Proposal: Stoner (maybe small retention) 3rd round (maybe 2nd) for 7th or future considerations

[WhatTheDuck]

That might be possible in a vacuum, but Anaheim isn't really in a great negotiating position. See the hall/Larson trade for when you're dealing from a position of weakness...

That situation doesn't compare to anything being discussed here.

 

[Seras]

What is so funny? Your acting like Stoner totally sucks he is a decent 3rd pair defenseman just a little overpayed and we could retain a small amount we shouldn't need to take another player back.

Sounds like someone you should keep

 

[Pennaduck]

Read back through my posts and you'll clearly see me say that the Ducks would have to pay to get rid of him. That's obviously going to be a major part of the other team's motivation. You're arguing like someone has said he has positive value and no one in this thread has. I was merely pointing out that Stoner is a solid veteran player who happens to be overpaid, and not a piece of trash like some make him out to be. If you spent more time reading what you were responding to instead of looking up stupid gifs this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

List 5 teams - why? We only need to find one team willing to take an asset to take him on, and as I said I'm more than ok with keeping him if the ask is too strong, we have other money that can be dumped.

I agree and I'd like to add also that I think the point of the OP was to see how many teams (or at least fan bases) would be interested, in order to gauge whether there may be any teams willing to take him with a small sweetener added to the deal. Its hard for us to list 5 teams without asking this sort of hypothetical first. Unless I totally missed the point and this thread was made to see how many people will call Stoner a grossly overpaid 7th defenseman.

 

[Vipers31]

Well you said a name like Larsson is absurd. To me a 3rd pick is basically nothing. What kind of compensation would you view as reasonable?

A name like Larsson is absurd. He's a 1st rounder tracking extremely well. A 3rd clearly isn't "basically nothing", but I agree that it probably wouldn't be enough to get a team to swallow the $1M per year that he is overpaid. There's an entire ocean of middle ground between a mid 1st (and I doubt the Ducks would take a mid 1st for Larsson, at this point) and a 3rd. The answer would be somewhere in between, and likely not closer to Larsson's value.

 

[Pennaduck]

Sounds like someone you should keep

We have nine defenseman. The OP is just seeing if there is a potential deal to be made to move Stoner because we are going to have to move probably two of Fowler/Despres/Stoner.

 

[Keystone]

I'd do stoner for Stuart from a jets perspective. It's basically a 6th defenceman for what should be a 7th. I think Anehiem would gain a half million in cap space.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

He has 2 years of term, it'll take more than a 3rd to get rid of him. He's at best slightly more valuable to a team than Bickell, so use that as a barometer.

 

[VoidCreature]

That situation doesn't compare to anything being discussed here.

It's a very similar to the Bickell situation, and the Bolland situation. Both of them involved promising young players being handed out.

These arguments about the contract or the player not being that bad get made every time, and they never matter.

Getting rid of that contract is going to hurt.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

We have nine defenseman. The OP is just seeing if there is a potential deal to be made to move Stoner because we are going to have to move probably two of Fowler/Despres/Stoner.

Despres
Stoner
2nd

For

Merrill
Bennett

 

[Vipers31]

He has 2 years of term, it'll take more than a 3rd to get rid of him. He's at best slightly more valuable to a team than Bickell, so use that as a barometer.

That's ridiculous. Bickell is a hardly even an NHLer. Stoner is a strong penalty killer, who plays a solid game, is physical and clears the crease without being completely inadequate on the puck - guys like that find their spots very regularly and tend to get around $2-2.5M, if they aren't overpaid. Bickell is no barometer for Stoner, at all.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

It's a very similar to the Bickell situation, and the Bolland situation. Both of them involved promising young players being handed out.

These arguments about the contract or the player not being that bad get made every time, and they never matter.

Getting rid of that contract is going to hurt.

I was responding to a post comparing this to the Larsson - Hall trade, there is zero correlation to be made there at all.

