Player Discussion What Sens player is/was not missed enough?

[insomniac]

The correct answer is Andy Sutton. I’m an expert.

 

[JD1]

So, first, the way you framed the question, it didn't seem to me to be asking how could we sign him, rather how could we rebuild if we he could have signed. So i answer what i thought you were getting at.

To answer how we could have signed him, thats pretty straight forward, we were able to sign that 1 year deal or any other we could come to terms on a full year earlier then when we eventually did mins prior to arbitration. We could sign him right after our big run on jul 1st 2017. He was clearly a core piece of the future at that time, that was the time to bet on him imo and i would have said as much back then.

In the end, he could always have said no, just as you suggest he would have in 2018, nobody is suggesting otherwise, but its just guesswork. He clearly had strong feelings about Ottawa, i think we could have gotten things done as things were looking really positive at that time (2017) but there is no way to know for sure.

Ok, i didn't word the question well. Stone's now said a few times that his heart wasn't in to a rebuild which was the context of the question. If we're rebuilding he's not signing. If you wind it back to the summer of 17, before the shit really started to fly, ok. But that's a little hindsight don't you think? Why would the team do that at that time? Why would he sign at that time?

Re things looking positive summer of 17. Do you think so? Guys in here were pounding the table about shot metrics. About unsustainable goaltending. About a red sea level parting of good luck that gave us an unprecedented easy path to the ECF. Just before Christmas someone on this board absolutely teed off on me for challenging his assertion that the goaltending was unsustainable

Were we close? I thought so at that time. Or were we once in a lifetime lucky.

 

[Micklebot]

Ok, i didn't word the question well. Stone's now said a few times that his heart wasn't in to a rebuild which was the context of the question. If we're rebuilding he's not signing. If you wind it back to the summer of 17, before the shit really started to fly, ok. But that's a little hindsight don't you think? Why would the team do that at that time? Why would he sign at that time?

Re things looking positive summer of 17. Do you think so? Guys in here were pounding the table about shot metrics. About unsustainable goaltending. About a red sea level parting of good luck that gave us an unprecedented easy path to the ECF. Just before Christmas someone on this board absolutely teed off on me for challenging his assertion that the goaltending was unsustainable

Were we close? I thought so at that time. Or were we once in a lifetime lucky.

Back in 2017, things were looking positive. Things were moving in the right direction, yes people still saw issues and correctly pointed out that the run was not to be seen as the norm for this team, but nobody was saying the team needed to tear down and rebuild, they were sating we needed to add to build on what we had.

And no, it's not hindsight, star core players like Stone back then and Chabot more recently should be signed before the last minute. There was very little reason to hold off on signing him but instead we decided to re-sign an aging goaltender a year before he came due. We did it bacwards and were rightly criticized for it. We should have signed the core piece of the future at the first possible opportunity and instead we extended the 36 year old goalie.

Maybe we didn't sign Stone back then because he refused, that's a possibility, no way of knowing, but that was the time to push to sign him both using forsight back then and hindsight now.

 

[JD1]

Back in 2017, things were looking positive. Things were moving in the right direction, yes people still saw issues and correctly pointed out that the run was not to be seen as the norm for this team, but nobody was saying the team needed to tear down and rebuild, they were sating we needed to add to build on what we had.

And no, it's not hindsight, star core players like Stone back then and Chabot more recently should be signed before the last minute. There was very little reason to hold off on signing him but instead we decided to re-sign an aging goaltender a year before he came due. We did it bacwards and were rightly criticized for it. We should have signed the core piece of the future at the first possible opportunity and instead we extended the 36 year old goalie.

Maybe we didn't sign Stone back then because he refused, that's a possibility, no way of knowing, but that was the time to push to sign him both using forsight back then and hindsight now.

You won't get any debate from me on the Anderson signing. I've never been a big Anderson fan.

So what would you have tried to do with Stone in the summer of 17? Go long term with him? He hadn't at that point had a stellar playoff record. It's just an unusual situation. Certainly in 17 had we signed him to a 6 or 7 year deal at that time, the deal would be very team friendly right now. You look at a deal like Marchand signed at 6.125 aav. I think at that point in time Marchand had the better track record. Using that deal as a benchmark, would Stone have signed long term at say 5.75? It would have been an epic steal for sure. I just don't think it's that easy to look back and identify the most preferential point in time to have signed a player and then critize when it didn't happen that way. Athletes have highly paid agents whose job it is to advise the player on the most beneficial player situation. If i was the agent, chances are good I'd of advised my client to wait and bet on myself. Bet on the cap going up. Bet on improving the playoff track record getting better. Stone was our 7th highest scoring forward in that run. As an agent would you advise your client that now is the best time to sign? I just don't think that there is a clear cut answer here. Would it have been ideal? Absolutely yes. Was it achievable? Personally I doubt it

 

[Micklebot]

You won't get any debate from me on the Anderson signing. I've never been a big Anderson fan.

