[Signing] Flames sign Brouwer (4 yrs, $4.5mil AAV, NTC)

[TheIronMaiden]

In regards to the age argument, Brouwer has showed no signs that his body is worn out. Since the lock out season he hasn't missed a game. At least we will be paying him to play games, not pay him to rehab.

https://www.nhl.com/player/troy-brouwer-8471426

[MarkGio]

Dave Bolland consistently put up better points than Brouwer, and Bolland all of a sudden fell hard once he wasn't on a deep Chicago roster getting decent minutes.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by HarryH93

You would rather get one of those guys for 1.5 million more AND 2-3 years extra? Really? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

He already showed his knowledge of the topic when he called Brouwer a 30 point player

[red sky]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Dave Bolland consistently put up better points than Brouwer, and Bolland all of a sudden fell hard once he wasn't on a deep Chicago roster getting decent minutes.

Agreed. Good thing Brouwer has proven he is fully capable and in fact gotten better off of the Hawks.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Dave Bolland consistently put up better points than Brouwer, and Bolland all of a sudden fell hard once he wasn't on a deep Chicago roster getting decent minutes.

Bolland fell hard when he started getting decimated by injures. You should really put some time into research because you just keep proving over and over again that you have no clue.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by red sky

Agreed. Good thing Brouwer has proven he is fully capable and in fact gotten better off of the Hawks.

Bolland actually produced on the Leafs and Panthers too but has only played 101 games in the last 3 seasons.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by red sky

Agreed. Good thing Brouwer has proven he is fully capable and in fact gotten better off of the Hawks.

39 points on a playoff Blues team playing a full season. He's getting older and going to a worst team with no RW depth, so he'll be up against tough defenders.


When so many players can't play a full season anymore and it's not likely a player beats his average or gets career highs on the wrong side of 30yrs old, it's possible he puts up 30-34 points, which to me is 30pt player because I round when I place labels like that.

4.5 million for 4 years can hurt if he underproduces, like a lot of free agents do after getting a nice paycheck after July 1st

[calgaryblood]

Pretty sure being 30 years old is being on the right side of 30.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Bolland fell hard when he started getting decimated by injures. You should really put some time into research because you just keep proving over and over again that you have no clue.

Lots of players get injured. What's the average season for a player? When was the last Flames to consistently play 75+ games? Iginla?

The average man games lost are somewhere in the late 300s if I recall. Shot blocking requirements nowadays are keeping guys off the ice. It's a physical game and GMs should be factoring that in, especially if you're planning on paying a guy to play heavy hockey

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Bolland actually produced on the Leafs and Panthers too but has only played 101 games in the last 3 seasons.

You're just a homer. Nobody cared that Raymond got injured. He became the whipping boy as soon as he was hurting the team by taking up cap space and not putting up big numbers. Look at Stajan, who's been off and on as the whipping boy, despite Stajan getting rocked by Staal and undergoing some other injuries thereafter. Nobody cares about Smid. It's cap space, not "you should research their injury history before talking smack". I know Bolland got injured and I don't care. That doesn't justify the contact when hindsight is 20/20, so maybe you should get a clue that hockey is a competitive business, not a pity party.

That's not an excuse and this signing isn't universally panned by all Flames fans, even in this thread, just like the Bolland signing wasn't universally panned. Is it possible this term and cap hit could be a mistake?

Sure it's possible. It's ok to criticize. It doesn't make you any less of a fan, so don't get so defensive

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

You're just a homer. Nobody cared that Raymond got injured. He became the whipping boy as soon as he was hurting the team by taking up cap space and not putting up big numbers. Look at Stajan, who's been off and on as the whipping boy, despite Stajan getting rocked by Staal and undergoing some other injuries thereafter.

That's not an excuse and this signing isn't universally panned by all Flames fans, even in this thread, just like the Bolland signing wasn't universally panned. Is it possible this term and cap hit could be a mistake?

Sure it's possible. It's ok to criticize. It doesn't make you any less of a fan, so don't get so defensive

How does defending David Bolland make me a homer? It is a fact he produced at about a half a point per game clip when he left for Chicago for the first two years and had missed more than he has played since he left.

And yeah lots of players have gotten hurt and I am sure if Brouwer gets hurt he could easily fall into that group too. But suggesting it's a terrible signing because Bolland got hurt and fell off is nonsense and is void of any actual thought process.