Bickell is a borderline NHL player and has a greater cap hit than Stoner. Bolland had 16.5M left on his deal as opposed to Stoner's 6.5M and a much greater AAV. Sure those situations are both comparables but those comparisons should lead one to the conclusion that the price to get rid of Stoner would be less than what Chicago or Florida had to give up. Like I said a 2nd round pick should do it, and if it doesn't I can't see Murray making the move.

 

[Avs44]

I was responding to a post comparing this to the Larsson - Hall trade, there is zero correlation to be made there at all.

Bickell is a borderline NHL player and has a greater cap hit than Stoner. Bolland had 16.5M left on his deal as opposed to Stoner's 6.5M and a much greater AAV. Sure those situations are both comparables but those comparisons should lead one to the conclusion that the price to get rid of Stoner would be less than what Chicago or Florida had to give up. Like I said a 2nd round pick should do it, and if it doesn't I can't see Murray making the move.

I disagree entirely about Bickell. You're blithely ignoring the fact that Stoner has two years left, and Bickell just one. Any team taking Stoner is hampering themselves into a future they can't really even see. Moreover, the teams taking these cap dumps are often budget teams or have to watch their pennies. For teams like Carolina, or NJ, or Arizona, it's not just the cap hit, they have to decide whether the assets they get outweigh spending extra millions. The teams that don't care about the actual money aren't in a position to take dead cap right now. Thus, the Hurricanes are spending 4.5 on Bickell, but any team taking Stoner might be more, or at least equally, worried about the 6.5 million commitment to a player they don't want as compared to just the 3.25 million cap hit. The real money to Stoner>the real money to Bickell, but you seem to think just the cap hit matters. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think that makes Stoner's contract as equally unpalatable to several teams as Bickell's was.

 

[Vipers31]

I disagree entirely about Bickell. You're blithely ignoring the fact that Stoner has two years left, and Bickell just one. Any team taking Stoner is hampering themselves into a future they can't really even see. Moreover, the teams taking these cap dumps are often budget teams or have to watch their pennies. For teams like Carolina, or NJ, or Arizona, it's not just the cap hit, they have to decide whether the assets they get outweigh spending extra millions. The teams that don't care about the actual money aren't in a position to take dead cap right now. Thus, the Hurricanes are spending 4.5 on Bickell, but any team taking Stoner might be more, or at least equally, worried about the 6.5 million commitment to a player they don't want as compared to just the 3.25 million cap hit. The real money to Stoner>the real money to Bickell, but you seem to think just the cap hit matters. I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think that makes Stoner's contract as equally unpalatable to several teams as Bickell's was.

The difference between Bickell's actual dollars and the value of his on-ice contributions is immensely bigger than with Stoner. That's why it's not "equally unpalatable", whatsoever. Guys like Stoner have value in this league. Not quite $3M+, but usually in the $2M range. Guys like Bickell have zero value; maybe an NHL minimum contract, but more likely a PTO.

EDIT: I noticed I skipped the qualifier "to several teams". I guess that has a chance of being true, although I still wouldn't quite agree for said reasons.

 

[Avs44]

The difference between Bickell's actual dollars and the value of his on-ice contributions is immensely bigger than with Stoner. That's why it's not "equally unpalatable", whatsoever. Guys like Stoner have value in this league. Not quite $3M+, but usually in the $2M range. Guys like Bickell have zero value; maybe an NHL minimum contract, but more likely a PTO.

EDIT: I noticed I skipped the qualifier "to several teams". I guess that has a chance of being true, although I still wouldn't quite agree for said reasons.

If a team wants a better player than Stoner there are still several available for a lot less. There is no market for him. The fact that players like Russel still don't have contracts, along with guys like Quincey, should indicate to you the market for players of that calibre is dead. There is no additional desireability or value to Stoner. It's quite possible that some of these defensmen still available are going to take PTO's. Regarding the two million range...Luke Schenn got 1.25 million, and I'm not seeing much of a difference in player quality between Schenn and Stoner. Stoner is overpaid by two million for what he brings, he should be at the pay level of the Schenn's of this league, AKA he's worth about a third of what he currently brings. Any team handing out two million to #6 defensmen are fools.

