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

[Quackery]

*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.

First I've heard of Yakupov being a primadonna. Watching him play I thought his on ice attitude hasn't been a problem. Running around like a headless chicken in all three zones however has been his problem. IMO he's a victim of lack of leadership, proper management and coaching that plagued Edmonton.

I also see Stoner as the exact kind of player Chiarelli would covet. Problem is Edmonton doesn't really have any space on the left side. Shame.

 

[Weezeric]

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.

You just seem unaware of the price you need to pay to get rid of him...

 

[Quackery]

"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.

We don't want this guy because he doesn't fit into out cap structure plan. We're even willing to retain some money because we know he's overpaid by at least a million for the position he plays in i.e. bottom pairing D. If we're not retaining, we're willing to sweeten the pot with a prospect albeit you most certainly aren't getting a blue chip prospect for the 2-3 million you'll be overpaying for two years. I don't know what's so hard to understand here?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

We don't want this guy because he doesn't fit into out cap structure plan. We're even willing to retain some money because we know he's overpaid by at least a million for the position he plays in i.e. bottom pairing D. If we're not retaining, we're willing to sweeten the pot with a prospect albeit you most certainly aren't getting a blue chip prospect for the 2-3 million you'll be overpaying for two years. I don't know what's so hard to understand here?

What kind of prospect are we talking?

 

[WhatTheDuck]

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.

I don't think the OP offered up enough value, I believe it would cost us a 2nd round pick to be rid of that contract, and if it cost any more than that, Murray would go a different direction.

What I was responding to was a post mocking Ducks fans in this thread for saying Stoner is a solid player. The majority of Ducks fans have liked what he has brought to the table, yet everyone seems to understand that his contract gives him negative value. I don't see what issue anyone can take with that stance.

Either someone will want an asset in order to take on an overpaid steady veteran, or they won't. As I said before the Ducks have other ways to save money.

 

[Quackery]

Personally I'd be okay with adding Petterson. Although I wouldn't blame if other Ducks fans won't like it.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

You just seem unaware of the price you need to pay to get rid of him...

What makes you think you're aware of what that price would be?

 

[Kalv]

Personally I'd be okay with adding Petterson. Although I wouldn't blame if other Ducks fans won't like it.

I could live with that

 

[Weezeric]

What makes you think you're aware of what that price would be?

Oh, you know. Looking at what recent cap dumps have taken to get rid of + the serious cap issues the ducks are in. A recent #11 pick was just traded for a cap dump....

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

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

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

Sure i doubt this gets you Montour, Little lone adding both Stoner and Rakell to the mix Anaheim might do a Stoner for Yakupov swap but Osterle doesn't get you Rakell and Montour.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Oh, you know. Looking at what recent cap dumps have taken to get rid of + the serious cap issues the ducks are in. A recent #11 pick was just traded for a cap dump....

A cap dump worth significantly more than Stoner, meaning the price should be much less. Also you're conveniently leaving out that two picks went back the other way.

 

[Heraldic]

You could just take any break you want.

Reading BS like that really requires a break.

I mean, his coach barely gave him half of the games of the season (despite Despres being injured a lot), he gave him less ES minutes (PK and PP minutes as well) than to any other d-man, more o-zone-starts than to any other d-man, and SIGNIFICANTLY lesser competition compared to any other d-man.

And what is this bs of yours about him being a strong penalty killer? He had significantly less PK time than any other Ducks d-man (including Vatanen for example). And you know what? Ducks got scored against SIGNIFICANTLY more on PK when Stoner was on ice. Per 60 minutes, he got scored against almost three goals more than Lindholm and clearly more than one goal compared to Vatanen/Fowler. Overall his GA number was absolutely brutal compared to his teammates.

It seems you confuse "physicality" with strong PK?

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

They both are awful contracts. Bickell's contract was untradeable when it had two years left. Stoner is not really more than a depth guy on a better team - not more than Bickell.

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?

Both cap dumps this season have been combined with a more valuable pieces than either of those players. You stating that either of those players are "absurd" price for a Stoner indicates that pretty strongly.

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.

I sure hope I don't end up looking as silly as you trying to rationalize anything related to Stoner here.

 

[Vipers31]

I mean, his coach barely gave him half of the games of the season (despite Despres being injured a lot), he gave him less ES minutes (PK and PP minutes as well) than to any other d-man, more o-zone-starts than to any other d-man, and SIGNIFICANTLY lesser competition compared to any other d-man.

And what is this bs of yours about him being a strong penalty killer? He had significantly less PK time than any other Ducks d-man (including Vatanen for example). And you know what? Ducks got scored against SIGNIFICANTLY more on PK when Stoner was on ice. Per 60 minutes, he got scored against almost three goals more than Lindholm and clearly more than one goal compared to Vatanen/Fowler. Overall his GA number was absolutely brutal compared to his teammates.

It seems you confuse "physicality" with strong PK?

Nope. But apart from the well-established boxscore scouting, it also seems you're inexplicably using relative comparisions to draw absolute conclusions. Him being (on paper) less effective on the PK than those other guys you mentioned, who made for the best PKing defense in the league, isn't much of an indictment on his own ability there. Not everyone gets to "relatively shine" compared to lowest standards.

They both are awful contracts. Bickell's contract was untradeable when it had two years left. Stoner is not really more than a depth guy on a better team - not more than Bickell.

Hey, I actually agree with the part about him being a depth guy on a better team, since depth tends to include a bottom pairing. However, Bickell was less than a depth guy, and paid more, so it still doesn't hold up.

Both cap dumps this season have been combined with a more valuable pieces than either of those players. You stating that either of those players are "absurd" price for a Stoner indicates that pretty strongly.

