Confirmed with Link: Mark Stuart signs extension: 4-years, 10.5 million (2.625 per season)

[pucka lucka]

Not a pander, so much as avoiding that talking point so I could rif on others.

I really was joking. I understand why.

 

[garret9]

My thoughts on the STUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!! extension here:

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014...tract-extension-and-the-long-term-depth-chart

Everyone stop scaring me about that #4 hole not getting filled!

 

[pucka lucka]

Everyone stop scaring me about that #4 hole not getting filled!

We are going to platoon Stu, Pardy & Clitsome there next year obviously.

 

[wpgsilver]

Seems like a lot of sky is falling about a relatively small signing.

I think people are spending too much effort inferring things. I don't think this in anyway means we're not looking for a top 4 LHD. I'm leaning more towards there being questions about Clitsome next year.
As far as the internal cap, Chevy has a far better gauge on that than we do and I don't believe for a second he'd put us in danger of exceeding it with this contract. Perhaps our conception of what our cap is is lower than the reality.

Just seems like people are too worked up over a bottom pairing guy. And I am a noted Stu skeptic.

 

[pucka lucka]

Seems like a lot of sky is falling about a relatively small signing.

I think people are spending too much effort inferring things. I don't think this in anyway means we're not looking for a top 4 LHD. I'm leaning more towards there being questions about Clitsome next year.
As far as the internal cap, Chevy has a far better gauge on that than we do and I don't believe for a second he'd put us in danger of exceeding it with this contract. Perhaps our conception of what our cap is is lower than the reality.

Just seems like people are too worked up over a bottom pairing guy. And I am a noted Stu skeptic.

I think misinterpreting analysis for emotion. Analytical nerds like me, like to analyze things.

 

[Huffer]

I think people are looking the in the wrong place for the leaders. The leaders are not any of the players. They are peers. What can they really do to create wins? The leadership problems are team management. There is some small impact that comes from good co-workers, but they are mostly powerless to affect change.

I agree with what you are saying about needing more change to come from management.

My own belief and personal experience is that there is value in player (peer) leadership, and that it can effect change and performance. YMMV.

 

[wpgsilver]

I think misinterpreting analysis for emotion. Analytical nerds like me, like to analyze things.

Right I get that.
But Garret who is my go to guy for analytics I believe has Stu pegged at a 5-6 guy.
Which is what I believe he'll be utilized as. And I think his compensation is reasonable for that role.

A year too long tho for the deal.

 

[pucka lucka]

Right I get that.
But Garret who is my go to guy for analytics I believe has Stu pegged at a 5-6 guy.
Which is what I believe he'll be utilized as. And I think his compensation is reasonable for that role.

A year too long tho for the deal.

I don't think the deal in isolation is the problem. It's the deal in the context of how our management has operated so far. We've got almost $5m/y tied up in Stu and Clitsome. As we can see by the Pavelec issue, they aren't quick to correct mistakes. We know whey aren't going to spend much more than they are now. That's why this deal is a little concerning.

 

[truck]

I really was joking. I understand why.

I know.

 

[wpgsilver]

I don't think the deal in isolation is the problem. It's the deal in the context of how our management has operated so far. We've got almost $5m/y tied up in Stu and Clitsome. As we can see by the Pavelec issue, they aren't quick to correct mistakes. We know whey aren't going to spend much more than they are now. That's why this deal is a little concerning.

I believe TNSE has questions about Clittys availability and serviceability for next year.
I could also see a situation where our D shaped up like so:

Toby-Bogo
XXX*-Trouba
Stu-Clitsome

* I think the LHD spot will be filled by moving Buff.

I realize that it's not ideal to have to lefties playing together but I can see Clitsome and Stu being our third pairing.

 

[pucka lucka]

I believe TNSE has questions about Clittys availability and serviceability for next year.
I could also see a situation where our D shaped up like so:

Toby-Bogo
XXX*-Trouba
Stu-Clitsome

* I think the LHD spot will be filled by moving Buff.

I realize that it's not ideal to have to lefties playing together but I can see Clitsome and Stu being our third pairing.

I see you are left with what ifs and maybes. I think you may have got on the right train wrongly.