 

[Vipers31]

If a team wants a better player than Stoner there are still several available for a lot less. There is no market for him. The fact that players like Russel still don't have contracts, along with guys like Quincey, should indicate to you the market for players of that calibre is dead. There is no additional desireability or value to Stoner. It's quite possible that some of these defensmen still available are going to take PTO's. Regarding the two million range...Luke Schenn got 1.25 million, and I'm not seeing much of a difference in player quality between Schenn and Stoner. Stoner is overpaid by two million for what he brings, he should be at the pay level of the Schenn's of this league, AKA he's worth about a third of what he currently brings. Any team handing out two million to #6 defensmen are fools.

Well, I think you're quite wrong on that. I can't say anything about a guy like Russell, because I doubt him being unsigned has as much to do with him not being able to field offers, as it has with his asking price still being higher. And Luke Schenn is actually a great case for Stoner, because apart from hitting more often, he is worse in about every aspect, particularly the ones the ones they'd be brought in for. Schenn should get a $1M less than Stoner, who is more in the Polak range. I don't particularly care whether you regard large portions of the market to be foolish, even when I'm inclined to agree on a personal basis, but our preferences aren't too relevant for the market.

 

[Avs44]

Well, I think you're quite wrong on that. I can't say anything about a guy like Russell, because I doubt him being unsigned has as much to do with him not being able to field offers, as it has with his asking price still being higher. And Luke Schenn is actually a great case for Stoner, because apart from hitting more often, he is worse in about every aspect, particularly the ones the ones they'd be brought in for. Schenn should get a $1M less than Stoner, who is more in the Polak range. I don't particularly care whether you regard large portions of the market to be foolish, even when I'm inclined to agree on a personal basis, but our preferences aren't too relevant for the market.

I dislike Polak, but I rather easily take him over Stoner. The Schenn I watched in LA was every bit as good as the Stoner I've ever seen, so we'll disagree on that one as well. He was just as defensively dependable. I don't think you'll find any market for Stoner, and I think he'd have been long moved if there was, but we shall see.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

If a team wants a better player than Stoner there are still several available for a lot less. There is no market for him. The fact that players like Russel still don't have contracts, along with guys like Quincey, should indicate to you the market for players of that calibre is dead. There is no additional desireability or value to Stoner. It's quite possible that some of these defensmen still available are going to take PTO's. Regarding the two million range...Luke Schenn got 1.25 million, and I'm not seeing much of a difference in player quality between Schenn and Stoner. Stoner is overpaid by two million for what he brings, he should be at the pay level of the Schenn's of this league, AKA he's worth about a third of what he currently brings. Any team handing out two million to #6 defensmen are fools.

The difference here is that they would be getting compensated to take the contract, you obviously can't say the same with a UFA. You can't sit here and say "there is no market", you don't have access to that information. Either someone will go for it, or they won't.

 

[Vipers31]

I dislike Polak, but I rather easily take him over Stoner. The Schenn I watched in LA was every bit as good as the Stoner I've ever seen, so we'll disagree on that one as well. I don't think you'll find any market for Stoner, and I think he'd have been long moved if there was, but we shall see.

I can't imagine you have seen too much of Schenn with the Kings after his first few games there, then. He was anything but what Stoner has been throughout his time with the Ducks - solid, and a contributor to the league's top PK. Polak does seem to have a bigger lobby (probably because Stoner has been dragged down by the overpaid label since the signing), but what they bring to their teams isn't too different.

And again, I didn't say there was a market for Stoner at $3.5M. I agree, if there was, he'd already have been moved. He is overpaid, I'm not debating that. My point was only quite which shade of grey he is, and how far away from the deep black that is Bolland or the dark grey that is Bickell he should reasonably be seen.

