Elliot Friedman believes Treliving may not be back next season

[FiveSeven]

Goalie coaches have like 5% influence on play.
He gathers clips of plays and some key players tendencies.
Goalies know how to play goal.
They know what to look for and what to do.
They build off of a goalies style not change it or help reset or relax them.
Doesn't make someone miss a glove.

Coach: Could of had a better angle there, could of challenged the shooter more there. Blah blah.

Goalie: Yeah I agree. Or, I disagree. Blah.

Bad goalie = Bad goalie.
The exception is Rookie goalies of course.

[kukkudo]

What I see from Brouwer is a player who's on the downslope and he's burnt out from playing some good hard nosed hockey for the past 7 years or so. That contract is gonna be pretty ugly for the next 3 years.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Here's an interesting graph about Brouwer:



He really doesn't drive play at all. Not a good signing.

The problem with this graph, outside of the scaling issues that someone else brought up which makes it look like people are twice as good without Brouwer when it's actually a much smaller improvement, is that it's trying to treat Brouwer as an isolated variable, which he simply isn't possible to be.

Who else is out there when these players are playing with Brouwer? Who is out there with them when they aren't playing with Brouwer? How often to do they play or don't they play with Brouwer 5 on 5? Where does Brower get his starts (I think someone said 59% offensive zone so fair enough).

The list could go on. I don't know if Brouwer is driving the play or not, but without all those other data points, the chart tells us much of nothing.

What I'm seeing from Brouwer is a player who needs to pick it up a little bit on the consistency front (like most of our players) to be exactly the player we thought we were getting. Now whether we think getting that player at the price we paid was wroth it is definitely a valid discussion.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No it really doesn't. It cherry picks 7 players out of no where and the length of the size of the lines aren't really that bad. A 5% decrease makes it seem like it's much bigger than it actually is.

Look at Engelland for example. Without Brouwer he sees a 3 or 4 % increase and that graph makes it seem like he sees double the production without Brouwer.

That's not excusing Brouwer because I agree he's been pretty invisible this year but that's not a good graph.

The scale is terrible, but to say this is cherry picking players is silly.
Line combination 5v5 for brouwer this year:
35.3% BROUWER,TROY - MONAHAN,SEAN - VERSTEEG,KRIS
24.2% BENNETT,SAM - BROUWER,TROY - VERSTEEG,KRIS
13.9% BENNETT,SAM - BROUWER,TROY - MONAHAN,SEAN
Those three comprise almost 75% of Brouwer's even strength minutes.
He has been a boat anchor. IMO, the eye test agrees with the underlying numbers.

[LiquidX]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Trading Granlund and Baertschi to division rival Canucks for Shinkaruk and a 2nd rounder. The Baertschi trade is starting to look like a stinker. I know I know he demanded a trade and he was looking pretty unmotivated but there isn't a lot to like about seeing a former top pick, on a division rival, second on his team in goals, and you don't even have a roster player in return. Granlund has 12 goals on the Nucks. Shinkaruk is not looking very good in the AHL.

See the thing I don't get about this part of your analysis is that you're building baertschi and granlund up to be these big mistakes.. Yes.. they have combined for 25 goals this year - on one of the weakest teams in the league.

you can't honestly say that if we kept these two that they would be producing at the same level behind gaudreau, monahan, bouwer, backlund, frolik, tkachuk, versteeg, or bennett. We wouldn't play them over any of these guys - so at best they would be getting 3rd line time on the flames. Vancouver is giving them top line minutes, and they're still not producing as top 6 forwards.

Further, I'd argue by his statline, shinkaruk is having a pretty good year in the AHL (21 games, 17 points, +5). By no means is he a lock for the big league - but honestly, on a decent team, neither are baertschi or granlund.

[Gaskal]

We acquired Brouwer as a 35-40 pt power winger who can provide toughness and chip in with offense occasionally. But he's on pace for 30 pts, extrapolated over 82 games. He hits at least, but hasn't even fought for almost a year now, let alone this season.

