So Where do we go from here? Analysis & Predictions

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

You are kind of blowing it out of proportion aren't you? That's a tradeable contract considering Russell signed at 4 million. Also BT said they want their guys to develop in the AAA and there's nothing wrong with over ripening. 

Edmonton's mistake signing Russell @ those $s/term doesn't justify BT doing the same with Stone.

3.5 x 3 is just slightly worse for a depth defenseman. @ 1/2 that cap hit Stone is a good #5/4 but he's being paid like a #3/4.

Think about it, Hamonic more than earns his 3.8 playing 20+ minutes while we'll see Stone probably playing 14.

 

I wanted depth on D but certainly don't agree with paying that depth like a 2nd pairing & going long term.

 

Plus side so far:

Hamonic trade

Picking Vilimaki when we were lucky enough to have the option @ #16

Versteeg back on a value deal

 

Neutral:

Smith @ 25% off giving up only a 3rd in real assets

Lack @ 50% off for the price of dropping 1 round in the 1s that are a dartboard

(not what I hoped for but doable)

 

Minus side:

Over paying Stone by 50%

 

The pluses & neutral could be as much luck as smart GMing while the Stone minus has the luck factor removed. Pure & simple it was a bonehead signing unless Stone turns into Karlson.

[cross16]

Just now, manu11 said:

 

I've got a stupid question about bonuses from players that get a 35+ contract. Do these bonuses count to this years cap or next? Or can the team choose when those bonuses, if reached, count?

 

They count in the year they are earned. However, a team can exceed the salary cap by up to 10% (I believe) of the cap due to bonuses. That is consider a "cap overage" and then would apply to the cap the following year.

So no you can't pick the year but there is a safeguard in place to allow for overages should a bonus put you over. 

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

The term bothers me.  3-years means the RD side is fully occupied and Anderson won't see the light of day.  It's more a setup for Adam Fox in 3 years.

I am not as concerned as you are, but this is troubling. We have to bring up some of these guys, and it seems as though it is Andersson's time. It seems like they don't have enough trust in them. Perhaps Treliving really believes some defencemen are going to get hurt.

 

I am hoping that we get either Vrbata or Sharp tomorrow.

[Cowtownguy]

4 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

They count in the year they are earned. However, a team can exceed the salary cap by up to 10% (I believe) of the cap due to bonuses. That is consider a "cap overage" and then would apply to the cap the following year.

So no you can't pick the year but there is a safeguard in place to allow for overages should a bonus put you over. 

Some of you guys should become player agents. I thought that I was a little extreme being interested in hockey in July. Some of you seem to pour over the latest CBA at 2:00am or something.

[manu11]

1 minute ago, cross16 said:

 

They count in the year they are earned. However, a team can exceed the salary cap by up to 10% (I believe) of the cap due to bonuses. That is consider a "cap overage" and then would apply to the cap the following year.

So no you can't pick the year but there is a safeguard in place to allow for overages should a bonus put you over. 

Thanks for the clarification cross, I think I understand it now.

So for example, if we signed Sharp to a 1 year deal $3,5Mil basic salary + $1,5Mil bonus. As long as the bonus doesn't exceed the $75mil limit, we won't have these bonuses on the cap the following year. Correct? 

 

 

[MAC331]

Just now, Cowtownguy said:

I am not as concerned as you are, but this is troubling. We have to bring up some of these guys, and it seems as though it is Andersson's time. It seems like they don't have enough trust in them. Perhaps Treliving really believes some defencemen are going to get hurt.

 

I am hoping that we get either Vrbata or Sharp tomorrow.

Injuries are going to happen, all one has to do is look at how much time Hamonic missed last season. Do you want Stone to step into that spot or Andersson ? I think BT is answering that question.

[AlbertaBoy12]

9 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Edmonton's mistake signing Russell @ those $s/term doesn't justify BT doing the same with Stone.

3.5 x 3 is just slightly worse for a depth defenseman. @ 1/2 that cap hit Stone is a good #5/4 but he's being paid like a #3/4.

Think about it, Hamonic more than earns his 3.8 playing 20+ minutes while we'll see Stone probably playing 14.

Well I mean GG is on the record saying he sees his #5 playing 18 minutes a night. 

 

My point with the russell comparison is thats what the martket is set at, so while it may not be the best signing money wise, if the market is at that its probably a tradeable contract.

[Flyerfan52]

1 hour ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

I mean he's tradeable and we can recoup an asset after this season.

