[Rumour] Flames closing in on Maroon?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

How does it work when a team trades a player with salary retained, then the receiving team buys out the player? Does the cap structure of the original team then change to adapt to the buyout pattern, or are they only on the hook for the original years of the contract when the player was traded?

Not sure if I’m making much sense. If we were to trade Brouwer now with 50% retained, and the other team buys him out, does the other team’s decision to buy him out affect our cap hit / duration, as if he were bought out by us (but 50% cheaper)?

Yes, the amount owed by the original team will become a percentage of the buyout equal to whatever the retained percentage is...

Originally Posted by CBA 50.5.e.iii.E

In the event that a Retained Salary SPC is "bought out" or terminated, the resulting obligations (both Averaged Amount and Salary and Bonus) shall be divided as between the Clubs party to the Retained Salary Transaction(s) for that SPC on the same percentage basis as originally agreed upon in the Retained Salary Transaction.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Look at what it cost the Jets to dump 1 year of Mason's $4.1 mil contract in an attempt to sign Statsny.

a 30 point forward and a 4th. (Simon Bourque for a 7th round pick balances out)

No one is going to do the Flames a favour and take Brouwer's salary for just a mid or low pick. Even with salary retention, it will be a hard deal to make.

I think if they retained $2.0M it may be doable.

I look at other guys that were signed or moved.

Beagle - 4 years at $3M - 22 PTS
Roussel - 4 years at $3M - 17PTS
Komarov - 4 years at $3M - 19 PTS
Calvert - 3 years at $2.8M - 24 PTS

Sobotka - 2 years at $3.5M - 31 PTS
Berglund - 4 years at $3.85M - 26 PTS

Brouwer with $2M retained - 2 years at $2.5M - 22 PTS

Brouwer isn't really that far outside of that group and with some $$ retained some team could take a flyer on him. The bigger problem with Brouwer IMO isn't his caphit but his NTC - I feel like he doesn't want to move so he won't wave.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Thank you sureLoss and getbak. Didn’t realize that another team could modify your own cap projections... but probably only occurs in unique and expected circumstances, with minimal impact on the cap at the end of the day.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If they could trade Frolik for a 2nd (Jets maybe) I would be okay pursuing Maroon on a deal around 3.5 for 3 years. Listening t Treliving today though the Flames are done. Maroon was old B but he was able to land plan A in Neal

I think Frolik for a 2nd to sign Maroon is an interesting idea. However, I would oppose this idea because I think Frolik is a better player and I think the Flames are putting together a roster that could actually compete next year.

I'm also just using this opportunity to defend Frolik because I've seen a lot of people saying we should trade him and I think that would be a mistake.

Stats

GAR (goals above replacement)
Frolik: overall - 78, 5v5 offence - 77, 5v5 defence - 95
Maroon: overall - 66, 5v5 offence - 87, 5v5 defence - 49

WAR (wins above replacement)
Frolik: 0.95
Maroon: 0.12

Player Usage Chart (playing situation and effects on possession)
Frolik: Quality of Competition - 0.3494, OZS% - 47.67, CF% - 56.86%, Rel CF% - 4.1%
Maroon: Quality of Competition - 0.040, OZS% - 52.42, CF% - 52.11%

Most Common Linemates
Frolik: 62.76% - Tkachuk and Backlund
Maroon: 34.29% - McDavid and Draisaitl

Counting Stats
Frolik: 10G, 15A
Maroon: 17G, 26A

Goals For Percentage
Frolik: 38.96% (!!!)
Maroon: 50.00%

Percentages
Frolik: S% - 6% (career avg: 7.8%), on ice save percentage - 89.3%
Maroon: S% - 12.1% (career avg: 11.9%), on ice save percentage - 91.0%

Thoughts

GAR and WAR, which add up a player's stats and assess a player's contributions to team success, strongly favor Frolik over Maroon.

This is hard to understand given Frolik's counting stats and goals for percentage being drastically inferior to Maroon. However, I think it makes sense because Frolik's percentages were terrible last season, especially when compared to Maroon. This, when combined with Mikael Backlund's 6.5% shooting percentage, explains how a player so dominant with respect to possession stats even while playing in really difficult circumstances could be so underwater in terms of goals for percentage. The 3M line was dominating the opposition in terms of possession but losing the battle in a landslide because of percentages.

Last year, Frolik was a 51.76% GF% player with approximately normal percentages.

The one thing that Maroon does do way better than Frolik is shoot the puck. He is a great finisher around the net. 4% is a big difference in career shooting percentage. But, overall, I would rather just keep Frolik as I think his bad season was very much driven by the bad percentages of him and Backlund.

[Bingo]

I honestly see the Neal deal as the winger added, so Maroon isn't happening ... and I'm so glad for that.

I saw a greater risk in a mistake on Maroon than Neal.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I wonder if Maroon has screwed himself a bit. He must have had some offers, and maybe from teams that went elsewhere because he didn't accept and tried to get more money.