Him and Ferland need to stop being so reactive, as another poster mentioned, be bolder and start initiating a little bit, just like Tkachuk and Hathaway. I'd even threaten to sit Brouwer until he shows some signs of life. His scoring's dropped off, he's looked disinterested and doesn't intimidate the other team at all, and he's barely noticeable in games.

For someone who is known for holding his teammates accountable, he first needs to hold himself accountable before he's earned the privilege of holding teammates accountable.

[AC]

To be fair, I wouldn't expect a player who recently broke his finger to be fighting.

[Caged Great]

A lot of people hated the Frolik signing last year too. Just because Brouwer is having a down year, doesn't mean that he's going to be an anchor contract for the duration.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

A lot of people hated the Frolik signing last year too. Just because Brouwer is having a down year, doesn't mean that he's going to be an anchor contract for the duration.

Brouwer is probably having motivation issues. He knows he has his retirement contract, the team is not going anywhere, so why kill yourself? Natural human reaction. If the team was actually contending, you would probably see a much different player.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by LiquidX

See the thing I don't get about this part of your analysis is that you're building baertschi and granlund up to be these big mistakes.. Yes.. they have combined for 25 goals this year - on one of the weakest teams in the league.

you can't honestly say that if we kept these two that they would be producing at the same level behind gaudreau, monahan, bouwer, backlund, frolik, tkachuk, versteeg, or bennett. We wouldn't play them over any of these guys - so at best they would be getting 3rd line time on the flames. Vancouver is giving them top line minutes, and they're still not producing as top 6 forwards.

Further, I'd argue by his statline, shinkaruk is having a pretty good year in the AHL (21 games, 17 points, +5). By no means is he a lock for the big league - but honestly, on a decent team, neither are baertschi or granlund.

No I don't see trading them as big mistakes, I just see two NHL roster players going one way who are contributing to the success of the team and the Flames having no NHL roster players coming the other way at a time when we really have a dearth of talent on the wings.

Sure those are decent numbers in the AHL but I frankly want to see NHL ready players coming our way when the Flames are trading young NHL ready players.

You talk as if the Canucks are an AHL squad, they currently have one less point and two games in hand on the Flames.

Also who know's what they would be producing for the Flames, all I know is what those players are currently producing on the Canucks and only two of those players you listed have more goals than Baertschi.

[Mr.Coffee]

Brouwer is useless. Completely useless. If he doesn't want to play he should be in Stockton. It's too bad about the inability to send guys down without them having to go through waivers.

NHL contracts these days are the problem. There is literally zero incentive to work hard once you get your pay day. Can't get fired, won't get sent down. No repercussions at all. You're made for life. Literally no point in trying anymore. Guaranteed contract... brutal.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Brouwer is useless. Completely useless. If he doesn't want to play he should be in Stockton. It's too bad about the inability to send guys down without them having to go through waivers.

NHL contracts these days are the problem. There is literally zero incentive to work hard once you get your pay day. Can't get fired, won't get sent down. No repercussions at all. You're made for life. Literally no point in trying anymore. Guaranteed contract... brutal.

scouting becomes very important in this environment, its vital to know a kids upbringing and outlook as much as his speed and strength

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, but a lot do.

Here are some distinguished top-line players on a few playoff bound (above wildcard) teams around the league...

Anaheim - Rakell
Chicago - Hartman, Panik
Edmonton - Maroon
Pittsburgh - Sheary, Rust
Washington - Beagle
Montreal - Danault
San Jose - Karlsson

A few of those guys are 3-4 years younger than Chiasson, a few of them are the same age or older. None of them are clear top-line players.

A big difference between the good teams and the average-to-bad teams is that good teams spread their players out. They usually have lines with 2 good-to-great players, and one guy who doesn't "fit." Part of this is because of the salary cap, and part of this is to balance out lines so that you can roll all of them with confidence.

