I don't think the Leafs are going to choke in Boston tomorrow night.

Never said Stone was not great player.Im still pissed we dont have him anymore.But i always disliked these dumb longterm contracts.With him playing like he does,i highly doubt his body will follow with years passing.

Same with Karlsson.If a team sign him maximum dollars for 7 years...this team will regret him.
- Laughinghyena666

It's kind of ridiculous to say all long-term contracts are bad though. If he was 32, then sure. But he'll be 35 at the very end, not 40. If one part of his game starts to slow down, he does other things super well too, so that's why he's going to be very good for a long time.

It's kind of ridiculous to say all long-term contracts are bad though. If he was 32, then sure. But he'll be 35 at the very end, not 40. If one part of his game starts to slow down, he does other things super well too, so that's why he's going to be very good for a long time.
- Trevor Shackles

Where did i said that ALL of longterm contracts are bad...i said many of them are.My main concern with him is that he play so over the edge/physical that his body is probably already more damaged than it should be at his age.

Where did i said that ALL of longterm contracts are bad...i said many of them are.My main concern with him is that he play so over the edge/physical that his body is probably already more damaged than it should be at his age.
- Laughinghyena666

Stone had 21 hits this year. 21. Brady Tkachuk had 174. So by your logic, the Sens should avoid signing Brady to a long term contract when the time comes? Because, clearly, Brady is 8x more likely to break down due to physical play? Stone doesn't block many shots either. He also prefers to strip the puck rather than play the body. Your assertion that he is too physical is just false. Alex Ovechkin has been throwing roughly 10x as many hits per season than Stone. Has OV's production fallen off a cliff? No, it has not.

Where did i said that ALL of longterm contracts are bad...i said many of them are.My main concern with him is that he play so over the edge/physical that his body is probably already more damaged than it should be at his age.
- Laughinghyena666

As the guy above me says, he's not even that physical. He's going to age better than most I'll bet

As the guy above me says, he's not even that physical. He's going to age better than most I'll bet
- Trevor Shackles

Maybe. Mark Stone is a different kind of player. He does stuff nobody else is able to do. He has remarkable on ice awareness and anticipation. Not a great skater but he compensates by always being in the right place.

Well established that elite players achieve peak production in the age range 24 to 27 (sometimes even earlier for the super elite). Production always begins to fall off around age 27-28. Once a player begins to see a production decline the drop off is consistent and measurable.

For example, everyone accepts that Crosby has moved well beyond his peak production performance. Yet, people are expecting he will somehow regain the magic of only a few years ago and the Pens will become a contender again. It will not happen. Crosby is passed peak production, the Pens are finished as a serious contender and it is time to move on.

I believe there is only one top player in the entire history of the NHL to have his best production year after the age of 28. Potentially, Mark Stone might be another exception, but highly unlikely.

Maybe. Mark Stone is a different kind of player. He does stuff nobody else is able to do. He has remarkable on ice awareness and anticipation. Not a great skater but he compensates by always being in the right place.

Well established that elite players achieve peak production in the age range 24 to 27 (sometimes even earlier for the super elite). Production always begins to fall off around age 27-28. Once a player begins to see a production decline the drop off is consistent and measurable.

For example, everyone accepts that Crosby has moved well beyond his peak production performance. Yet, people are expecting he will somehow regain the magic of only a few years ago and the Pens will become a contender again. It will not happen. Crosby is passed peak production, the Pens are finished as a serious contender and it is time to move on.

I believe there is only one top player in the entire history of the NHL to have his best production year after the age of 28. Potentially, Mark Stone might be another exception, but highly unlikely.
- spatso

Henrik Sedin was 29, Daniel Sedin was 30. Those are just the first 2 players i thought of.

Henrik Sedin was 29, Daniel Sedin was 30. Those are just the first 2 players i thought of.
- golfingsince

Those are the exceptions that prove the rule and since they identical twins, it's like you picked 1 person...

...he'll be 35 at the very end, not 40. If one part of his game starts to slow down, he does other things super well too, so that's why he's going to be very good for a long time.
- Trevor Shackles

I know - he's one of the very few Sens, ex and present, on which I would not have minded a long term contract be signed. He's proven his worth and was young enough to still have potential value at the end of his term.

Maybe. Mark Stone is a different kind of player. He does stuff nobody else is able to do. He has remarkable on ice awareness and anticipation. Not a great skater but he compensates by always being in the right place.

