Mark Stone signs for $7.35 for 1 year

[milkbag]

So at this point, we are an AHL team for the league. We develop star players and when they hit their prime, we trade them for nothing or lose them for nothing.

At what point does the league step in? This jackass is doing irreversible damage to the franchise.

its been said a few times, but the league won't step in until cheques start bouncing. whether we like it or not, melnyk can run this gongshow however he pleases, including gunning it into a nosedive to hit the capfloor. welcome to hell lol.

 

[Upgrayedd]

If he was willing to sign a long term deal here it would be done, seeing as they obviously worked all summer to get one done and settled on a 1 year delivery to UFA to avoid arbitration on the last possible day, as sad as it is to say.

The inevitable trickle down effect starting to take a prominent hold

Not that I didn't assume it before but Stone's actions only strengthen my belief that he is a very very smart player and person, who in their right mind would sign long term under the current ownership?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

What if the team isn't allowed to sign him long term this summer because an incoming ownership group wants the goodwill associated with signing EK, Stone and Duchene?

The timeline doesn't make sense... last possible day , settle for a 1 year vs arbitration.. unless they were really low balling him,, again though the 7.35 for his last RFA year isn't a home town discount.. It tells me he did not want to sign long term for anything the Sens were offering. If the 1 year on the Sens part was part of some new investor scheme .... why wait until the last possible day... Nothing makes sense here. I don't buy the scenario that they needed to keep long term commitments down to somehow benefit a sale or new investors ... that makes no sense either. The most rational answer to me is ineptitude on the part of this Owner/Manager and the general lack of commitment to a winning direction , thereby providing no incentive for good players to sign long term and even for players like Anderson to ask to be traded one year after signing. "The Plan" if there is one and its being shared with the players isn't going over very well. IMO this team has been sunk by by an owner that can't stay out of the hockey ops and an inexperienced GM who is over his head with no help. The lack of change in the coaching can also be a factor here.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

They just didn't want to go through the hearing where you have to say nasty things about the other party.

Full stop.

 

[BondraTime]

They just didn't want to go through the hearing where you have to say nasty things about the other party.

Full stop.

Because they couldn't get Stone to agree on a long term deal before hand.

Full Stop

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Because they couldn't get Stone to agree on a long term deal before hand.

Full Stop

Yes but that doesn't mean the relationship isn't unsalvageable.

If it was Stone would have gone ahead with the hearing. That's my read on that.

I'm not saying this is awesome, I'm saying this doesn't necessarily mean Stone is as good as gone.

If we have a good season, I bet you everyone stays.

 

[Sensung]

Because they couldn't get Stone to agree on a long term deal before hand.

Full Stop

Or because they didn't have the authority to negotiate a long term deal.

 

[BondraTime]

Or because they didn't have the authority to negotiate a long term deal.

Yes, we know your stance on everything Sens related

 

[Sensung]

Yes, we know your stance on everything Sens related

Sorry you don't want to consider other possibilities on a Sens discussion board.

 

[BondraTime]

Yes but that doesn't mean the relationship isn't unsalvageable.

If it was Stone would have gone ahead with the hearing. That's my read on that.

I'm not saying this is awesome, I'm saying this doesn't necessarily mean Stone is as good as gone.

If we have a good season, I bet you everyone stays.

That's not a wager I would make all things considered when it means leaving 3 guys with UFA status and looking at the state of the team. Banking on a good season to convince guys to stay isn't exactly playing with house money, we are basically betting our mortgage with 1/20 odds.

I'm sure there are things going on behind the scenes we don't know about, but in no way is signing a guy to a 1 year deal straight to UFA smart in any way shape or form, or a sign of positive things.

 

[BondraTime]

Sorry you don't want to consider other possibilities on a Sens discussion board.

I do consider it, but it's not my answer to everything that isn't positive like yourself.

 

[Sensung]

I do consider it, but it's not my answer to everything that isn't positive like yourself.

I don't consider it a positive that Stone signed a one year deal, but I do think it could be viewed as neutral and fits with the scenario where things are on hold in Sens land due to on-going negotiations.

The body language in this interview is very interesting and not in a positive way.
https://www.tsn.ca/senators-stone-keeping-his-focus-on-this-season-1.1154300

 

[BondraTime]

I don't consider it a positive that Stone signed a one year deal, but I do think it could be viewed as neutral and fits with the scenario where things are on hold in Sens land due to on-going negotiations.

