Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
If he breaks out, he's likely headed to arbitration.I think Bennett can be signed to a one year bridge like Karlsson if he breaks out.
If he breaks out, he's likely headed to arbitration.I think Bennett can be signed to a one year bridge like Karlsson if he breaks out.
How much flexibility do we need to go long term with Hanifin? That’s why we bought out Brouwer. We’re good there.
Where would that 3.5 be used? A top 6RW? No we have two of those now. A backup goalie? Not for 3.5. Are we looking to upgrade D? No probably not.
There isn’t a single hole we need to fill that is more valuable than a #5D who can play up.
Stone's NTC is a 15 team no-trade list. He's not untradeable, even though I doubt he'd be traded.
Stone can play the left side and is a clear upgrade on Kulak. So why not just play him with Andersson and make Kulak the #7? We keep our top 4 insurance policy in Stone and we (most likely) upgrade our bottom pair, while significantly upgrading our depth defenseman from Bart to KulakI think we should move on from Stone.
I think he’s a solid player but I don’t see a drop off in Andersson and we could use the space to get both Hanifin and Tkachuk on long term deals and not end up in a corner trying to find space for a Goalie next year.
A team like Buffalo could absolutely use a guy like Stone to solidify their 2nd/3rd pair. Their blue line depth is awful and with the Skinner trade they are clearly sending a message to be competitive.
If we could get something good for Frolik I’d consider that too. But I think he would be an awesome guy to have in the bottom 6.
He's not a clear upgrade on Kulak, because Stone is terrible. Both he and Kulak are flawed (hence being on the bottom pairing) but I'll take Kulak's flaws over Stone's uncanny ability to separate man from puck and then forget he's supposed to retrieve the puck any day. He seems to be yet another dman who gets way more credit than he deserves because he's got a couple of traditional dman tools (hard shot, physical player).Stone can play the left side and is a clear upgrade on Kulak. So why not just play him with Andersson and make Kulak the #7? We keep our top 4 insurance policy in Stone and we (most likely) upgrade our bottom pair, while significantly upgrading our depth defenseman from Bart to Kulak
He very easily a clear upgrade. He plays better in a top 4 role than Kulak does in sheltered 3rd pairing minutes. He's proved this, I don't know what you are watching when Stone is on the ice, but if you think he's not a clear upgrade, it's not the game.He's not a clear upgrade on Kulak, because Stone is terrible. Both he and Kulak are flawed (hence being on the bottom pairing) but I'll take Kulak's flaws over Stone's uncanny ability to separate man from puck and then forget he's supposed to retrieve the puck any day. He seems to be yet another dman who gets way more credit than he deserves because he's got a couple of traditional dman tools (hard shot, physical player).
He seems to be yet another dman who gets way more credit than he deserves because he's got a couple of traditional dman tools (hard shot, physical player).
Stone can play the left side and is a clear upgrade on Kulak. So why not just play him with Andersson and make Kulak the #7? We keep our top 4 insurance policy in Stone and we (most likely) upgrade our bottom pair, while significantly upgrading our depth defenseman from Bart to Kulak
You can rattle on all you want. STONE IS GOING NOWHERE AND WILL PLAY NIGHTLY. He's the insurance policy for our top 4, it's pretty easy to understand.Did you read my post?
A) Kulak is cheaper- cap space for Tkachuk and Hanifin
B) Kulak was a rookie- as crazy as this sounds, I think he will improve with experience.
C) I don’t see Stone as a big upgrade over Kulak. Certainly not 3 or 4 times the player Kulak is
D) Comparing Kulak and Bartkowski is a joke. One can make a pass/one can’t. That’s kind of important in he modern game.
Honestly Kulak was pretty outstanding possession wise last year and his offence game really started to show in the last 15 games. But you’ve always criticized Kulak (ie last year when you said he’s at best a second pair AHL defencemen) so I don’t expect any less
Again, we have enough cap space to lock Hanifin up. Tkachuk’s new deal won’t kick in until next year, regardless of when he signs.Did you read my post?
A) Kulak is cheaper- cap space for Tkachuk and Hanifin
B) Kulak was a rookie- as crazy as this sounds, I think he will improve with experience.
C) I don’t see Stone as a big upgrade over Kulak. Certainly not 3 or 4 times the player Kulak is
D) Comparing Kulak and Bartkowski is a joke. One can make a pass/one can’t. That’s kind of important in he modern game.
Honestly Kulak was pretty outstanding possession wise last year and his offence game really started to show in the last 15 games. But you’ve always criticized Kulak (ie last year when you said he’s at best a second pair AHL defencemen) so I don’t expect any less
Again, we have enough cap space to lock Hanifin up. Tkachuk’s new deal won’t kick in until next year, regardless of when he signs.
You always play up cap issues when there are none, or they are easily solved. Frolik or Stone (or both) will be moveable when we need the space.
Also, nobody compared Bartkowski to Kulak. That’s just you grasping at straws.
I agree, they're both overrated by different groups of people, for opposite reasons. Stone has a handful of oldschool skills that make people think he's better than he is (physicality and shot), and Kulak has a handful of newschool skills that make people think he's better than he is (skating and passing). They're both bottom rotation guys, neither of whom should be in the top 4 of a competitive team. If you could combine them both into one guy you'd have a reasonably complete 2nd pairing dman, though.It’s funny because I would say the same/opposite about Kulak, he seems to be overrated because he doesn’t have the traditional demand tooks so people see him as the “modern” NHL defense man.
The problem is he doesn’t have skills to replace the traditional tools so just having a lack of physical play (or ability to play defense) or a good shot does not make you good or “modern.”
Stone may not do everything great but at least he does some things very well Kulak does nothing good and is overall pretty useless.
My rebuttal is this statement, swapping "he's not a clear upgrade" with "he's a clear upgrade."I don't know what you are watching when Stone is on the ice, but if you think he's not a clear upgrade, it's not the game.
Not to mention he'll most likely be a regular on at least one of the PP units for his shot, said talent being wasted under the previous administration.You can rattle on all you want. STONE IS GOING NOWHERE AND WILL PLAY NIGHTLY. He's the insurance policy for our top 4, it's pretty easy to understand.
This could be the most I’ve laughed in awhile, thanks.When have I ever said we’ve had cap space problems?
Do I say we are stupid in FA? Yes. Every year. But there is a huge difference.
Next year, as it stands, we are in cap trouble. For me, it’s better to take a preemptive strike, rather than be in a position like Boston was a few years ago when they had to deal Hamilton/Seguin.
And, while it is a worse case scenario, I like to plan for the worst. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. And to me, our top priorities should be A) Hanifin deal B) Tkachuk deal C) goalie plan
Those are all higher priorities than a 3rd pairing guy who provides depth, when, IMO, we have that depth in a prpspect who is actually better than the veteran you, and a few others, are so set on keeping. But to each their own.