Well established that elite players achieve peak production in the age range 24 to 27 (sometimes even earlier for the super elite). Production always begins to fall off around age 27-28. Once a player begins to see a production decline the drop off is consistent and measurable.

For example, everyone accepts that Crosby has moved well beyond his peak production performance. Yet, people are expecting he will somehow regain the magic of only a few years ago and the Pens will become a contender again. It will not happen. Crosby is passed peak production, the Pens are finished as a serious contender and it is time to move on.

I believe there is only one top player in the entire history of the NHL to have his best production year after the age of 28. Potentially, Mark Stone might be another exception, but highly unlikely.
- spatso

You're acting as if Crosby isn't a top-10 player anymore though. Is he as good as he was at like 24? No, but he is still incredibly good, and the same thing will happen to Stone. He doesn't have to be as good as he is now for him to be valuable, even his production at 80% is still very solid.

You're acting as if Crosby isn't a top-10 player anymore though. Is he as good as he was at like 24? No, but he is still incredibly good, and the same thing will happen to Stone. He doesn't have to be as good as he is now for him to be valuable, even his production at 80% is still very solid.
- Trevor Shackles

Not my intention. Peak production theory applies in all sports. Once a player attains top production and begins to decline there is seldom if ever they can get back to a high point. The most elite players hit their peak at a remarkably young age. Few exceptions. If you take top 10 scorers of all time, it is pretty consistent in terms of having their best year before age 28. Gordie Howe is an exception. Ron Francis is also an exception but he achieved his top number at age 30 playing on a phenomenal Penguins team.

Gretzky 212 at 22, Jagr 149 at 24, Messier 165 at 22, Howe 103 at 40, Francis 119 at 30, Dionne 137 at 27, yzerman 137 at 28, Lemieux 199 at 23, Sakic 120 at 26, Esposito 152 at 28.

Crosby had his best year (120 points) when he was 19 years old.

Stone had 21 hits this year. 21. Brady Tkachuk had 174. So by your logic, the Sens should avoid signing Brady to a long term contract when the time comes? Because, clearly, Brady is 8x more likely to break down due to physical play? Stone doesn't block many shots either. He also prefers to strip the puck rather than play the body. Your assertion that he is too physical is just false. Alex Ovechkin has been throwing roughly 10x as many hits per season than Stone. Has OV's production fallen off a cliff? No, it has not.
- You'reWrongBecause...

LOLLLLL...physical play is not just about throwing hits,its getting hits too.Stone is everywhere on the ice.He hoes in dirty areas and was probable one of sens players who was being hit the most in his tenure with sens.THAT alone is getting hard on the body after a while.Its not rocket science at all.

That Ovechkin comparison was funny.That he have thousands more hits than Stone dont matter.In any way possible...Ovechkin should not be in any discussion here.I really like Stone but no way he's in the same league than Ovie...never ever.

LOLLLLL...physical play is not just about throwing hits,its getting hits too.Stone is everywhere on the ice.He hoes in dirty areas and was probable one of sens players who was being hit the most in his tenure with sens.THAT alone is getting hard on the body after a while.Its not rocket science at all.

That Ovechkin comparison was funny.That he have thousands more hits than Stone dont matter.In any way possible...Ovechkin should not be in any discussion here.I really like Stone but no way he's in the same league than Ovie...never ever.
- Laughinghyena666

They are literally in the same league. It's called the NHL. The comparison is more than fair, as both players are wingers that were signed to long term extensions. Ovechkin plays a more physical game and still scores. Pretty simple logic. Saying "he was probable one of the players that was hit the most is asinine". There is no way to track that, at all. Also, just based on ice time, it's not very likely that he sustained more hits than Karlsson or Ceci (or any Defender who played significantly more minutes per game than any forward, and if you've actually watched any Sens games in the last three years you'd know that they've been manhandled in their own end for the majority of most games). You're wrong.

They are literally in the same league. It's called the NHL. The comparison is more than fair, as both players are wingers that were signed to long term extensions. Ovechkin plays a more physical game and still scores. Pretty simple logic. Saying "he was probable one of the players that was hit the most is asinine". There is no way to track that, at all. Also, just based on ice time, it's not very likely that he sustained more hits than Karlsson or Ceci (or any Defender who played significantly more minutes per game than any forward, and if you've actually watched any Sens games in the last three years you'd know that they've been manhandled in their own end for the majority of most games). You're wrong.
- You'reWrongBecause...

The comparison is definitely not fair.Ovechkin is without a doubt in top 5 players in NHL all positions wise.Stone is far from there...not even close.Thats my point.