I see his stats in NJ, but I didn't see him play. Maybe he just didn't look that good away from McDavid and at 30, teams are worried he would be a 20 point guy or so. It wouldn't take a huge downturn to get him there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Edmonton has an offer out on him, but Maroon is holding out in hopes St. Louis can sort out their cap situation.

As for Calgary, I think we're out given the Neal signing (unless the player is interested and is prepared to wait and see if Calgary can clear some cap space, which seems unlikely to me).

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think if they retained $2.0M it may be doable.

I look at other guys that were signed or moved.

Beagle - 4 years at $3M - 22 PTS
Roussel - 4 years at $3M - 17PTS
Komarov - 4 years at $3M - 19 PTS
Calvert - 3 years at $2.8M - 24 PTS

Sobotka - 2 years at $3.5M - 31 PTS
Berglund - 4 years at $3.85M - 26 PTS

Brouwer with $2M retained - 2 years at $2.5M - 22 PTS

Brouwer isn't really that far outside of that group and with some $$ retained some team could take a flyer on him. The bigger problem with Brouwer IMO isn't his contract but is his NTC - I feel like he doesn't want to move so he won't wave.

I think what you are forgetting in your analysis is that there are also going to be bargin bin UFAs that you NHL GMs can sign for less term and less money even if the Flames retained max salary on Brouwer.

Just go off some recent Calgary Flames players:
Chris Stewart - 16 points in 54 games
Nick Shore - 17 points in 63 games
Alex Chiasson - 18 points in 60 games
Kris Versteeg - 8 points in 24 games

Any GM can probably get any of the above 4 players for a 1 year deal for around $1 million or less.

And those are just recent Flames. There are still lots of forwards available via UFA that can come for shorter term and less money than Brouwer.

Another GM may take a chance on Brouwer if they feel a change of scenery might bring him back to previous form but they are going to balance that by looking at what is still available by free agency.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If they could trade Frolik for a 2nd (Jets maybe) I would be okay pursuing Maroon on a deal around 3.5 for 3 years. Listening t Treliving today though the Flames are done. Maroon was old B but he was able to land plan A in Neal

If the Jets (or any other NHL team) were willing and able to take on Frolik's contract, why wouldn't they just sign Maroon for a lot less than Frolik is making? If Maroon is asking for more than 4.3 M then he is asking too much.


30 year old Maroon is in the same phase of his career as was 31 year old Glencross when the Flames traded him to Washington for a 2nd and 3rd. He had 13 goals 35 pts in 71 games his last year and then he was done.

30 year old Frolik is winding down as well.

Versteeg just turned 32 in May Frolik will be 31 in Feb 2019 and it looks like Versteeg is done

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I honestly see the Neal deal as the winger added, so Maroon isn't happening ... and I'm so glad for that.

I saw a greater risk in a mistake on Maroon than Neal.

Neal is the better player but Maroon would have commanded less term and money so the margins for error are probably a wash. The tipping point for me is that Neal legitimately wants to be here while Maroon wants to be close to Missouri.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

If the Jets (or any other NHL team) were willing and able to take on Frolik's contract, why wouldn't they just sign Maroon for a lot less than Frolik is making? If Maroon is asking for more than 4.3 M then he is asking too much.


30 year old Maroon is in the same phase of his career as was 31 year old Glencross when the Flames traded him to Washington for a 2nd and 3rd. He had 13 goals 35 pts in 71 games his last year and then he was done.

30 year old Frolik is winding down as well.

Versteeg just turned 32 in May Frolik will be 31 in Feb 2019 and it looks like Versteeg is done

Frolik winding down is different than an aging scorer that may have relied too much on a generational player for tap in goals.

Frolik is a two way guy that drives play. If he goes from 15 goals a season to 9 he's still going to contribute.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Frolik winding down is different than an aging scorer that may have relied too much on a generational player for tap in goals.

Frolik is a two way guy that drives play. If he goes from 15 goals a season to 9 he's still going to contribute.

I am at all not keen on getting Maroon.... now that the Flames have got Neal.

They needed toughness that gets covered by Neal and would have gotten from Maroon.

----

Last year if Frolik and Backlund would have been close to contributing at a 9.6M level the Flames would have made the playoffs.

There is some sort of myth that they are an elite shut line. When they are matched against the top lines at the dome the other teams top line dominate. ( no stats to back this up)

The Flames have one of the worst home records in the league when they get the last change.

They do not have a good shutdown line.

Since they signed Frolik the Flames have won 9 more home games than they lost, They are exactly even in away win-loss.

.500 on the road shows a good team. Basically no advantage when you get to match your shutdown line against the other teams best line. Basically ALL other teams do better at home than on the road.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

I am at all not keen on getting Maroon.... now that the Flames have got Neal.

They needed toughness that gets covered by Neal and would have gotten from Maroon.