Sure, and that's more than fair.

I look at it as, "why sign right now mid-season (he is gone 100% by the deadline if not already signed, we basically have 1.5 months to sign him from Jan 1st to deadline) with this team in a terrible position when I can negotiate with every team in the league, in much better positions and situations for both the team and myself?

He doesn't have a wife from Ottawa, he wasn't just traded here and raised close by, he just signed a deal bringing him directly to UFA when the team was very obviously hoping to ink him long term, he just has himself and his hockey to look out for, and realistically hitting UFA is the best thing for him to do. All signs point to one thing, hopefully news comes out that changes that.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

That's not a wager I would make all things considered when it means leaving 3 guys with UFA status and looking at the state of the team. Banking on a good season to convince guys to stay isn't exactly playing with house money, we are basically betting our mortgage with 1/20 odds.

I'm sure there are things going on behind the scenes we don't know about, but in no way is signing a guy to a 1 year deal straight to UFA smart in any way shape or form, or a sign of positive things.

More than fair.

I just disagree that because Stone signed a 1 year deal, it's over and he's as good as gone. I think all it means is that both parties agreed that they didn't want to go through the hearing and that they will revisit this at a later date.

If Stone wanted out ASAP he wouldn't have signed the deal.

As far as next season goes, I'm not as down on the team as most but none of us having anything more than an hunch about that so no real point in arguing on that front.

 

[Sensung]

More than fair.

I just disagree that because Stone signed a 1 year deal, it's over and he's as good as gone. I think all it means is that both parties agreed that they didn't want to go through the hearing and that they will revisit this at a later date.

If Stone wanted out ASAP he wouldn't have signed the deal.

Good take. If Stone wanted out ASAP he could simply demand a trade.

How many times have we heard that EK is as good as gone, only to find him still here?

I'm stubborn and won't give in until there is no hope left.

 

[BondraTime]

More than fair.

I just disagree that because Stone signed a 1 year deal, it's over and he's as good as gone. I think all it means is that both parties agreed that they didn't want to go through the hearing and that they will revisit this at a later date.

If Stone wanted out ASAP he wouldn't have signed the deal.

Signing the deal 5 mins before the arbitration tells a different story, both lead to the same scenario. A 1 year deal that leads to free agency. This path didn't involve an unnecessary arbitration meeting.

If the Sens weren't trying to convince him to a long term deal with no success they wouldn't have waited until the literal bitter end to sign him to a 1 year deal. If they were happy with signing him to a 1 year deal they wouldn't have waited until 5 minutes remaining until the arbitration hearing, they would have offered it in July.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Signing the deal 5 mins before the arbitration tells a different story, both lead to the same scenario. A 1 year deal that leads to free agency.

If the Sens weren't trying to convince him to a long term deal with no success they wouldn't have waited until the literal bitter end to sign him to a 1 way deal.

If both lead to the same scenario, why did Stone chose to sign?

I think it's because he wants to stay but not if things don't change and his signing is a show of faith.

 

[BondraTime]

If both lead to the same scenario, why did Stone chose to sign?

I think it's because he wants to stay but not if things don't change.

Because signing a 1 year 7.35 deal offered by the team ends up in the exact same situation as going through a day long meeting flinging shit at each other and getting the same/similar 1 year deal that Ottawa would not walk away from? It was a player elected arbitration case, not a team one, no chance Ottawa let's Stone walk for free, so either way he's signed to a 1 year deal. Just look at what Ceci thought of his arbitration hearing, Stone was able to escape that while getting the same result.

He was an RFA, his arbitration case that he elected for could only result in a 1 year deal. That's what was on the table had he gone through with the hearing.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

More than fair.

I just disagree that because Stone signed a 1 year deal, it's over and he's as good as gone. I think all it means is that both parties agreed that they didn't want to go through the hearing and that they will revisit this at a later date.

If Stone wanted out ASAP he wouldn't have signed the deal.

As far as next season goes, I'm not as down on the team as most but none of us having anything more than an hunch about that so no real point in arguing on that front.

