Matt Stajan Re-ups - 4 years, 3.5 million a year
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 9:32 AM PST
Email
PrintAs per Bob McKenzie, the Flames have extended Matt Stajan through the 2013/2014 season at a rate of 3.5 million per season. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, to be honest. Stajan is a useful guy as a 2nd/3rd center, someone who can be productive against the middling players on other teams, and if you look around the league at what players who face similar comp and have similar numbers are making, I suppose the salary isn't completely out of line.
I guess my issue with tying up him (and the dollars in his deal) so early is that in the Flames current set-up, he's the number one offensive center alongside Iginla, which seems to be one weight class too high. Sutter might well have the feelings about the summer UFA class that I do, which is that it's thin at center and any productive players are at a premium, so his price may not drop. If nothing else, tying those dollars to Stajan means that any thoughts of whale hunting (Patrick Marleau, etc.) may well be out the window for this off-season.
Stajan signing a long term deal also hints to me that Dustin Boyd is likely on the block between now and summer. With the grooming that Backlund was getting before the Olympics, next year's 1-2-3 in the middle will very likely be Stajan, Langkow and Backlund, although Langkow might be dealt in the summer if the rest of this year goes poorly. Boyd's currently cheap enough to stay as a 4th liner, but he may well get an offer sheet, and the Flames might be OK with receiving a pick for him come June or July. If the only spot a team needs to fill in the middle is the last one, that's the sort of commodity that always seems plentiful in the summer, and can be obtained cheaply. I'll have more on this deal and how the Stajan and Bourque extensions set the Flames for next year and beyond later today.
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don’t think I like this one. He isn’t a difference maker (like I think Bourque has generally proven to be) and this term length is too much for guys like this. Reminds me of signing Sarich nearly 3 years ago for similar term and money, and right now we wish Sarich was gone.
Stajan is still very young and will be in his “Prime” production years throughout the duration of the contract. I don’t think it’s a bad signing at all, and he should be able to manage around 70 points a year.
by M F on Mar 1, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
Terrible deal. Too much money for a guy who doesn’t have a track record nor a good audition with Calgary as an impact forward.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a “terrible” deal. Questionable, no doubt…but I’d like to see how he does the rest of this season with the Flames before I’m ready to call it a good or bad deal.
We have a pretty good idea from previous seasons. He’s a real player, he’ll score some, he doesn’t need so much protection, but he won’t drive results like the Flames need another forward to do (in Jarome’s absence). The contract just takes away space for another such forward.
I wouldn’t mind so much if Iggy could do what he did just two short years ago but that time is past and the need for impact players is imminent.
by R O on Mar 1, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
I keep saying though…if the Flames don’t make the playoffs and this thing crashes and burns…and Daz is out of a job. Are all these signings and moves good for the long run? Are they good for the next guy?
"Where do you go from here, Dion?" "I go to Toronto."
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
Separate subject, and I’m not in Calgary to hear the buzz, but I’m betting Sutter stays whether or not they make the playoffs.
I don’t think Sutter will be fired. I don’t think he gets ownership approval for these deals if his job’s on what amounts to a 50/50 coin flip (maybe 60/40 :-) ).
That might mean that Langkow goes, R O. Moving his ticket clears space, and the likelihood of him out-pacing the remainder of his deal seems slim. I have a lot less of an issue with Stajan as a clear number two, even at this money, than I do when he’s a kinda-sorta number one guy. I absolutely agree that the odds of him being good enough to be the lead dog are low.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah I would agree, that’s unfortunate. Langkow is still an impact forward and probably the Flames best forward. He is old and could fall off at anytime (which is everything I hate) but current and previous performance hasn’t warranted him being moved, future risk might though.
Still if they moved Langkow who would come back? Say hell no to draft picks, I would like Richards from Dallas if the rumors are true re: the Stars looking to save money. I don’t know. Many of the good forwards are none too moveable.
The return is always the trick, isn’t it? If I was running a team and had a real killer as my 1C, I’d do damn near anything to hang on to that player unless my owner forced me at gunpoint to go to the salary floor. In the case of Dallas, they have plenty of nice young wingers, but they’re running Ribeiro as their number two C, and he’s no kid either.
As for the Flames, they have about 49 million tied up for next year with 16 guys signed. If Sarich and/or Kotalik aren’t elsewhere by September, I’d be flabbergasted. With the shallowness of the UFA C pool, I’d much rather move those guys before Langkow, since you can replace their production for a lot less dough, and the Flames will still need some flexibility to either sign Ian White or replace him in the top four.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
My full thoughts.
But in short, yeah, we’re all kinds of boned in the cap department next year. I don’t know what Sutter is doing these days. There HAS to be a trade coming. There just has to.