----

Last year if Frolik and Backlund would have been close to contributing at a 9.6M level the Flames would have made the playoffs.

There is some sort of myth that they are an elite shut line. When they are matched against the top lines at the dome the other teams top line dominate. ( no stats to back this up)

The Flames have one of the worst home records in the league when they get the last change.

They do not have a good shutdown line.

Since they signed Frolik the Flames have won 9 more home games than they lost, They are exactly even in away win-loss.

.500 on the road shows a good team. Basically no advantage when you get to match your shutdown line against the other teams best line. Basically ALL other teams do better at home than on the road.

The Flames' problem at home was secondary scoring and PP. They tended to check other teams' best players very well.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Flames' problem at home was secondary scoring and PP. They tended to check other teams' best players very well.

It was goaltending.

.893 save percentage at home. (.906 in 16/17)

.916 save percentage on the road. (.908 in 16/17)

That tells most of the story. And actually one of my biggest worries heading into next year is just how bad Smith was on home ice last year - hopefully he can figure out what the issue was at the saddle dome.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It was goaltending.

.893 save percentage at home.

.916 save percentage on the road.

That tells most of the story.

Yeah, I forgot about that differential. Crazy.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It was goaltending.

.893 save percentage at home.

.916 save percentage on the road.

That tells most of the story.

Not really. That is just way too simple of a summary.

I'll agree the goaltending was not good, however, the team was downright awful from top to bottom at home more often than naught. This was further magnified by terrible coaching decisions and the odd blunder in net. All of this adds up to the key area the team needs to be better in order to make the playoffs this year.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Last year if Frolik and Backlund would have been close to contributing at a 9.6M level the Flames would have made the playoffs.

There is some sort of myth that they are an elite shut line. When they are matched against the top lines at the dome the other teams top line dominate. ( no stats to back this up)

No kidding you don't have stats to back that up, because the stats say the opposite.

All three players average near the top of the league in shot attempts against / 60, scoring chances against / 60 and high danger chances against / 60. (all top 30, Tkachuk closer to top 10)

They certainly weren't getting out played despite having the toughest matchups.

Their shooting percentages were a wasteland though and that did that line and the Flames in last year. Out of 392 forwards that played 40 games last year Frolik had the 38th worst shooting percentage, Backlund 55th.

That's approaching puck luck that is pretty hard to duplicate.

[Wolfman]

Maroon isn't still signing is he? There can't be much room left.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Not really. That is just way too simple of a summary.

I'll agree the goaltending was not good, however, the team was downright awful from top to bottom at home more often than naught. This was further magnified by terrible coaching decisions and the odd blunder in net. All of this adds up to the key area the team needs to be better in order to make the playoffs this year.

Scoring chance, shot, Corsi numbers etc were all better or equal at home than they were on the road - the only major difference was the goaltending.

Road:

Corsi For: 50.9%
Scoring Chance: 51.38%
High Danger Chance: 52.11% (11.4 High Danger Chances against per game)
Shooting %: 8.1%
Save Percentage: .916

Home:

Corsi For: 55.4%
Scoring Chance: 54.66%
High Danger Chance: 56.18% (10.4 High Danger chances against per game)
Shooting %: 7.6%
Save Percentage: .893

They were actually better at surpressing High Danger chances at home than they were on the road. So it is pretty close to being that simple.

It was a full percentage point worse last year than it was under the goaltending we got from Elliott/Johnson at home in 16/17 and pretty much equal to Hiller/Ramo in 15/16 (.890)... that is saying something.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It was goaltending.

.893 save percentage at home. (.906 in 16/17)

.916 save percentage on the road. (.908 in 16/17)

That tells most of the story. And actually one of my biggest worries heading into next year is just how bad Smith was on home ice last year - hopefully he can figure out what the issue was at the saddle dome.

If you give the good guys on the other team good chances to score the goal tender can only do so much.



Rittich .855 at home .912 on the road.

ALL the goalie stats are a reflection of the team's defense coverage.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Scoring chance, shot, Corsi numbers etc were all better or equal at home than they were on the road - the only major difference was the goaltending.

Road:

Corsi For: 50.9%
Scoring Chance: 51.38%
High Danger Chance: 52.11% (11.4 High Danger Chances against per game)
Shooting %: 8.1%
Save Percentage: .916

Home:

Corsi For: 55.4%
Scoring Chance: 54.66%
High Danger Chance: 56.18% (10.4 High Danger chances against per game)
Shooting %: 7.6%
Save Percentage: .893

They were actually better at surpressing High Danger chances at home than they were on the road. So it is pretty close to being that simple.

It was a full percentage point worse last year than it was under the goaltending we got from Elliott/Johnson at home in 16/17 and pretty much equal to Hiller/Ramo in 15/16 (.890)... that is saying something.

High Danger shots are based on position of shot .. not how little defense zone coverage there is on the shot. After the road team scores and takes the lead they shut the game down and no longer need to make plays in the offensive zone.