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

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Red

I think people need to realize that we can't just sign stars. Stamkos wasn't coming here. And had he actually done so we would be complaining about the contract too. Same with Lucic or some other higher profile player.

Those that lament about Colborne need to realize that the NHL is not about being the youngest or having the most projects (Colborne was that). It's about winning games and Brouwer will help more than Colborne or any rookie we would otherwise call up.

And the time is ticking on those good ELCs we have, can't exactly wait for some rookie to become a Brouwer 3 years down the road.

I wonder how many people dont like this signing because Brouwer is a large guy and a bruiser. It speaks "truculence" and that's a taboo around here. It's fashionable to disagree with Burke, I get that.
And lastly, if a 4.5 mil contract is that huge a concern then the team is butchered elsewhere. This is not a Luongo contract we are talking here. It's not this contract that will make things difficult down the road.

I think you're way off base here. Most of us understand where we are with the players we have. Signing Brouwer because we can't get a star is a silly reason to sign him.

The reasoning some of us dislike the signing is exactly what we're saying. There's no ulterior motives here

The amount of a finite amount of cap space allocated to this player is not commensurate with the value he'll bring

Is not that we're afraid of truculence, it's not because we don't understand hockey, and it's not because we think he's a terrible player.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're way off base here. Most of us understand where we are with the players we have. Signing Brouwer because we can't get a star is a silly reason to sign him.

The training some of us dislike the signing is exactly what we're saying. There's no ulterior motives here

The amount of a finite amount of cap space allocated to this player is not commensurate with the value he'll bring

Is not that we're afraid of truculence, it's not because we don't understand hockey, and it's not because we think he's a terrible player.

OK, let's break it down for a second.

$73 million cap

Brouwer's $4.5 M hit accounts for 6.2% of the cap space.

Roster consists of 14 forwards, 7 d-men, and 2 goalies: 23 players.

That means the average amount of money per player is $3.17 M. But not everyone can make that.

OK, so you give your top line players $6-8 million and sacrifice your 4th line/3rd pairing players to around the league minimum or a little more.

Starting goalie $5-6 million, backup around $1 million.

One would argue that your 2nd and 3rd line players are relatively interchangeable these days, so you would have them making anywhere between $2-6 million depending on what they bring and their role, leaving a little extra for your top forwards and defensemen.

If you didn't have Brouwer as an UFA signing, what would be fair value for a 20 goal/40 point forward, who brings a lot more than just points to the team? Maybe $4 million/year? Ok, so you tack on an extra 500K for him being a free agent. There's your contract.

Plus, as someone mentioned earlier, we were just paying David Jones that amount of money, and there were moments he wasn't even an effective 3rd liner, never mind potential 2nd liner with intangibles that make other players better.

I think as we move on this year, people are going to realize that this is not a poor-value contract. It's pretty much market value.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Some fans have the unrealistic goal of having everyone on the roster on sweetheart cap friendly deals. That isn't realistic. Brouwer makes market value for an UFA. Certainly I think we'll be getting more out of his 4.5 million next year than we were out of Hudler at 4, Jones at 4, Wideman at 5.5 and Raymond at 3. If you compare what he brings to other UFAs his deal is perfectly reasonable.

Pretty shocked at all he negative reaction. Some people just aren't going to like any contract a veteran UFA signs but not signing any of them ever isn't very realistic.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The amount of a finite amount of cap space allocated to this player is not commensurate with the value he'll bring

Is not that we're afraid of truculence, it's not because we don't understand hockey, and it's not because we think he's a terrible player.

Thank you for posting what should be obvious but has been missed by many a poster in this thread. No one sensible is saying Brouwer is a scrub 4th liner that doesn't improve the team. However 4.5 million a year, for 4 years, is not small money relative to the salary cap.