 

[wpgsilver]

I see you are left with what ifs and maybes. I think you may have got on the right train wrongly.

Well I think everyone outside Chevys office are dealing with "ifs" and "maybes".
Any unequivocal prediction on here I'll dismiss out of hand.
The fact is we don't know more than we do know.

We know going into this year Stu was penciled in as a bottom pairing guy. I don't think Chevy believes he's now a top 4 guy.
Perhaps they think Clitsome is a top four player, perhaps not.

 

[pucka lucka]

Well I think everyone outside Chevys office are dealing with "ifs" and "maybes".
Any unequivocal prediction on here I'll dismiss out of hand.
The fact is we don't know more than we do know.

We know going into this year Stu was penciled in as a bottom pairing guy. I don't think Chevy believes he's now a top 4 guy.
Perhaps they think Clitsome is a top four player, perhaps not.

The issue I am pointing out is that it's hard to decipher what they are actually trying to do.

 

[wpgsilver]

The issue I am pointing out is that it's hard to decipher what they are actually trying to do.

Sure, we agree on that.
Perhaps this doesn't apply to you, but my point is the lack of an apparent plan, does not mean there is no plan.

 

[pucka lucka]

Sure, we agree on that.
Perhaps this doesn't apply to you, but my point is the lack of an apparent plan, does not mean there is no plan.

But it might! Of course they have a plan, I just hope it's not one that says, we want to make money so we are going to be incredibly financially conservative as rule #1. So far it feels somewhat like that. I'll give them another couple of years before I start calling in radio shows.

 

[surixon]

I don't think the deal in isolation is the problem. It's the deal in the context of how our management has operated so far. We've got almost $5m/y tied up in Stu and Clitsome. As we can see by the Pavelec issue, they aren't quick to correct mistakes. We know whey aren't going to spend much more than they are now. That's why this deal is a little concerning.

Well Oli and Seto come off the cap which is 7.5 million right there. Plus the Canadian TV deal kicks in next year which likely puts another couple of million in play. I think there is will be cash available to fill some holes.

I also personally see Buff dealt for likely younger cheaper players. For instance a Buff Schenn deal likely saves us 2 million.

I personally don't see spending being an issue this summer.

 

[wpgsilver]

But it might! Of course they have a plan, I just hope it's not one that says, we want to make money so we are going to be incredibly financially conservative as rule #1. So far it feels somewhat like that. I'll give them another couple of years before I start calling in radio shows.

So on one hand they overpay, on the other hand you are worried they'll be incredibly financially conservative?

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not as concerned about the teams willingness to spend money.
They've said they have a budget, as every team should. But at every turn they've spent the money when necessary.

 

[pucka lucka]

So on one hand they overpay, on the other hand you are worried they'll be incredibly financially conservative?

I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm not as concerned about the teams willingness to spend money.
They've said they have a budget, as every team should. But at every turn they've spent the money when necessary.

I think you are mixing up some things there. I am sure I've already covered the issues with Stuarts slight overpayment relative to bigger picture.

 

[Grumpz]

So you just decided to completely forget about every other positive aspects Phaneuf can bring to your game?

No, I'm implying every other aspect is a wash. Phaneuf is drastically over-rated @ 7 million.

Stu at a 3rd of the cost in comparison, offers so much more bang for the buck, it's not even a discussion.

 

[Jet]

At the end of the day, Stu is a Jet and he wants to be here. I will cheer for him, and hope he is utilized properly and can give us fair value for his contract.

I still think it was a mistake by the org but nothing we can do about it now.

 

[truck]

Right I get that.
But Garret who is my go to guy for analytics I believe has Stu pegged at a 5-6 guy.
Which is what I believe he'll be utilized as. And I think his compensation is reasonable for that role.

A year too long tho for the deal.

I'd lean towards $800,000 and two years too much. Which adds up to $6.8MM worth of grit, heart and leadership.

Not a big deal if there was the only such move, but I don't really understand giving bottom end players term.

Two years for Postma, Tangradi and Peluso.
Three years for Clitsome and Slater.
Four years for Stu and Pavelec.

Personally, not feeling any of those deals. All are of these players are upgradable. The thought of losing out on an upgrade because of a preexisting meh would make me sad.

...but that is just me.