He would have a one yr deal .. one way or another going thru arbitration. Arbitration can be nasty but it doesn't have to be .. there are NHL players to compare stone to and find a path that way without being overly critical

 

[Do Make Say Think]

He would have a one yr deal .. one way or another going thru arbitration. Arbitration can be nasty but it doesn't have to be .. there are NHL players to compare stone to and find a path that way without being overly critical

All I wanted to say is that I disagree with the assessment that the one-year deal means he's as good as gone.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I don't consider it a positive that Stone signed a one year deal, but I do think it could be viewed as neutral and fits with the scenario where things are on hold in Sens land due to on-going negotiations.

The body language in this interview is very interesting and not in a positive way.
https://www.tsn.ca/senators-stone-keeping-his-focus-on-this-season-1.1154300

His interview seems to imply there was quite at least some back and forth going on over the summer . I doubt it was a charade. Its a win for Stone. Close to what he could expect going thru arbitration without having to do it.. no long term commitment... Free at the end of the year. IMO he was fed up talking about contract .. he's ready to play and next year is next year. He certainly sees the need for change after last year .. and we are improved right?

 

[Boud]

This is most definitely a bad situation for Ottawa.

The only thing I do not understand at this point is if Stone made it clear that he didn't want to sign anything more than a 1 year deal then why did Dorion not trade him when he was still a RFA? That's a lot more valuable for a team looking to acquire him since they would've had more time to negotiate a potential long term deal and in return that would also give Ottawa a better return in a trade scenario. Now you have a player that you know is going to free agency, that will reduce his value in a trade unless he's willing to negotiate a deal with another team. Then again I guess that if Stone didn't want to commit to a long term deal with another team it ends up being the same as if he'd be a UFA.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

This is most definitely a bad situation for Ottawa.

The only thing I do not understand at this point is if Stone made it clear that he didn't want to sign anything more than a 1 year deal then why did Dorion not trade him when he was still a RFA? That's a lot more valuable for a team looking to acquire him since they would've had more time to negotiate a potential long term deal and in return that would also give Ottawa a better return in a trade scenario. Now you have a player that you know is going to free agency, that will reduce his value in a trade unless he's willing to negotiate a deal with another team. Then again I guess that if Stone didn't want to commit to a long term deal with another team it ends up being the same as if he'd be a UFA.

IMO both parties negotiated in good faith. Dorion likely believed he'd hammer out a deal closer to what they wanted to pay , and Stone wanted more .. the 1 year was a way to settle for now.. Its possible that something will be worked out later but ... its a risk for Dorion to be forced to trade him or lose him. Both sides worked hard to get a deal done.. so I doubt if it was all about 1 year. It would not surprise me if a big stumbling block was signing bonuses to protect against an interruption by way of lockout

 

[aragorn]

Just a thought, if the team is sold what makes people think that the new ownership will be overly liberal with their budgets & player salaries as people seem to think? Or what if they become as frugal as the present ownership is until they get a good handle on what it costs to run an NHL franchise, farm team & arena. IMO they would have to be richer than EM is, who it is argued was & may still be a billionaire. Is that why he is attempting to reach the cap floor & has most of his best players needing a contract by the end of next season.

Do we expect this new ownership group to buy the franchise, build a new arena & sign the best players on the team to hefty long term contracts for millions more than they have earned to date, all at the same time? I wonder what that would all cost & whether they could afford all that & more?

 

[Boud]

Just a thought, if the team is sold what makes people think that the new ownership will be overly liberal with their budgets & player salaries as people seem to think? Or what if they become as frugal as the present ownership is until they get a good handle on what it costs to run an NHL franchise, farm team & arena. IMO they would have to be richer than EM is, who it is argued was & may still be a billionaire. Is that why he is attempting to reach the cap floor & has most of his best players needing a contract by the end of next season.

Do we expect this new ownership group to buy the franchise, build a new arena & sign the best players on the team to hefty long term contracts for millions more than they have earned to date, all at the same time? I wonder what that would all cost & whether they could afford all that & more?

Well the arena part is an investment and doesn't include only an arena. It includes several other opportunities to build other attractions/condos that would generate significant revenue. IMO this is a dream scenario for any investor. What other city offers to completely remodel part of it's core area? I think any investor who has the money to make it happen would jump on this right away.

Now for the costs to own a team and etc a lot could be done as of today to generate more revenue and that starts with the on ice product like style of play for example, more marketing (or just in general any marketing), a better management group and etc. People are simply tired of this crap. A breath of fresh air would do wonders for this team.