This is the same money TJ Brodie is making over the same time span. Brodie will expectedly outperform his contract, which is what you need across the roster to win a Stanley Cup. I would add Backlund as another player I expect to outperform his contract, as well as ELC/Bridge guys like Tkachuk, Kulak, and Jankowski.

Among guys who won't "outperform" their contracts we have core players who should expect to perform to the value of their contracts (Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Hamilton, Bennett?).

There will always be a player or two who is not performing at the level of their pay. We can call that "Inevitible #4 Defenseman Signing", "Lance Bouma", Matt Stajan, heck I'd even argue Frolik isn't expected to perform at a level commensurate to his pay.. Was a right handed shot power play scorer a team need? Certainly. No argument there. But we've added another player who will fall into this category of not being worth his contract.

We got away with having Raymonds and Engellands the past few years because our stars were getting paid pennies on the dollar. Now when our stars will be paid US dollars on the Canadian dollar, we will constantly be up against the cap with virtually zero flexibility to make a large scale move - the acquisition of a game-breaking type veteran talent. Your veteran forward group needs to have at least one huge-impact players - every recent champ with a young core has still had a guy Hossa, Brown, Gaborik, Sharp or the like in its top six. We not only lack that calibre of top six veteran forward, but we've actively elected to fill that player's reserved cap space with Brouwer. No one sensible is going to trade us a Mark Stone for a Troy Brouwer.

It's lost opportunity cost, not a bad player. In isolation Brouwer is a player that has had a positive impact for his teams over at least the past six seasons and should be a middle sixer for us for at least the first two years of his deal - but he won't bring back value and as we approach the later years of the deal will passively limit our options.

[StrykerSteve]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Brouwer's contract. Fair value for a consistent forward.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're way off base here. Most of us understand where we are with the players we have. Signing Brouwer because we can't get a star is a silly reason to sign him.

The reasoning some of us dislike the signing is exactly what we're saying. There's no ulterior motives here

The amount of a finite amount of cap space allocated to this player is not commensurate with the value he'll bring

Is not that we're afraid of truculence, it's not because we don't understand hockey, and it's not because we think he's a terrible player.

No, we didn't sign him because there were no stars available. We signed him because that's the kind of player we needed.
We did not need a Hudler type guy that may pot a few more goals. All the nay sayers have brought up is points as to why he is overpaid. Points isn't everything.
Was Langkow a bad player for us? Conroy? Neither was known for scoring a lot. From what I recall they were quite solid here.

And outside of Colborne and Hudler, what other players would the nay sayers bring in to fill that spot on RW? Let's hear those names. Let's see your ideas for the solution here.

[EldrickOnIce]

I think as we move on this year, people are going to realize that this is not a poor-value contract. It's pretty much market value.

I am more concerned about year 3 and 4.

[Red]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Thank you for posting what should be obvious but has been missed by many a poster in this thread. No one sensible is saying Brouwer is a scrub 4th liner that doesn't improve the team. However 4.5 million a year, for 4 years, is not small money relative to the salary cap.

This is the same money TJ Brodie is making over the same time span. Brodie will expectedly outperform his contract, which is what you need across the roster to win a Stanley Cup. I would add Backlund as another player I expect to outperform his contract, as well as ELC/Bridge guys like Tkachuk, Kulak, and Jankowski.

Among guys who won't "outperform" their contracts we have core players who should expect to perform to the value of their contracts (Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Hamilton, Bennett?).

There will always be a player or two who is not performing at the level of their pay. We can call that "Inevitible #4 Defenseman Signing", "Lance Bouma", Matt Stajan, heck I'd even argue Frolik isn't expected to perform at a level commensurate to his pay.. Was a right handed shot power play scorer a team need? Certainly. No argument there. But we've added another player who will fall into this category of not being worth his contract.

