Speculation: So ownership just didn't want to pay Mark Stone

[DaveMatthew]

Just a bunch of grossly misconstrued conjecture. "All these players left for their own individual reasons, but its not management's fault". If you are willing to deny a CLEAR trend, then whatever man.

Players don't want to sign here.
Coaches don't want to coach here.
Executives don't want to work here.

But there's no problem.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Ya, take a discount with no security passed the 5th year to be part of a cap floor team with more drama than a season of 90 day fiance. All in a location where you get taxed to death... Sounds appealing.

Seems to me that him just being willing to have Ottawa match Vegas' offer was a home town discount.

 

[5ive4Fighting]

Just a bunch of grossly misconstrued conjecture. "All these players left for their own individual reasons, but its not management's fault". If you are willing to deny a CLEAR trend, then whatever man.

What now? I have never suggested that management had no role in losing these players. What I object to is the idea that they had the only role, or that the offers and conditions here were so untenable that staying wasn't a real option. Staying WAS a real option. I think two things are clear: our management can't quite get it together, and market expectations have been skewed such that teams like ours are going to struggle in this environment unless and until something changes.

 

[5ive4Fighting]

Loyalty only goes so far and its a two way street. Sens have shown they have no loyalty. They want it but they don't give it. even Erik Karlsson got traded .. and he was the 8th day creation that would be a Senator for life. Ask Zack Smith about their loyalty. Ask Turris. Further as a pro hockey player I am at your mercy to build a team to win. When you do the exact opposite of that you affect me personally. Don't ask me to be loyal if you are a complete screw up that can't hold up your end.

I agree that Smith and Turris were both sucker punched. Dorion is half autistic as far as I can tell, and maybe thought the former was some kind of acceptable and reasonable motivator, when in reality it was gratuitous and without any degree of benefit that remotely approached the harm it likely caused in trust. But a currently struggling Turris and the uncertain health of EK are prime examples of the risk teams take on in long contracts. Offering eight years of anything reasonable is a statement of commitment and belief in an of itself, and it shouldn't be considered beyond the pale if teams try to mitigate or share some of that risk. Players don't have to value loyalty, and sometimes just flat out shouldn't. But when that happens, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say we're "driving away loyal players". We made some offers, some people left. That seems to me a better reflection of the facts.

 

[Larionov]

If you go back and read the stories about Stone in his last few weeks here, you'll note that the stories from Garrioch (management's pet reporter) were very carefully worded. They talked about making a "creative" offer to Stone - that's when you knew the goose was cooked. Why should a top shelf soon-to-be UFA sign a "creative" (code for "not full market value") deal? Apparently our definition of creative was five years at 10 mil or 10.5 mil a year - 50 to 55 million total value. Vegas gave him $76 million in total value, with the maximum allowed in bonuses and a full NMC.

Also cast your mind back to Melnyk's speech in Toronto in late January or so, when he said he was willing to spend to the cap...someday, but not today. That was your biggest hint, followed up by Ruszkowski openly speculating about a scenario where we don't re-sign Stone. The writing was on the wall for us in ten foot high letters - they had no intention of offering Stone the kind of gold-plated, full market value contract that Vegas did. (Oh, and be grateful that Vegas extended him - that's what gave us a stud like Brannstrom in return instead of a handful of magic beans.)

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

 

[Micklebot]

Why should a top shelf soon-to-be UFA sign a "creative" (code for "not full market value") deal? Apparently our definition of creative was five years at 10 mil or 10.5 mil a year - 50 to 55 million total value. Vegas gave him $76 million in total value, with the maximum allowed in bonuses and a full NMC.

By signing the Vegas deal, he's locked in until he's 35. Not many 35+ contracts have come in over 6 mil over the years, in fact, most guys never sign a 35+ contract.

By signing a 5 year deal for 55 mil, he just needs to recoup 21 mil over the remainder of his career, so that could be signing a 3 year deal for 7+ mil per and ending up in the same situation at age 35, or, because he'll just be 32 at the start of the deal and negotiating in his 31 year old season, he can try and do something like Burns and Vlasic did, and go for an 8 year retirement deal that brings him to 39-40. Even a 6 year deal probably nets him greater career earning because he'll likely be in a stronger position negotiating at 31 than at 34 when age is really starting to show.

Does he need to do it? No, but there are certainly advantages. His agent likely hates that idea though because it adds risk both on whether he'll be able to sign a good deal in the future, and whether he'll still be using the same agent.

 

[Cosmix]

I respect your opinion, but we will not get a chance to test out your theory. I think the market would be more likely to redefined by a player of Stone's quality hitting UFA.

Stone found a way to help himself and the Sens at the same time.

Stone helped Stone. He didn’t help the Senators; that was not his goal.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Stone helped Stone. He didn’t help the Senators; that was not his goal.

That may not have been his goal, but he most definitely did help the Senators. They would not have gotten a player like Brannstrom without the extension.

 

[Cosmix]

If you go back and read the stories about Stone in his last few weeks here, you'll note that the stories from Garrioch (management's pet reporter) were very carefully worded. They talked about making a "creative" offer to Stone - that's when you knew the goose was cooked. Why should a top shelf soon-to-be UFA sign a "creative" (code for "not full market value") deal? Apparently our definition of creative was five years at 10 mil or 10.5 mil a year - 50 to 55 million total value. Vegas gave him $76 million in total value, with the maximum allowed in bonuses and a full NMC.

