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

[Vipers31]

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.

He might have been to you. I don't think the player is irrelevant, whatsoever. The particular player type we're talking about in Stoner tends to be valued for contributions on the PK, physicality, crease-clearing, while not being completely terrible with the puck. I don't agree with you when you nonchalantly say there's plenty guys like that out there struggling to get a contract.

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.

We've already been through it - the amount by which he is overpaid per year isn't nearly as big as with the other guys, so the extra year isn't shooting him up to their territory.

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.

Cap hit isn't very imported to a budget team like the Ducks. They waited with the Bernier acquisition until the Leafs had paid out the $2M signing bonus on July 1st, so they saved actual salary. Bernier at $2.15M actual dollars isn't a luxury, at all.

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

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

That's beyond terrible. And the chance of a guy like Montour being moved just to get rid of Stoner is incredibly small.

 

[Connor]

That's beyond terrible. And the chance of a guy like Montour being moved just to get rid of Stoner is incredibly small.

Ducks aren't even a cap team and if they go to the cap they still cannot afford to sign Lindholm and Rakell.

 

[Vipers31]

Ducks aren't even a cap team and if they go to the cap they still cannot afford to sign Lindholm and Rakell.

Sure. It doesn't mean you get to dictate that kind of absurd price. Stoner isn't remotely in Bickell/Bolland territory. Fowler might be moved, as well, and/or Despres. There's further options. The Ducks giving up a near-blue-chip guy to dump the limited amount by which Stoner is overpaid is a pipe dream.

 

[Heraldic]

Sure. It doesn't mean you get to dictate that kind of absurd price. Stoner isn't remotely in Bickell/Bolland territory. Fowler might be moved, as well, and/or Despres. There's further options. The Ducks giving up a near-blue-chip guy to dump the limited amount by which Stoner is overpaid is a pipe dream.

Compared to Bickell, Stoner has two years left remaining on his contract. When Bickell had two years remanining, Chicago was unable to move him.

If there actually were a team willing to take Stoner and not want anything of actual value back, he would have been already moved.

Why the hell would any team help Ducks here, when there are comparable or even better players still left, and you could likely get them cheaper and with shorter term contract?

 

[snipes]

Compared to Bickell, Stoner has two years left remaining on his contract. When Bickell had two years remanining, Chicago was unable to move him.

If there actually were a team willing to take Stoner and not want anything of actual value back, he would have been already moved.

Why the hell would any team help Ducks here, when there are comparable or even better players still left, and you could likely get them cheaper and with shorter term contract?

Exactly. Hopefully no one gives them a lifeline and they have to sacrifice a better piece to work the budget.

 

[Vipers31]

Compared to Bickell, Stoner has two years left remaining on his contract. When Bickell had two years remanining, Chicago was unable to move him.

If there actually were a team willing to take Stoner and not want anything of actual value back, he would have been already moved.

Bickell is overpaid by every dollar of his contract. Stoner is overpaid by $1-1.5M per year. That might take something of value to get rid of, but it's not in the Bickell category. It has nothing to do with favours being done. If you believe it will take a guy like Montour, let alone a deal like the one I replied to - I'll put it on your tab.

 

[voxel]

Stoner's contract is gross. It's for two years. He's overpaid by $2M/yr and he doesn't fill many teams needs (defensive D-men are dinosaurs). A team could sign Eric Gryba for less than $1M/yr.

Ducks will probably move Fowler or Depres before they move Stoner.

A third is not a sweetener at all. Ducks 1st with Stoner for a 3rd back is one.

 

[Heraldic]

Bickell is overpaid by every dollar of his contract. Stoner is overpaid by $1-1.5M per year. That might take something of value to get rid of, but it's not in the Bickell category. It has nothing to do with favours being done. If you believe it will take a guy like Montour, let alone a deal like the one I replied to - I'll put it on your tab.

You think that a "defensive defenseman", who was not even able to be a regular roster player on his team, who had severely sheltered minutes, and whose impact was bad nevertheless, is as valuable as two years of around 2 million? Give me a break.

And you still seem to be unable to understand that Stoner has two years left on his contract. You think that a contending team like Chicago would have preferred letting Oduya walk and trading Sharp for garbage, if they actually had the chance of moving Bickell? Of course not. That's the relevance of having that extra year.

And there is also a great chance that Bolland never plays a game again. And his contract is 80% insured.

Outside of Bolland, who is a possible career LTIR-case, how many garbage contracts have been moved (which are not LTIR-cases), which had more than one year remaining?

Now that Arizona and Carolina have had their share of garbage contracts absorbed, how many possible teams can you name that could be interested of adding a contract like Stoner with only minor asset being the gain? And can you tell even a couple of good reasons, why an opposing GM should ask anything else than a premium asset coming back for a garbage contract? Arizona and Carolina got premium asset back, why would any other GM settle for any less?

 

[mytduxfan*]

Not moving Larsson to dump Stoner. Geeeezzz.

 

[tony d]

Stoner's a decent enough player but that contract is way to much money for a team to take on.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Hearing a lot of Ducks fans defending Stoner still being a barely useful NHL player but not hearing any of them answer the question why a GM would take Stoner at 3.25 for 2 more years when they could get a younger version of Stoner in someone like Gryba or any of the other 6-7 NHL defenseman for near league minimum for a year.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Like what?

I think if you attached a 2nd you'd get some interest

 

[Vipers31]

You think that a "defensive defenseman", who was not even able to be a regular roster player on his team, who had severely sheltered minutes, and whose impact was bad nevertheless, is as valuable as two years of around 2 million? Give me a break.

