

I hope we sign Stone. A 3 year 3.25 contract would be ideal. Worst case we could get our 2018 1st rnd back at tdl. I would rather have Stone than Russel back.

A deal in excess of $2m for a 3rd pairing guy is a big cap mistake.  Yes, you have the proper depth, but a deal like that puts us in cap hell before it's done.  Consider Backlund's next contract.  Consider a possible low-dollar 2 year deal for Bennett and re-signing him if he knocks it out of the park.  Consider Tkachuk's next contract.  

 

We had $3m for three years of Engelland, and that was meant to be depth playing on the 3rd pair.  The deal was the biggest problem with that situation.  Over the cap last season, and we only got a reprieve by having Smid on the IR the entire season.  

 

If BT can swing a 2-year deal at $2m, it makes more sense.  Doesn't impact the cap as much for as long.  Gives us the added depth. Saying that, I would prefer to somehow have two prospects on the roster.  Andersson has more interest to me, but playing him on the wrong side may not be the best.  Rotate the three (Stone, Andersson, Kulak) into the 3rd pair somehow?   

[cross16]

If it's a 1 year deal for a veteran guy to play bottom pairing I can live with it. It's giving someone multiple year's I won't be happy with

[redfire11]

Stone was a top 4 defender for US last year. This year he can be a top 4 on 70% of the teams in the NHL. One of Harmonic's key ingredients was the 3 years at 3.5 mil. If we lock up Stone for 3 years at 3 mil I could see the trade return at the TDL or draft being similar to what we paid for Harmonic. I can't see Stone doing a 1 year or 2 year 2mil contract. Lock him up and trade him is GOOD asset management. He will be gone as I see teams rubbing their hands together after the Harmonic trade. I believe Stone > Russell.

[travel_dude]

5 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

Stone was a top 4 defender for US last year. This year he can be a top 4 on 70% of the teams in the NHL. One of Harmonic's key ingredients was the 3 years at 3.5 mil. If we lock up Stone for 3 years at 3 mil I could see the trade return at the TDL or draft being similar to what we paid for Harmonic. I can't see Stone doing a 1 year or 2 year 2mil contract. Lock him up and trade him is GOOD asset management. He will be gone as I see teams rubbing their hands together after the Harmonic trade. I believe Stone > Russell.

 

He's coming off a bad year, so he isn't worth $3m as it stands.  Forget what he made already.

Just because Russell gets 4x4, doesn't mean he's worth that.  It makes more sense to him to build back his reputation on a shorter deal.  He can get the bigger payday then.  2x2 is easy to move to a team needing a top 4, if we don't need him for depth or he can wait till it expires and there is older guys out there.

 

I get he has family connection in CGY, but if he is looking for $3-4m, he should wait till July 1st.  Somebody will give it to him.

 

 

[redfire11]

20 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

 but if he is looking for $3-4m, he should wait till July 1st.  Somebody will give it to him.

 

 

You said it yourself Somebody will pay him. Teams I see jumping at the chance at 3 mill a year for Stone.

LAK, PIT,FLO,TBL,COL,NJD. His worth will only go up as we get into the season. Stone is a perfect vehicle to replenish our draft pics at the cost of a 5th round pic. Worst case he jumps into our top 4 if we have an injury. 

As I said giving him away to one of these teams (especially in our division) is giving away a 3rd round pic for nothing which is POOR asset management.

If he would do 2 x 2 mil that would be a major coup for the Flames but I don't see him signing much under 3mil.

[cross16]

2 hours ago, redfire11 said:

You said it yourself Somebody will pay him. Teams I see jumping at the chance at 3 mill a year for Stone.

LAK, PIT,FLO,TBL,COL,NJD. His worth will only go up as we get into the season. Stone is a perfect vehicle to replenish our draft pics at the cost of a 5th round pic. Worst case he jumps into our top 4 if we have an injury. 

As I said giving him away to one of these teams (especially in our division) is giving away a 3rd round pic for nothing which is POOR asset management.

If he would do 2 x 2 mil that would be a major coup for the Flames but I don't see him signing much under 3mil.

 

With some salary retained (essentially the same salary you want to pay him) Stone was worth a 3rd and a 5th 3 months ago. Why is he going to be worth more a year later when he will play on the bottom pairing here in Calgary?

 

If you want to have the additional depth then fine I get the argument, but the idea the Flames should sign Stone because he will net them draft picks at the deadline doesn't make any sense. Personally I see no reason to have a 3 mill defender on the 3rd pairing and continue to find it funny that for year's everyone rode Engelland for what he made but now we want to go back and pay another 5/6 defender 3 million....

 

[manu11]

15 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Personally I see no reason to have a 3 mill defender on the 3rd pairing and continue to find it funny that for year's everyone rode Engelland for what he made but now we want to go back and pay another 5/6 defender 3 million....

 

 

While I agree we should be avoiding 3 mill or more on a bottom pairing D-man, I'm in favor of signing a capable veteran #5. The thing with Engelland is, no matter how much he played here, that he's no more than a 6/7 IMO who made that kind of money. That said, back then I was all for signing him as an UFA and overall I really liked him here for what he brought. I just never saw him as anything more then a 6/7.

[travel_dude]

Who would you rather have?

Stone for $3.0m x 2 years, and a 5th rounder

Franson for $2.5m x 2 years

Folin for $1.5m x 2 years

[MAC331]

20 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Who would you rather have?

Stone for $3.0m x 2 years, and a 5th rounder

Franson for $2.5m x 2 years

Folin for $1.5m x 2 years

Folin

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Folin

 

Thanks for the response.  It was an open question to those wanting to sign Stone for $3m or more.  If he is just depth in case of injury, then why go beyond a player like Folin.

I don't even know you can get Franson for 2.5 or Stone for 3.  

[MAC331]

Just now, travel_dude said:

 

Thanks for the response.  It was an open question to those wanting to sign Stone for $3m or more.  If he is just depth in case of injury, then why go beyond a player like Folin.

I don't even know you can get Franson for 2.5 or Stone for 3.  

I think the Hamonic trade has negated the need for Stone or anyone else above 2M. There are good players we should be able to get our hands on and they don't necessarily have to be RHSD.

[Thebrewcrew]

I can't see Stone re-signing here. For him to stay, he would need to be paid like a #5 and I'm sure a team in free agency would pay him like a #4. I think now with Hamonic you have the physicality you lost with Engelland's departure so losing Stone may not be the end of the world. I also think Cody Franson may be a better option as a #5, and could likely be had on a 2 year term.