So what would you have tried to do with Stone in the summer of 17? Go long term with him? He hadn't at that point had a stellar playoff record. It's just an unusual situation. Certainly in 17 had we signed him to a 6 or 7 year deal at that time, the deal would be very team friendly right now. You look at a deal like Marchand signed at 6.125 aav. I think at that point in time Marchand had the better track record. Using that deal as a benchmark, would Stone have signed long term at say 5.75? It would have been an epic steal for sure. I just don't think it's that easy to look back and identify the most preferential point in time to have signed a player and then critize when it didn't happen that way. Athletes have highly paid agents whose job it is to advise the player on the most beneficial player situation. If i was the agent, chances are good I'd of advised my client to wait and bet on myself. Bet on the cap going up. Bet on improving the playoff track record getting better. Stone was our 7th highest scoring forward in that run. As an agent would you advise your client that now is the best time to sign? I just don't think that there is a clear cut answer here. Would it have been ideal? Absolutely yes. Was it achievable? Personally I doubt it

Its hard to go back and pick a number but as a comparable i was thinking Gaudreau, they were compared to one another from their rookies seasons after all. Stone would come in a little lower because Gaudreau was coming off a better year when he signed, but he is closer in age to Stone so in both cases you are paying for prime years where as with Marchand you can argue the over 30 years discount the contract. I also would say Marchand was more established when he signed but thats different than a better track record. In the summer of 2017 stone had 3 consecutive seasons pacing over 60pts per 82, Marchand had only reached that pace twice in a larger sample of seasons and was further into his prime.

Anything between Marchand and Gaudreau probably would have been seen as a solid deal at the time so i am coming in higher then you which obviously makes it more achievable to convince the player.

So i guess we can agree to disagree, i think we probably could have found a deal in 2017 and you apparently don't.

 

[JD1]

Its hard to go back and pick a number but as a comparable i was thinking Gaudreau, they were compared to one another from their rookies seasons after all. Stone would come in a little lower because Gaudreau was coming off a better year when he signed, but he is closer in age to Stone so in both cases you are paying for prime years where as with Marchand you can argue the over 30 years discount the contract. I also would say Marchand was more established when he signed but thats different than a better track record. In the summer of 2017 stone had 3 consecutive seasons pacing over 60pts per 82, Marchand had only reached that pace twice in a larger sample of seasons and was further into his prime.

Anything between Marchand and Gaudreau probably would have been seen as a solid deal at the time so i am coming in higher then you which obviously makes it more achievable to convince the player.

So i guess we can agree to disagree, i think we probably could have found a deal in 2017 and you apparently don't.

Gaudreau didn't sign early. He was a camp holdout wasn't he? Coming off a 78 point season. I get the player comparison, but the contract situation isn't comparable.

Anything is possible. Signing early is a two sided risk. For a young(er) player it is leaving money on the table. For the team, it's what the future holds for the player.

I just have a hard time holding anyone to account over a possibility when you don't know the probability of it occurring.

There are 3 potential scenarios here for that summer
1. They had discussions that led nowhere
2. The team enquired and the Stone camp said no thanks
3. The stone camp enquired and the team said no thanks
Actually a 4th scenario is:
Neither side made enquries

I was actually trying to find something in the media in 2017 on Stone but can't

I did find this thread though
Mark Stone's next contract

Interesting to read the perspectives at the time.

 

[Micklebot]

Gaudreau didn't sign early. He was a camp holdout wasn't he? Coming off a 78 point season. I get the player comparison, but the contract situation isn't comparable.

Anything is possible. Signing early is a two sided risk. For a young(er) player it is leaving money on the table. For the team, it's what the future holds for the player.

I just have a hard time holding anyone to account over a possibility when you don't know the probability of it occurring.

There are 3 potential scenarios here for that summer
1. They had discussions that led nowhere
2. The team enquired and the Stone camp said no thanks
3. The stone camp enquired and the team said no thanks
Actually a 4th scenario is:
Neither side made enquries

I was actually trying to find something in the media in 2017 on Stone but can't

I did find this thread though
Mark Stone's next contract

Interesting to read the perspectives at the time.

Gaudreau was simply a comparable for market value of a player. Calgary, albeit under a bit of duress, signed him at that price, so it's a comparable. How they came to that amount isn't the important bit other than they were both RFA (unlike Marchand who was signed as a UFA).

Good find on the old thread.

Looks like folks where mostly split across 2 camps, the short to medium term ~5-5.5 x 3 to 5 years camp, or the 6-7 x 6 or 7 long term camp. Both sides seem pretty reasonable, there were risks for both player and team either way, which is always going to be the case.

Personally, I was always pretty high on Stone, so I would have been looking for a 6 year deal like we did with Karlsson.

As for your 3 (or 4) scenarios, sure, that's pretty much always the case. Obviously with hindsight, if it was the team that said no thanks, or didn't inquire, it was probably a mistake.

Anyways, this started with how could we have signed him and rebuilt, well, that's how. If it were me, I'd have pushed for the 6 or 7 year deal back in 2017, but both a mid term and long term could have been offered, and Stone could choose the one he prefers, but there is no guarantee he would have agreed to anything. The team not being interested in betting on him at that time if that's what happened, is imo an error by the team.