[Rumour] Flames have possibly traded Brouwer?

[Toonage]

If we want to add fuel to the fire of adding another 6/7D, today it apparently looked like Kulak would draw in with Stone and Bartkowski would sit. Wasn't looking like that just a few days ago.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FlamesNation23

Sbisa is so bad. Anyone but sbisa

1 year
3 year

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Vegas is not going to take Brouwer at full. It will most likely be Sbisa for Brouwer at 25% retained.

They might if they think Brouwer can bounce back and bring leadership to their team.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Beninho

It makes a lot of sense but would Brouwer waive to go to Vegas? Obviously no one knows.

If it's a choice between playing on CGY's PK & 4th line, or on VGK's PP & 2nd line, then I think he absolutely waives.

I would think that Brouwer's still wanting another contract in this league after his current 1 expires.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

Vegas is not going to take Brouwer at full. It will most likely be Sbisa for Brouwer at 25% retained.

You could be right but Treliving>>>>McPhee so I could see a full salary trade.

I am thinking McPhee over played his hand in the trade market and now has to salvage what he can.

The Flames possibly throw in a prospect as well?

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They might if they think Brouwer can bounce back and bring leadership to their team.

True

[bubbsy]

I'd be shocked if Brouwer gets traded. I think what role Brouwer fits now is an unknown. Was last year a one off, or was it the beginning of his plateau/downturn.

I don't think teams will be lining up to trade for him to find out. If he plays the way he did last year, I don't think any level of retention makes it worth it.

[The Fonz]

They need a few forwards, so toss Shinkaruk in there too.

[Madman]

[RANDOM TWEET]
Heard Brouwer might be traded.
[/RANDOM TWEET]

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Or potentially he's traded for another player that is overpaid or doesn't fit quite as well on their current team.

Brouwer IMO compares favourably to David Jones when we traded for him. Jones was making 4 million and had a few years left. We dealt Tanguay for him who we were somewhat desperate to trade for cap reasons. If David Jones @ 4 million can be traded then Troy Brouwer @ 4.5 million should be tradeable as well.

Vegas having only 10 forwards and having a surplus of 10 defensemen seems like a decent fit. I know I argued against it yesterday but it is making more sense to me now. Plus you have McPhee there who used to have Brouwer.

When people say a player is untradeable , they mean for positive value.

Trading Brouwer for an equally bad contract accomplishes nothing for Calgary. Or trading him with 50% retained for a bag of pucks makes him "untradeable " in most posters terms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[topfiverecords]

This thread should probably just close up.

[domingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Bartkowski is also bad. The good thing about Sbisa is he would be the number 6 guy, can be physical, and most importantly only signed for one more year. A 1 for 1 trade frees up $900k this year and the full $4.5M the next 2 years.

Sbisa would love to be on the same team as Ferland, so he won't get run
over again and again.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

When people say a player is untradeable , they mean for positive value.

Trading Brouwer for an equally bad contract accomplishes nothing for Calgary. Or trading him with 50% retained for a bag of pucks makes him "untradeable " in most posters terms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's not what 'untradeable' means to me. I might be in the minority on that, but I doubt it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

That's not what 'untradeable' means to me. I might be in the minority on that, but I doubt it.

Well then, no one is truly untradeable, because you could attach Crosby to pretty much anyone and trade him.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

That's not what 'untradeable' means to me. I might be in the minority on that, but I doubt it.

Well, then what is untradeable? No one is untradeable if you retain max salary and bring back a crap contract in return. But then what are you doing for you team?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Well then, no one is truly untradeable, because you could attach Crosby to pretty much anyone and trade him.

That's not equivalent to what you said before. Trading a player with a bad contract for a similar bad contact is definitely a 'trade'. Both teams are hoping the new guy they get can bounce back. Trading a player with retained salary for future considerations is also a trade, as you net some capspace at the very least. Very, very few players are truly untradeable.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Well, then what is untradeable? No one is untradeable if you retain max salary and bring back a crap contract in return. But then what are you doing for you team?

I guess I would just say that 'untradeable' is a bad term. Saying Brouwer currently has negative or nearly negative trade value is more accurate.

I'm probably just arguing semantics though, so I'll leave it at that.

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I had no idea that Vegas only had 10 forwards on their roster...

Brouwer for Sbisa makes a lot of sense.

Only 10 healthy forwards. Neil is day-to-day. Might be healthy for their season opener on Friday. D Shea Theodore is waiver exempt, might be sent down to bring a forward up temporarily.

McPhee needs to trade a D man for a forward for sure, but he still might bide his time to find the right deal.

[robaur]

Vegas has 10 F, 10 D, 3 G on active roster.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by robaur

Vegas has 10 F, 10 D, 3 G on active roster.

Thinking outside the box, naturally