Stoner is less of a cap dump (a lot less than Bolland), and I disagree about Teravainen or Crouse being more valuable pieces than Larsson/Montour. Especially with Teravainen not being waiver-exempt.

I sure hope I don't end up looking as silly as you trying to rationalize anything related to Stoner here.

*Cough* Yeah, end up... *cough*

 

[Ducks in a row]

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.....

Bickell is a AHL player now while Stoner is still a NHL defenseman just a #6 one. Bolland has 3 years left at 5.5 million that is a lot more money and a addition year then Stoner has. We can retain a small amount on Stoner to make him less unnatractive to acquire. Stoner with 1 million retained and a 2nd round pick for a 7th or future considerations I can't believe no one would be willing to do that. Signing Quincy or Gryba wouldn't return a pick like that with them.

 

[Curufinwe]

Bickell seems like he won't play again.

 

[Seanaconda]

Sure i doubt this gets you Montour, Little lone adding both Stoner and Rakell to the mix Anaheim might do a Stoner for Yakupov swap but Osterle doesn't get you Rakell and Montour.

Oilers wouldn't do a yak for stoner swap they have way too many lhd already.(klefbom sekera davidson nurse reinhart + 5 other guys that could be the 6/7th dman)

May as well hope yak turns it around or trade him for an area of need (either a rhd or a backup goalie I guess).

 

[Not So Mighty]

"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.

Hmmm you seem to be having trouble keeping up. Reread the whole thread and do some research on the Ducks cap situation as well as their depth on defense both at the NHL and farm level. You ought to be able to piece together why we want to move Stoner and why we are willing to retain or add.

 

[broman]

First I've heard of Yakupov being a primadonna. Watching him play I thought his on ice attitude hasn't been a problem. Running around like a headless chicken in all three zones however has been his problem. IMO he's a victim of lack of leadership, proper management and coaching that plagued Edmonton.

I also see Stoner as the exact kind of player Chiarelli would covet. Problem is Edmonton doesn't really have any space on the left side. Shame.

OK granted not the best choice of words. I was trying to refer to Yakupov's rumored confrontation with the Oil brass, but you have a point saying that would hardly be the main defining character.

To the other point though, yes I agree that Oilers have been busily trying to get bigger. Stoner's hardly the only big body D out there, but if respective needs can be matched, you never know.

 

[McSuper]

I'd do that in a heartbeat, granted I'm not as high on Larsson as others are.

Ference who cost nothing to the Ducks plus a 3rd for Larsson and Stoner

 

[McSuper]

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

Stoner, Montour, Rackell

FOR

Yakupov, Osterle

This will go over well . It would be like a team saying they will take on Fayne as long as Puljujarvi is coming back .

Not to confuse the value of Montour with Puljujarvi . point is it is asking for a lot when you ask a team for one of their better prospects especially a budget team that value those contracts . But if some GM decides to go big game hunting and offer sheets one of the Ducks prized RFA's it may take such a deal
.

 

[ThatSaid]

Bickell deal is the best comparable. Just because Stoner wasn't sent down doesn't mean he's an NHL quality player. All he is a roster spot and some physical presence. In free-agency, he's probably happy to sign a 900k 1-way deal. Anything over that is wasted cap space.

Its also much easier to hide a Bickell than a Stoner. Carolina got Teravainen for only one year of Bickell. Even if it was a slight overpayment, I think most people will agree that a 3rd and 7th are not going to move multiple years of Stoner. Not even close.

Here is the HERO chart comparing Stoner to Rozsival, a 7th D-man who signed a 600k contract this year.

http://public.tableau.com/shared/Q7YBHY8BN?:display_count=yes

Good luck moving him.

 

[Ciao]

You should read a little more carefully, I was speaking in past tense, it should be fairly obvious that Vatanen doesn't play on our bottom pairing anymore.

Anaheim is looking to move him because they have arguably the deepest group of quality NHL ready blueline talent in the league and need to reinvest some of that money into the forward group. There is obviously someone we would prefer to move in Bieksa, but he has a NMC. When you look at the rest of the group, common sense should tell you why Stoner would be the most available.

You're math is off there, bottom pairing veterans who actually bring something to the table make well north of $2M in free agency. Like I said he's 750k - 1M overpaid. It's not like I'm trying to say his value isn't negative, I was pointing out that he isn't useless like uninformed fans will make him out to be.

If he's an asset, why not just trade him for a comparably skilled forward without engineering a salary dump?

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Oilers would probably be interested in taking Stoner if Montour comes along with him.

What is Montour's expansion draft eligibility? If he has another strong season is he at risk of getting taken?

 

[mytduxfan*]

Ference who cost nothing to the Ducks plus a 3rd for Larsson and Stoner

Oilers would probably be interested in taking Stoner if Montour comes along with him.

What is Montour's expansion draft eligibility? If he has another strong season is he at risk of getting taken?

Yeah, not happening.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Bickell deal is the best comparable. Just because Stoner wasn't sent down doesn't mean he's an NHL quality player. All he is a roster spot and some physical presence. In free-agency, he's probably happy to sign a 900k 1-way deal. Anything over that is wasted cap space.

Its also much easier to hide a Bickell than a Stoner. Carolina got Teravainen for only one year of Bickell. Even if it was a slight overpayment, I think most people will agree that a 3rd and 7th are not going to move multiple years of Stoner. Not even close.

Here is the HERO chart comparing Stoner to Rozsival, a 7th D-man who signed a 600k contract this year.

http://public.tableau.com/shared/Q7YBHY8BN?:display_count=yes

Good luck moving him.

Did you seriously just compare Stoner to Rozsival? **** me, the way people use these hero charts is ****ing ridiculous.

Yeah buddy, all you need to compare players is a ****ing chart. Forget the fact that Rozsival is 6 years older, plays a completely style of game and is well passed the age you'd expect any NHL player to be.