I don’t know if I agree with the idea of being “boned in the cap department”. I certainly would have liked to see 500k less on the Stajan contract and about 250k-350k less on the Bourque (given the term) but …that’s not the reality.
We have 10 forwards signed for next year, and good ones at that. RBQ-Stajan-Iggy, Kotalik-Lanks-Moss, Dawes-Backlund-Hagman, GlenX (In no particular line-up order). We can fill the remaining two spots (four players) with league min contracts if we want. Sign Mayers for 700k, Nystrom 700k, and give Connie a suit and tie job. That gives us money for Higgins, whose value is going down in my mind (although his play is likely to come around)
On defense, we don’t need anything. White can be here or not for all I care. If he wants big money…then see you later. If not, he can stay. We need to be thinking about Gio’s contract in two years. Sarich’s contract should be moved and that cash divided up for Gio and White. The we need to just promote a prospect and keep one of Kronwall or Johnson as a 7th man.
Gotta find a replacement for McL as well. which should be easily done for 700k-800k for a quality backup.
That line-up should ensure about 5 million of spending money for an acquisition. It doesn’t look too bad in my eyes, but we can’t keep giving guys 250-500k more than they should get, cause that adds up quickly.
The problem is we’re at 6.86M a year next year in cap space with 16 players signed. For the remaining 7 players that’s $980,000 per. To put that into perspective, Backlund and Nemisz’s cap hits (were they to hit the books, and Backlund probably will) would each be higher.
Also, Kotalik is hardly what I’d call a good player and while I like Moss, he’s not any better than above-average. McL is signed through next year. Moreover, I like White (I know, I’m the only one so far) and would rather he stay. Higgin’s play is fine, it’s his counting stats that are down. Connie is off the books anyways
I’m fine with a 4-year deal for Stajan, which takes us until he’s 30, but the dollars are all screwed up. I cannot for the life of me see how players are getting 3.5million a year, for four years, for 15 goals and 30-40 assists range. 3 million max for this guy. If he doesn’t want it…then f*king walk buddy.
I’m assuming Boyd is gone as well, which I said earlier in the year. Not because of his contract, which is great, but his seeming plateau. It was the same deal with Lombardi. There were great value, but great value not moving up, don’t get you anywhere.
Daz, better work on re-signing Higgins before he resigns White, otherwise this whole situation is going to get ugly fast.
Sarich and Boyd are drawing very, very short straws these days.
I wonder if Daz is hoping that Higgins’ lousy boxcars will keep his price down and his options limited? We’ve seen him play enough now that we have an understanding of how productive he would be when his SH% isn’t below 4. Do other GMs look at things in the same way? I’m in accord about Ian White as well. Unless he’s cheap enough that he doesn’t restrict the ability of the team to upgrade the top four, I’d be OK if he moved on via trade or offer sheet, and the UFA pool for D-men isn’t as sickly looking as the one for forwards if he needs to be replaced.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
I agree Re: White. We can have essentially the same “d” that we’ve had all year at difference making, and depth (JBO, Reggie, Pardy, Kronwall, Johnson) for a number of years and costing ~12.5.
Eventually, one of Pelech or other, needs to make the jump and ‘he’ will take ~700k. So even if we say we’re at 14million, that leaves us @ 7 million less than today. White could be had for 2.25 I think and Gio around 2.5-3.5.
I think it’s realistic that we have 8 defenders signed for ~20 million until 12/13 with Pardy needing a small raise after next season. If Johnson and Kronwall don’t stick around for that long at 500k each, others can easily be found.
That’s 1 million less than today and 5 million less than when Phaneuf was here going forward quite a ways
Domebeers is at class (chasing ass) right now, Ill post my thoughts later today or tomorrow.
But, while we are here, Id like to propose, for the record, that the kid no longer be called Matthew Stajan (anglo) but rather Mathieu Staján (french).
Go ahead, try it. He sounds more skilled my way.
Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.
by Domebeers.com on Mar 1, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
I think this means Sarich is gone eventually. And Kotlik needs to go away too. Too many mid-level contracts now with the addition of Bourque and Stajan (and Higgins?). As RO says, the Flames need to land a real, elite talent in order to actual contend here, because Jarome ain’t it anymore.
Phanuef was the Flames best bargaining chip for that purpose, but he’s been cashed in for depth. All that let’s is liquidating mid-level guys who are poor bets to provide value and trying to spend their cap dollars on a big gun.
It’s a pretty depressing though and the main reason I dreaded the end of the Olympic break. While the Olympic tournament was fun and all…it wasn’t reality. Reality checks back in on Wednesday night for Flames fans.
"Where do you go from here, Dion?" "I go to Toronto."
Spreading that Calgary Flames, Montreal Expos, The U, and Orlando Magic love.