You could just take any break you want.

And you still seem to be unable to understand that Stoner has two years left on his contract. You think that a contending team like Chicago would have preferred letting Oduya walk and trading Sharp for garbage, if they actually had the chance of moving Bickell? Of course not. That's the relevance of having that extra year.

No, that's the relevance of Bickell's being a far worse of a contract than Stoner's.

Now that Arizona and Carolina have had their share of garbage contracts absorbed, how many possible teams can you name that could be interested of adding a contract like Stoner with only minor asset being the gain?

Where exactly did I mention a "minor asset" cutting it? Are you bending words again, or does anything below Larsson/Montour levels now classify as minor?

And can you tell even a couple of good reasons, why an opposing GM should ask anything else than a premium asset coming back for a garbage contract? Arizona and Carolina got premium asset back, why would any other GM settle for any less?

Because they are probably realistic enough to know they won't get a premium for absorbing a less harmful contract like Stoner's, fully acknowledging the duration. We'll wait and see. If guys like that are moved for Stoner, I'll admit having underestimated the degree to which the market felt he was overpaid. If it takes a 2nd round pick or an equivalent like I suggested in this thread, you'll get another shot at rationalizing how reality tricked you.

 

[Not So Mighty]

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

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

Sure you don't want Gibson and Perry at 50% retained too?

 

[howkie]

Third is not enough, a first or a really good prospect, otherwise no GM will do a Ducks a favour. They will just point at Arizona and Canes. Market is set...

If they don´t get anything useful and still need a d-man, they would just as Quincy or Gryba.....

 

[Kalv]

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

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

I`m fine including Rackell in this deal

Just not Rickard Rakell

But yeah i completely agree to some coments here that we would need to add some actual value to unload Stoner. Look how Teravainen and Crouse had to go in some of the package deals for bad value. And those are decent youngsters

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

I`m fine including Rackell in this deal

Just not Rickard Rakell

But yeah i completely agree to some coments here that we would need to add some actual value to unload Stoner. Look how Teravainen and Crouse had to go in some of the package deals for bad value. And those are decent youngsters

What kind of value would you add?

 

[broman]

I may be delusional but I don't see BM as looking to move Stoner. As in, not seeing the need. I know that it's plain as day for most of us, myself included, and we feel that Bob should move one or probably two roster D to clear room for Lindholm's payday and Theodore's ascendance.

But BM did sign Stoner for a reason. He has a thing for bulky defensive D-men (Allen, etc) and has been willing to overpay for the elusive "vet factor" more than once in the past. And he's not completely misguided: the Ducks core D is somewhat lightweight and relatively inexperienced.

Stoner has been a good soldier who has filled his shoes when called upon. He's never going to be a puck mover but he's the epitome of a sensible stay-at-home vet who offers useful balance and counterweight to someone like Vatanen roaming about doing his thing. Stoner's not worth 3.25M, but he's not a 1M gap filler, either. Holzer is, and he's still not the player that Stoner can be.

The problem of course is that the math simply won't add up. Ducks have three third pairing D making north of 3M each (pending a show of post-concussion revival, I see Despres as third pair as well) while looking to sign key FAs and fill in remaining holes in F corps. My feeling is that BM is trying to juggle his budget and penchant for expensive vets by coaxing Lindholm and Rakell into bridge deals, but the IKEA twins don't seem to agree. Remains to be seen who blinks first.

 

[broman]

*If* BM were to move Stoner, I think it would have to be a player swap, one bad contract for another, with a possible minor plus as a sweetener from Ducks. That or 1M retained. Somebody like a (slightly) overpaid third liner, a winger to play next to Vermette or down the 4th if Garbutt were to come up instead.

Or an unwanted castaway. Yakupov rumors have been recycled so often that it's not even funny any more, but this time around it's not actually completely off the mark. Particular issue remains though that BM has shown little interest in Russians in general, and underperforming primadonna ones in particular.

 

[Liferleafer]

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.

Every team has a glut of their own 3rd pair defensemen....even TO, nobody is looking to take on Stoner without sending cap back.

 

[MikeyMike01]

"We don't want this guy so much we will pay to get rid of him"

"No thanks"

"No he's really great I swear, you'd be so happy to have him"

This thread.

 

[Kalv]

What kind of value would you add?

3d round pick. Maybe even 2nd.

I have just put up my hopes for trading Stoner, really.

Just for the record, i like him on our team he is quite good 3d pairing guy, his contract is just sooo bad for us. Especially if we already have Manson and Despres on the team now. And especially if we are a freaking budget team with Lindholm and Rakell still needed to be resigned.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

"We don't want this guy so much we will pay to get rid of him"

"No thanks"

"No he's really great I swear, you'd be so happy to have him"

This thread.

He's a solid player, yet due to his contract we're fully aware we'd have to pay to get rid of him. Really shouldn't be that tough to wrap your head around.

 

[Kalv]

"We don't want this guy so much we will pay to get rid of him"

"No thanks"

"No he's really great I swear, you'd be so happy to have him"

This thread.

Didn`t read through all the thread. Thank god you did and wrote this precious input

 

[Liferleafer]

He's a solid player, yet due to his contract we're fully aware we'd have to pay to get rid of him. Really shouldn't be that tough to wrap your head around.

The problem is what the OP is asking. I will use the Leafs as an example, we have Hunwick/Polak/Carrick/Corrado and maybe rooks like Dermott to fill #4/5/6. Why would TO consider taking on Stoner at 3.25 mil without sending back cap? As i said before, teams have a glut of bottom pairing guys in their systems, nobody will take Stoner's contract.