[News] UPD: Flames officially buyout Troy Brouwer

[iloveicedhockey]

I've had a busy day so have been looking forward to reading this thread all afternoon. It didn't disappoint so thanks CP.

Definitely didn't work out here but irrelevant of the money, I'm more excited by the fact he isn't tanking whatever line he's on and we open up a spot for someone with speed and skill.

[GGG]

Assuming you are cap team buyouts save ownership between 0 and the maximum buryable Salary.

The most expensive option in terms of cash is to send Brouwer to the AHL and get 1M in cap relief and then replace him on the roster.

If in the absense of a buy out we are a cap team and with the buy out we are a cap team the flames payroll is the same.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flamesm

Wouldn’t the buy out not hurt the owners at all? I realize he is taking 6 mil right away but the remaining cap hit would not be real dollars for the future which means that tre can’t spend that 1.5 over 4 years either since we are a cap team

It's not just the buy out though, it is the whole contract that was a waste of money and a roster spot. I would have to think the owners are looking at it as a pretty costly error.

The total mistake is worth the total amount they paid Brouwer. Today was just the admission of that mistake.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not just the buy out though, it is the whole contract that was a waste of money and a roster spot. I would have to think the owners are looking at it as a pretty costly error.

The total mistake is worth the total amount they paid Brouwer. Today was just the admission of that mistake.

But it's not like if they didn't sign Brouwer, the owners would now have $16M more in their pockets or anything - the Flames are a cap team and were going to spend to the cap, whether it was on Brouwer or someone else.

The player didn't work out, no. So it was a roster mistake. But the money was being spent anyway.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But it's not like if they didn't sign Brouwer, the owners would now have $16M more in their pockets or anything - the Flames are a cap team and were going to spend to the cap, whether it was on Brouwer or someone else.

The player didn't work out, no. So it was a roster mistake. But the money was being spent anyway.

Yeah but if you are a cap team and you buy a guy out and then replace him, you end up spending almost twice as much than if you didn't have a buyout.

The owners would care to some degree.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by iloveicedhockey

I've had a busy day so have been looking forward to reading this thread all afternoon. It didn't disappoint so thanks CP.

Definitely didn't work out here but irrelevant of the money, I'm more excited by the fact he isn't tanking whatever line he's on and we open up a spot for someone with speed and skill.

Also no more Brouwerplay!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah but if you are a cap team and you buy a guy out and then replace him, you end up spending almost twice as much than if you didn't have a buyout.

The owners would care to some degree.

I'm sure they are not happy but they surely realize that mistakes are part of the business and a lot of good GM's have had to buy out some of their bad contracts. They didn't stand in the way of the Neal contract which certainly has potential to not be great in the last few seasons so they are committed to doing what it takes to ice a winner.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah but if you are a cap team and you buy a guy out and then replace him, you end up spending almost twice as much than if you didn't have a buyout.

The owners would care to some degree.

Not really a concern when the team is managed with a shrewd regard for negotiating contracts. See Johnny Gaudreau sub seven million.

Cap space tends to be more plentiful when you're not handing it out in landscape-shifting amounts to budding young players over the last decade.

[Erick Estrada]

I assume Brouwer will be a camp tryout. I give it 50/50 if he makes a roster. I was trying to be pretty positive with him but at the end of the day he's a replacement level player. There are a lot of players in this league that can put up 6 goals and 22 points with less ice time and no powerplay time. He's got less to offer than Glencross at the end of his career.

Good article about the cautions of the old model of paying players for past performance. Really it was asinine that the Flames gave Brouwer a big raise at 30 with his best days behind him;

https://thehockeynews.com/news/artic...autionary-tale

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm sure they are not happy but they surely realize that mistakes are part of the business and a lot of good GM's have had to buy out some of their bad contracts. They didn't stand in the way of the Neal contract which certainly has potential to not be great in the last few seasons so they are committed to doing what it takes to ice a winner.

Yeah. I don't think its necessarily a big deal, but its also not true that the money was "being spent anyway".

[Strange Brew]

Thanks for the link to the article EE. Brouwer’s playoff reputation, which is referenced in that article, is also overblown. Look at his playoff performance before his last year in St. Louis. 3 goals in the previous 42 playoff games.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Totally called it:

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...t=Troy+Brouwer

Even from day 1 I knew it was a brutal contract

That thread listed like six options for Brouwer... of course you’re going to “call it”.

That also wasn’t from “day one”.

[Cantrader]

I like the Iggy story but this Brouwer announcement might be the biggest announcement this week. I think all the flames fans are talking about this one.

[Enoch Root]

nm

[Enoch Root]

So if you buy a player out, you pay 2/3s of the remaining salary, correct?

Plus, you need a replacement player (who, presumably, is cheaper).

But, the lingering cap hit is money that can't be spent (and otherwise would have been, presumably).

So in the end, what does it really cost a team? (financially)

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So if you buy a player out, you pay 2/3s of the remaining salary, correct?

Plus, you need a replacement player (who, presumably, is cheaper).

But, the lingering cap hit is money that can't be spent (and otherwise would have been, presumably).

So in the end, what does it really cost a team? (financially)

Yes. That is correct.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I assume Brouwer will be a camp tryout. I give it 50/50 if he makes a roster. I was trying to be pretty positive with him but at the end of the day he's a replacement level player. There are a lot of players in this league that can put up 6 goals and 22 points with less ice time and no powerplay time. He's got less to offer than Glencross at the end of his career.

Good article about the cautions of the old model of paying players for past performance. Really it was asinine that the Flames gave Brouwer a big raise at 30 with his best days behind him;

https://thehockeynews.com/news/artic...autionary-tale

This is why I'm not so sure the Tavares deal is great for the Leafs. Peak age for forwards in the NHL is estimated to be 28, so good chance they bought a bunch of declining years.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

All depends how they see it in my opinion.

If they were hiring and maintaining the manager of a nuclear plant it's one thing, but NHL GMs are like commodity traders more than other fields. You know they won't be perfect, you know they'll make mistakes. You hope that they are just as good at managing the exit strategy on bad moves as they are in basking in their good ones.

You don't have to look to hard at other Canadian cities right now not to see what happens when you get many big ones wrong in a row without exit strategies.

It is about results now. The team is at the cap again with relatively few prospects so there is no cavalry riding to the rescue. If the coach and or acquired players don’t work out, it will no doubt be on Treliving and I doubt he’ll be given the chance to work his way out of it.

But if this team delivers, he should squarely get the credit. His fingerprints are all over this club.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So if you buy a player out, you pay 2/3s of the remaining salary, correct?

Plus, you need a replacement player (who, presumably, is cheaper).

But, the lingering cap hit is money that can't be spent (and otherwise would have been, presumably).

So in the end, what does it really cost a team? (financially)

Upon rethinking it, its probably cost neutral like you said.

Brouwer's money over two years would have been $9 million.

They pay him $3 million of that over the next two years, and have $6 million in space to spend. $9 million.

It's the same. That's why I'm not an accountant.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It is about results now. The team is at the cap again with relatively few prospects so there is no cavalry riding to the rescue.

The team is $7.5m shy of the cap before signing Hanifin and adding a 14th forward, which is not ‘at the cap’ last time I checked a dictionary. Most of the core players are young and locked down to long-term deals.

‘Relatively few prospects’ compared to what, might I ask?