“As RO says, the Flames need to land a real, elite talent in order to actual contend here, because Jarome ain’t it anymore.”
Those are the very core of my thoughts. It’s like Sutter can evaluate what talent is worth when handing out the contracts, but not whether we want that talent or something bigger.
What elite talent is going to be available really? I mean take a look at the top $ UFA forwards this year…
Kovalchuk, Ilya " F 26 NJD $6,389,300
Marleau, Patrick " F 30 SAN $6,300,000
Kariya, Paul " F 35 STL $6,000,000
Jokinen, Olli " F 31 NYR $5,250,000
Demitra, Pavol " F 35 VAN $4,000,000
Kozlov, Vyacheslav " F 37 ATL $3,666,666
Whitney, Ray " F 37 CAR $3,550,000
Modano, Mike " F 39 DAL $3,450,000
Modin, Fredrik " F 35 CLB $3,250,000
Koivu, Saku " F 35 ANA $3,250,000
Frolov, Alexander " F 27 LAK $2,900,000
… and I only included Frolov because he’s the right side of thirty. I look at that list and the only two “elite” talents I see are Kovalchuk & Marleau, Kovalchuk already turned down an insane contract well above what I would want the Flames to devote to anyone (and I see no reason he would want to play in Calgary over any of the sexier cities that will no doubt be chasing him) so that leaves Marleau. Could Calgary get Marleau? Maybe, seems like the kind of player that would fit in here but would he leave dollars on the table to do so (he already makes 6.3 and is coming off a career year)? I don’t think so.
I’m rambling now so in conclusion I think this is a decent deal.
Frolov is a much better player then you are giving him credit for, and he will be in line for a raise.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 1, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Geez people are complaining about Stajan’s contract when KOZLOV is making more? Ok so maybe what he’s making has no impact on the Flames but I guess it should just go to show that the numbers Stajan was given aren’t entirely ridiculous when a guy like Kozlov is making more than him. And Kariya making $6M at this point in his career? Wow.
While I do think Stajan may have been overpaid about about 500k, I don’t think this constitutes a “terrible” contract. I’m not of the same “soft, non-difference maker” view as most of you guys are, though. He may not be Langks tough, but he brings a finesse to the team that has been sorely lacking for the most part, and I don’t think he’s exactly made of Jell-o either. Things he can do: pass, handle the puck, skate fast, win faceoffs. Things Langkow can’t do: win faceoffs. Things half the Flames can’t do: the other 3.
http://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/status/9837773941
Seems like the deal is frontloaded 4.5 this year and next, 2.5 for the last two. That’ll make him a bit more attractive (trade wise) in a couple of years.
Just like the Bourque deal. His is 2.5 per for the last two. If we ever start seeing deals made to help teams get to the cap floor, or if you have to bury a guy in the A, it could be helpful
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
So Sutter is catching on to the league wide trend of front loading contracts. Perhaps not to the ridiculous level of 12-yr contracts with $500K in the final year, but realizing that if ownership is willing to pay now, you can end up with reasonably cap-friendly deals and give yourself more flexibility down the road.
He alredy knew. The Kipper deal was one of the first designed to take advantage of the loophole that allows throwaway seasons to drop the overall cap hit.
True, but most of the other longer length contracts he gave out (Reggie, JayBo, Dion, Sarich, Iggy, Lanks) didn’t have the same throwaway seasons, or even much of a drop in value as the contract plays out.
When does the current CBA run out again? I suspect that will cause many upcoming UFA deals to be frontloaded as well. Cash in now just in case there is a work stoppage kind of deal.
The players are almost certain to exercise their option to extend, so after 2011/12. Your surmise is very likely the plan of most agents, and if a team has the short term financial firepower to pull it off, it might help them this summer and next.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 1, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Sat 02/11 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Toronto
|
Tue 02/14 | 6:00 PM PST |
|
@
Dallas
|
Thu 02/16 | 5:30 PM PST |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sat 02/18 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Edmonton
|
Tue 02/21 | 6:00 PM PST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Phoenix
|
Thu 02/09 | OT - L 1 - 2 |
|
@
San Jose
|
Wed 02/08 | W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Mon 02/06 | SO - L 2 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 02/03 | W 3 - 1 |
|
Detroit
|
Tue 01/31 | L 1 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Thursday’s Three Stars: Max Pac hat trick; Chris Phillips’ memorable 1,000th game
- It’s over: Montreal’s Scott Gomez finally ends goalless streak (Video)
- Scott Hartnell’s goal celebration now includes fighting Dion Phaneuf (Video)
- Puck Previews: Leafs meet Flyers; Steve Yzerman not playing in Winter Classic Alumni Game?
- Three theories on why Hurricanes might pull Tuomo Ruutu off trading block
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
