But for the obvious bias of the jury, I would say "Yes, Roger Stone got what he deserved."

I believe that Stone probably would not be in the mess he is in if not for the faux prosectuion of Trump,  but, all legal sources agree (conservative sources) that there was a mountain of evidence against Stone.

The problem with his conviction is rather obvious, however:  The jury foreman was/is a Trump hating black activist.  In fact,  she is on record with her hatred of Trump.

So, in reality,  the question is not about his conviction and sentencing.  Rather, it is about his demand for a fair trial.  It should go without saying that extreme bias in a jury trial should never exist.  Stone had the right to be judged by a jury of his peers.  And while that does not mean "a jury of his friends,"  it certainly does not mean "a jury of those who already hate the man."   

Again,  the question is not about his conviction but, rather, about the fact that he did not get a fair trial.