 

[Avs44]

The difference here is that they would be getting compensated to take the contract, you obviously can't say the same with a UFA. You can't sit here and say "there is no market", you don't have access to that information. Either someone will go for it, or they won't.

Well yes, that was the point I was making. Viper seemed to be insinuating the difference between Stoner and Bickell was that guys like the former have value in this league; my response was right now they clearly do not since there are Stoner comparables left unsigned. Therefore, even though Stoner might be more effective than Bickell, it doesn't mean he has value, as a player, to teams around the league right now, which means, as a player, he's not appreciably more desireable than Bickell. Thus, it's not like you're convincing a team to take Stoner for a pick instead of spending ~2m on say Quincey, you're selling them a 100% deadweight contract and a player they have zero need for in the first place, ALA Bickell.


To answer Viper's idea above, maybe Bickell is a shade of dark grey, and Stoner is a shade of lighter grey, but for all intents and purposes that isn't going to matter much right now, because nobody wants anybody in the grey range whatsoever.

 

[Vipers31]

Well yes, that was the point I was making. Viper seemed to be insinuating the difference between Stoner and Bickell was that guys like the former have value in this league; my response was right now they clearly do not since there are Stoner comparables left unsigned. Therefore, even though Stoner might be more effective than Bickell, it doesn't mean he has value, as a player, to teams around the league right now, which means, as a player, he's not appreciably more desireable than Bickell. Thus, it's not like you're convincing a team to take Stoner for a pick instead of spending ~2m on say Quincey, you're selling them a 100% deadweight contract and a player they have zero need for in the first place, ALA Bickell.

I don't see how Quincey fits as a comparable. They would never appear on the same list of candidates for a certain profile a GM is looking for.

To answer Viper's idea above, maybe Bickell is a shade of dark grey, and Stoner is a shade of lighter grey, but for all intents and purposes that isn't going to matter much right now, because nobody wants anybody in the grey range whatsoever.

Nobody wants a hand full of rubbish. That doesn't mean you have to pay people just as much to handle a handful of rubbish as you'd have to pay them to handle a truckload of rubbish. Or make it regular dirt and atomic waste. Where Stoner lies on that scale is what's relevant to what the compensation would be.

 

[Avs44]

I don't see how Quincey fits as a comparable. They would never appear on the same list of candidates for a certain profile a GM is looking for.


Nobody wants a hand full of rubbish. That doesn't mean you have to pay people just as much to handle a handful of rubbish as you'd have to pay them to handle a truckload of rubbish. Or make it regular dirt and atomic waste. Where Stoner lies on that scale is what's relevant to what the compensation would be.

Quincey was just a name I tossed out there as an example, you're missing the point or intentionally ignoring it, because the player was irrelevant.


One pile of rubbish might be bigger than the other, but the dump has less space than it did previously, and the smaller pile of rubbish takes double the time to decompose and therefore will take up more sum space over that extra time, so the cost might very well be the same to haul it away.

 

[Street Hawk]

I think the ducks missed out on moving stoner along with Anderson.

That would have been my condition to move Anderson. Could have opted to pass on Pittsburgh's first rounder to one of the second rounders the leafs acquired.

It also makes the ducks acquisition of Bernier at his full cap hit puzzling? Bernier was a luxury add. They needed to resolve Lindholm and Rackell. And move stoner before getting Bernier.

 

[Connor]

I would like the Oilers taking on Stoner as long as Montour is part of the deal.

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

 

[All Mighty]

I would like the Oilers taking on Stoner as long as Montour is part of the deal.

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

Did you think nobody would notice you threw Rakell in there? I wouldn't do that for either Montour or Rakell alone.

 

[lindholmie]

I would like the Oilers taking on Stoner as long as Montour is part of the deal.

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

LMAO rakell just in there. You sure you don't want Theodore or larsson too?