There is a chance that even if the RW spot is addressed, that said player isn't gifted a spot on the top line and it still ends up going to a guy like Chiasson. The problem isn't Chiasson, it never has been. If your top two (or two of your top 3 or 4) players are playing together, they should be able to carry that line, period.

I understand your point, but of the players you listed who would you refuse to trade Chiasson for? The guy is a plug and the coaches insistence on getting him on the team and now playing him in a role that is way above his skill requires general manager intervention.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Brouwer is probably having motivation issues. He knows he has his retirement contract, the team is not going anywhere, so why kill yourself? Natural human reaction. If the team was actually contending, you would probably see a much different player.

I 100% think the same thing. IMO its time for management to step in and have a talk with Brouwer. If it was me i would tell him this is not what we are paying you for. Ship up or ship out. I would threaten to trade or expose Brouwer to expansion draft. I wouldn't care how it effects future FA's looking to sign in Calgary. I want players that want to win, not sit back in a country club setting.

Should also say i was 100% in favour of the Brouwer signing, but not this Brouwer that we have recieved. The points don't matter to me as much as the non truculence issue.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Should also say i was 100% in favour of the Brouwer signing, but not this Brouwer that we have recieved. The points don't matter to me as much as the non truculence issue.

This. Count me in as another person who's been seriously disappointed in Brouwer.

This Troy Brouwer has been nowhere near the truculent or semi-truculent Brouwer that I remember playing with Chicago & Washington.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The scale is terrible, but to say this is cherry picking players is silly.
Line combination 5v5 for brouwer this year:
35.3% BROUWER,TROY - MONAHAN,SEAN - VERSTEEG,KRIS
24.2% BENNETT,SAM - BROUWER,TROY - VERSTEEG,KRIS
13.9% BENNETT,SAM - BROUWER,TROY - MONAHAN,SEAN
Those three comprise almost 75% of Brouwer's even strength minutes.
He has been a boat anchor. IMO, the eye test agrees with the underlying numbers.

And when Brouwer is not on those line who is the most common replacement? Gaudreau perhaps?

[Karl]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, but a lot do.

Here are some distinguished top-line players on a few playoff bound (above wildcard) teams around the league...

Anaheim - Rakell
Chicago - Hartman, Panik
Edmonton - Maroon
Pittsburgh - Sheary, Rust
Washington - Beagle
Montreal - Danault
San Jose - Karlsson

A few of those guys are 3-4 years younger than Chiasson, a few of them are the same age or older. None of them are clear top-line players.

A big difference between the good teams and the average-to-bad teams is that good teams spread their players out. They usually have lines with 2 good-to-great players, and one guy who doesn't "fit." Part of this is because of the salary cap, and part of this is to balance out lines so that you can roll all of them with confidence.

There is a chance that even if the RW spot is addressed, that said player isn't gifted a spot on the top line and it still ends up going to a guy like Chiasson. The problem isn't Chiasson, it never has been. If your top two (or two of your top 3 or 4) players are playing together, they should be able to carry that line, period.

Thing is, most of those players are at least a little better than Chiasson (A LOT better in the case of Rakell).

The only guys you listed that I wouldn't care to have over Chiasson in that list are Ryan Hartman & Melker Karlsson, who are about as good as Chiasson.

[Machiavelli]

Problem with Brouwer is complacency. He's got the Cup ring and the contract

[Finger Cookin]

I think we'll see Brouwer's worth to the team down the final stretch of the season and into the playoffs. I'm not writing him off due to 2/3 of one season where most of the team has underperformed, some to a much larger extent than Brouwer himself.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

I think we'll see Brouwer's worth to the team down the final stretch of the season and into the playoffs. I'm not writing him off due to 2/3 of one season where most of the team has underperformed, some to a much larger extent than Brouwer himself.

I feel like people only watched Brouwer in the playoffs last year and expected that every night.