[dino7c]

Brouwer has scored big goals everywhere he has been

Who knows if this works out but if you want to win get a winner

[Knut]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

You're just a homer. Nobody cared that Raymond got injured. He became the whipping boy as soon as he was hurting the team by taking up cap space and not putting up big numbers. Look at Stajan, who's been off and on as the whipping boy, despite Stajan getting rocked by Staal and undergoing some other injuries thereafter. Nobody cares about Smid. It's cap space, not "you should research their injury history before talking smack". I know Bolland got injured and I don't care. That doesn't justify the contact when hindsight is 20/20, so maybe you should get a clue that hockey is a competitive business, not a pity party.

That's not an excuse and this signing isn't universally panned by all Flames fans, even in this thread, just like the Bolland signing wasn't universally panned. Is it possible this term and cap hit could be a mistake?

Sure it's possible. It's ok to criticize. It doesn't make you any less of a fan, so don't get so defensive

The issue is that you keep moving the goalpost on your arguments against this signing. Now it is "What if he gets injured?" It is ok to be critical, but to keep pulling up completely wrong stats and arguments is unfair.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Dave Bolland consistently put up better points than Brouwer, and Bolland all of a sudden fell hard once he wasn't on a deep Chicago roster getting decent minutes.

What in the world are you talking about?

Bolland has played less than 36 games in each of the last 4 years except for one (where he played 53). Hard to put up points when injuries stop you from playing even half of the games in a season (duh).

His Pts/G actually went up when he left Chicago to 0.52/G. He scored at a better rate in Toronto than in most of his time in Chicago, and was as good as he was in Chicago in his first year in Florida.

For the record, Brouwer has also improved since leaving Chicago. Do you have any other statement easily refuted by 5 seconds of Google?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

How does defending David Bolland make me a homer? It is a fact he produced at about a half a point per game clip when he left for Chicago for the first two years and had missed more than he has played since he left.

And yeah lots of players have gotten hurt and I am sure if Brouwer gets hurt he could easily fall into that group too. But suggesting it's a terrible signing because Bolland got hurt and fell off is nonsense and is void of any actual thought process.

Brouwer is getting paid too much money for too long based at his age and productive averages on good teams. I look at other players making that money, such as JVR, Patches, Marchand, Little, Kadri, and suspect Brouwer is overpaid and more like Burrows and Laich, who are constantly the whipping boys for their fans. That's what my thought process is, and based on some of the other people in this thread, on HF Flames and elsewhere, I'm not alone in it.

Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. Even if Brouwer puts up 45 points average doesn't mean he's free of whipping boy status or anchor status, but the fact that he takes up a lot of salary on a team up against the cap makes it risky.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What in the world are you talking about?

Bolland has played less than 36 games in each of the last 4 years except for one (where he played 53). Hard to put up points when injuries stop you from playing even half of the games in a season (duh).

His Pts/G actually went up when he left Chicago to 0.52/G. He scored at a better rate in Toronto than in most of his time in Chicago, and was as good as he was in Chicago in his first year in Florida.

For the record, Brouwer has also improved since leaving Chicago. Do you have any other statement easily refuted by 5 seconds of Google?

Right, but Bolland at 5.5 million is the issue, not Bolland at only a few million. I'm not going to hate on Brouwer if he signed for 2 million at 1 year!? He could score 0 goals it would still not be an issue at a low salary.

Apples and oranges

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Brouwer is getting paid too much money for too long based at his age and productive averages on good teams. I look at other players making that money, such as JVR, Patches, Marchand, Little, Kadri, and suspect Brouwer is overpaid and more like Burrows and Laich, who are constantly the whipping boys for their fans. That's what my thought process is, and based on some of the other people in this thread, on HF Flames and elsewhere, I'm not alone in it.

Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. Even if Brouwer puts up 45 points average doesn't mean he's free of whipping boy status or anchor status, but the fact that he takes up a lot of salary on a team up against the cap makes it risky.

Why are you comparing a UFA to players that signed deals years ago but also rfa deals. How many of the players listed went to free agency?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JJolg

Why are you comparing a UFA to players that signed deals years ago but also rfa deals. How many of the players listed went to free agency?

Because that's the type of "logic" anyone debating with this guy has to deal with. Flawed to no end.

[FiveSeven]

Damn. All I've learned from this thread is that life is a lot better overall when you're optimistic instead of pessimistic and melancholy.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by JJolg

Why are you comparing a UFA to players that signed deals years ago but also rfa deals. How many of the players listed went to free agency?

Because it doesn't matter to me. RFA deals are better deals, and usually the best UFA deals are bargain bins like Stempniak on the devils, or Tanguay on the Flames because there's no risk.