Remember we got him @ 50% retained in his last year of his contract? He now makes similar so unless we retain for the life of the contract he'd a Flame until the TD in year 3. That's a lot of lost cap space to get a 3rd (if we're lucky) in a few years.

[Cowtownguy]

5 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

Injuries are going to happen, all one has to do is look at how much time Hamonic missed last season. Do you want Stone to step into that spot or Andersson ? I think BT is answering that question.

Well put. I do think we really needed more toughness on the point. Other teams were beating us up in front of our own net. The logjam is still of concern. I like developing and bringing up our own players.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, manu11 said:

Thanks for the clarification cross, I think I understand it now.

So for example, if we signed Sharp to a 1 year deal $3,5Mil basic salary + $1,5Mil bonus. As long as the bonus doesn't exceed the $75mil limit, we won't have these bonuses on the cap the following year. Correct? 

 

 

 

correct

[The_People1]

17 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Edmonton's mistake signing Russell @ those $s/term doesn't justify BT doing the same with Stone.

3.5 x 3 is just slightly worse for a depth defenseman. @ 1/2 that cap hit Stone is a good #5/4 but he's being paid like a #3/4.

Think about it, Hamonic more than earns his 3.8 playing 20+ minutes while we'll see Stone probably playing 14.

 

I wanted depth on D but certainly don't agree with paying that depth like a 2nd pairing & going long term.

 

Plus side so far:

Hamonic trade

Picking Vilimaki when we were lucky enough to have the option @ #16

Versteeg back on a value deal

 

Neutral:

Smith @ 25% off giving up only a 3rd in real assets

Lack @ 50% off for the price of dropping 1 round in the 1s that are a dartboard

(not what I hoped for but doable)

 

Minus side:

Over paying Stone by 50%

 

The pluses & neutral could be as much luck as smart GMing while the Stone minus has the luck factor removed. Pure & simple it was a bonehead signing unless Stone turns into Karlson.

 

Totals.

 

It's not that Stone is a bad player.  It's that we should not be committing that much to a bottom pair D.  

 

This signing offsets the other good moves by BT.

[FueltheFlames1075]

59 minutes ago, cross16 said:

Why i'm not overly impressed and why I think you have to question how tradable Stone is going to be...

 

With the cap stalling somewhat it is getting harder and harder to move players that come with contracts and play depth roles. I know he was injured last year, well coming off knee injury, but the previous year's prior to this one are all pretty similar. 

 

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but where do you find these comparison charts?

[cross16]

1 minute ago, FueltheFlames1075 said:

Sorry for my ignorance, but where do you find these comparison charts?

 

ownthepuck.blogspot.ca

[TheBurn]

We have not addressed the rw depth yet but I believe the Stone signing is an attempt to ensure that we can compete this year for a top spot in the west. Stone is a player that can provide d depth by playing in the top 4. As much as we want to put a young dman into the lineup, the only options are Kulak, Bart and Spoon and they are all 3rd line players at best. Now we can have an option if hamonic gets hurt, and if at trade deadline someone shows promise, we will make a trade. I don't like the dollars but it is gonna be hard this yr to get a dman. I do believe that BT is gonna try to get a value rw vet for insurance as well if there is one cheap but after that, just signing our rfas 

[FueltheFlames1075]

I am not really a fan of the term or dollar value of Stones contract, however I do like him as our 5th defenseman. My first thought was how, as mentioned previously, we just got out from under the Engelland contract. So just for the fun of it, here is the two players compared side by side. Just some food for thought.

 

 

 

[The_People1]

This Stone signing is almost as polarizing as the Hamonic trade.  

 

I happened to be okay with the Hamonic trade because he's 26, signed to a great contract, and is a top 5 shut down guy in the NHL which is something we need against McDavid, Getzlaf, and the like. Hamonic gives us something we were missing.

 

Stone however, doesn't give us something we are missing.

[MAC331]

Just now, The_People1 said:

This Stone signing is almost as polarizing as the Hamonic trade.  

 

I happened to be okay with the Hamonic trade because he's 26, signed to a great contract, and is a top 5 shut down guy in the NHL which is something we need against McDavid, Getzlaf, and the like. Hamonic gives us something we were missing.

 

Stone however, doesn't give us something we are missing.

We were missing a 3rd pairing RHSD and we also have nobody with this capacity after Andersson for any depth.