Also cast your mind back to Melnyk's speech in Toronto in late January or so, when he said he was willing to spend to the cap...someday, but not today. That was your biggest hint, followed up by Ruszkowski openly speculating about a scenario where we don't re-sign Stone. The writing was on the wall for us in ten foot high letters - they had no intention of offering Stone the kind of gold-plated, full market value contract that Vegas did. (Oh, and be grateful that Vegas extended him - that's what gave us a stud like Brannstrom in return instead of a handful of magic beans.)

Everything you said was just great until you said “stud”. Brannstrom is a very good prospect but under-sized so that makes his value risky and not stud-like in my view.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

For the life of me I don't know why people write long paragraphs trying to convince the contrarians that it isn't the players' fault that we lost them all.

If they're still on Melnyk/Dorion's side after all that's occurred lately, they probably will never.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

For the life of me I don't know why people write long paragraphs trying to convince the contrarians that it isn't the players' fault that we lost them all.

If they're still on Melnyk/Dorion's side after all that's occurred lately, they probably will never.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

 

[The Lewler]

For the life of me I don't know why people write long paragraphs trying to convince the contrarians that it isn't the players' fault that we lost them all.

If they're still on Melnyk/Dorion's side after all that's occurred lately, they probably will never.

Pretty much.

Its clear literally nothing could change their mind. No evidence you can provide will be sufficient.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Pretty much.

Its clear literally nothing could change their mind. No evidence you can provide will be sufficient.

We should close the thread.

 

[bert]

That may not have been his goal, but he most definitely did help the Senators. They would not have gotten a player like Brannstrom without the extension.

Exactly, how people cant understand this ill never know.

Time to go full boycott people. The lies will never end until there is change, I didnt blame Stone for wanting to leave but the fact that he wanted to stay and they still refused to pay him. Then we get fed the B.S from the media that he didnt want to go through the rebuild. Its insulting. There is no point any longer. Chabot will be next followed by Tkachuk.

If we dont boycott and force a sale now this will go the way of the Expos where we get to the point where the market doesnt look viable.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Exactly, how people cant understand this ill never know.

Time to go full boycott people. The lies will never end until there is change, I didnt blame Stone for wanting to leave but the fact that he wanted to stay and they still refused to pay him. Then we get fed the B.S from the media that he didnt want to go through the rebuild. Its insulting. There is no point any longer. Chabot will be next followed by Tkachuk.

If we dont boycott and force a sale now this will go the way of the Expos where we get to the point where the market doesnt look viable.

With you 100%. I don't care how long it takes, either he will leave or I will leave. I will stop following the Senators before I ever financially support a Melnyk owned one again. I just can't escape the feeling that it's letting these assholes win by turning the page and being anything but negative about the team.

 

[Sensung]

With you 100%. I don't care how long it takes, either he will leave or I will leave. I will stop following the Senators before I ever financially support a Melnyk owned one again. I just can't escape the feeling that it's letting these *******s win by turning the page and being anything but negative about the team.

Yup.

Time to redouble the efforts to force this clown out.

 

[aligator]

Exactly, how people cant understand this ill never know.

Time to go full boycott people. The lies will never end until there is change, I didnt blame Stone for wanting to leave but the fact that he wanted to stay and they still refused to pay him. Then we get fed the B.S from the media that he didnt want to go through the rebuild. Its insulting. There is no point any longer. Chabot will be next followed by Tkachuk.

If we dont boycott and force a sale now this will go the way of the Expos where we get to the point where the market doesnt look viable.

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

Nah.

 

[Sensung]

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

1) The NHL has to approve relocation.

2) The NHL and Lebreton development have a viable alternative ownership/developers at the stand by. If Melnyk is allowed to move, a new franchise is ready to be launched.

3) Going to games rewards Melnyk's incompetence. No Sens fan should support this toxic POS.

 

[aragorn]

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

I think so too. I think this owner is so damn stubborn & full of himself that he will try to relocate before he ever sells.

 

[Smash88]

I think so too. I think this owner is so damn stubborn & full of himself that he will try to relocate before he ever sells.

The problem with that, is he needs the NHL to approve it.

I don't think the NHL would have a problem necessarily with the Sens moving. But they will never allow it to be Melnyk to do it.

They would definitely force a sale and see if new owners can make it work. Ottawa has proved in the past to be a viable city. It wouldn't make any sense to move the team with Melnyk as owner.

 

[BatherSeason]

How has this topic managed to skate by the local media yet again??

Its unbelievable how the Ottawa Senators organization has been able to manipulate the message through the media, by providing information basically to only 3 outlets, Garrioch, Dean Borwn, Gord Wilson, and these guys, to different degrees, deliver the team's propaganda message and defined it until they are blue in the face basically by insulting everyone and anyone who questions what they know. The fact that the whole media being blackballed hasn't become a story is fascinating to me.

 

[coladin]

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

I believe it is now viable as it is now. He cut costs, equalization payments are probably now the highest in the league, and we will be a feeder team for the NHL. Even overseas leagues.

If he sells, that changes and we will still be a bottom third of the league payroll team, but everyone will be much happier and more positive.

 

[bert]

It hasn't been viable for some time. People need to start going to games. A boycot will only bring on relocation.

Absolutely incorrect try again.