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

We were missing a 3rd pairing RHSD and we also have nobody with this capacity after Andersson for any depth.

 

If we signed Stone to a 1 year deal at $3.5-mil, then I think everyone would be cool with it.  But we don't trust Andersson will be ready within 3-years?  Or Fox?

[MAC331]

23 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

If we signed Stone to a 1 year deal at $3.5-mil, then I think everyone would be cool with it.  But we don't trust Andersson will be ready within 3-years?  Or Fox?

When they are ready trade Stone or trade them, you can't live in a vacuum with these situations. I like that BT is making sure Andersson is good and ready to comeup and cover off injuries first and isn't a weakness. When he is up and shows well enough well then BT has something to think about.

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

When they are ready trade Stone or trade them, you can't live in a vacuum with these situations. I like that BT is making sure Andersson is good and ready to comeup and cover off injuries first and isn't a weakness. When he is up and shows well enough well then BT has something to think about.

This is the way I see it, I think stone was signed for less then market value considering how much russell signed for, and while they may not be similar players, they play similar roles. Stone will be very tradeable this fall if andersson blows the world up in camp or next summer, you get the idea. while we may have to take some salary to trade him, it should be a good situation. I dont see why this is a big issue, everyones acting like its their money, and hes not tradeable.

[kehatch]

I don't love the Stone contract, but I think people are blowing that out of proportion. Of course the Flames were going to bring on a number 5. Leaving two spots open for prospects, most with no NHL experience, was not going to (and should not) happen. There is a spot open on D still and the prospects have every opportunity to make the team. Plus, injuries will happen. Stone checks a lot of boxes and will look great on the third pair with someone like Kulak.

 

I love the idea of signing Sharp. If the Flames pull it off thst is a heck of an off season. Plus they have the rest of the season to tweak. 

[Fins&FIre15]

I'm not a huge fan of the stone signing, but at the very least its a moveable contract imo. If things dont go according to plan, we still have what some teams see as a top 4 asset. I'm hoping we'd get back close to what we got this guy for.

 

Look at the difference of three years on our back end though. We have finally gotten bigger as promised. It won't be fun to play our team next year, that is for sure.

[travel_dude]

31 minutes ago, Fins&FIre15 said:

I'm not a huge fan of the stone signing, but at the very least its a moveable contract imo. If things dont go according to plan, we still have what some teams see as a top 4 asset. I'm hoping we'd get back close to what we got this guy for.

 

Look at the difference of three years on our back end though. We have finally gotten bigger as promised. It won't be fun to play our team next year, that is for sure.

 

Moveable as any 3x3.5m D-man is.  If he falls off a cliff, then he isn't tradable.  

Top 4 asset if he shows he plays like a top 4.  If he's playing 12 minutes a night and is unable to suppress goals or add offense, then not so much.

 

I don't hate the deal.  Not my first choice for a 3rd pair depth guy.  Decent enough I guess.  Depth for sure.  Another Engelland contract on the books.

Do hope that he can rebound from last season.  Andersson may not be quite ready yet, which is fine.  But not having any spots on RD is a little annoying.

Would at least like to graduate one D-man this year.   

[AlbertaBoy12]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Moveable as any 3x3.5m D-man is.  If he falls off a cliff, then he isn't tradable.  

Top 4 asset if he shows he plays like a top 4.  If he's playing 12 minutes a night and is unable to suppress goals or add offense, then not so much.

 

I don't hate the deal.  Not my first choice for a 3rd pair depth guy.  Decent enough I guess.  Depth for sure.  Another Engelland contract on the books.

Do hope that he can rebound from last season.  Andersson may not be quite ready yet, which is fine.  But not having any spots on RD is a little annoying.

Would at least like to graduate one D-man this year.   

And if he has an amazing season he is tradable, lets wait to see how this season plays out before condemning the deal. IF andersson comes into camp ready and steals a spot why cant they trade him at the beginning of the season.

 

Also If kulak plays full time this season, then we did graduate a D man, technically he hasent graduated yet playing some time in the AAA last year. I dont get where this 12 mins a night is coming from, GG has said he wants his #5 to play 18 mins a night, even if he plays 16 thats still great. 

[kehatch]

Stones contract isn't as bad as Engellands. Engelland was making league minimum and wasn't a full time NHLer before the Flames gave him a 3m contract with term. It was part of Trelivings learning curve, along with his two buyout contracts (Bouma/Raymond). Stone got a pay cut and is an established NHL player.