We got away with having Raymonds and Engellands the past few years because our stars were getting paid pennies on the dollar. Now when our stars will be paid US dollars on the Canadian dollar, we will constantly be up against the cap with virtually zero flexibility to make a large scale move - the acquisition of a game-breaking type veteran talent. Your veteran forward group needs to have at least one huge-impact players - every recent champ with a young core has still had a guy Hossa, Brown, Gaborik, Sharp or the like in its top six. We not only lack that calibre of top six veteran forward, but we've actively elected to fill that player's reserved cap space with Brouwer. No one sensible is going to trade us a Mark Stone for a Troy Brouwer.

It's lost opportunity cost, not a bad player. In isolation Brouwer is a player that has had a positive impact for his teams over at least the past six seasons and should be a middle sixer for us for at least the first two years of his deal - but he won't bring back value and as we approach the later years of the deal will passively limit our options.

TJ Brodie's contract is irrelevant. That's like bringing up Gaudreau's contract.

Anyways, Flames needed a larger and tougher guy that's a RW that can pot 20G or more without breaking the bank. What's your solution?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Thank you for posting what should be obvious but has been missed by many a poster in this thread. No one sensible is saying Brouwer is a scrub 4th liner that doesn't improve the team. However 4.5 million a year, for 4 years, is not small money relative to the salary cap.

This is the same money TJ Brodie is making over the same time span. Brodie will expectedly outperform his contract, which is what you need across the roster to win a Stanley Cup. I would add Backlund as another player I expect to outperform his contract, as well as ELC/Bridge guys like Tkachuk, Kulak, and Jankowski.

And you're making the classic mistake of comparing RFAs to UFAs as if they should be bringing the same value per dollar. You can't compare RFAs (Brodie, Backlund) or young players to UFAs and have it be a sensible comparison because it isn't.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Among guys who won't "outperform" their contracts we have core players who should expect to perform to the value of their contracts (Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Hamilton, Bennett?).

And you'll notice all of those except Gio were RFAs or young players. You shouldn't expect to have UFAs on steal of a deals, UFAs don't work like that, its pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

There will always be a player or two who is not performing at the level of their pay. We can call that "Inevitible #4 Defenseman Signing", "Lance Bouma", Matt Stajan, heck I'd even argue Frolik isn't expected to perform at a level commensurate to his pay.. Was a right handed shot power play scorer a team need? Certainly. No argument there. But we've added another player who will fall into this category of not being worth his contract.

He's worth his contract because he's a veteran UFA and that's market value for them. Trying to argue he isn't worth it while using RFAs as comparable is folly.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

We got away with having Raymonds and Engellands the past few years because our stars were getting paid pennies on the dollar. Now when our stars will be paid US dollars on the Canadian dollar, we will constantly be up against the cap with virtually zero flexibility to make a large scale move - the acquisition of a game-breaking type veteran talent. Your veteran forward group needs to have at least one huge-impact players - every recent champ with a young core has still had a guy Hossa, Brown, Gaborik, Sharp or the like in its top six. We not only lack that calibre of top six veteran forward, but we've actively elected to fill that player's reserved cap space with Brouwer. No one sensible is going to trade us a Mark Stone for a Troy Brouwer.

All teams can afford a couple overpaid UFAs and the only way you generally get them is to overpay slightly or greatly. Last year we had Wideman, Raymond, Hudler and Stajan as overpaid UFAs with Jones as an overpaid RFA. Raymond, Jones and Hudler are gone. Wideman will be gone within a year or sooner. Brouwer can be one of our slightly overpaid via UFA veterans. Veterans are important for young teams. We may not ever sign a huge impact UFA player. Our huge impact players are likely to come from within. Our huge impact forwards are likely to be Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett and Tkachuk. You only need a couple complimentary players to fill out your top 6 at that point, there's no need for more huge impact veterans IMO. Brouwer is a great complimentary piece to our young skilled players as he's a right shot, big and strong, a good veteran and can produce.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's lost opportunity cost, not a bad player. In isolation Brouwer is a player that has had a positive impact for his teams over at least the past six seasons and should be a middle sixer for us for at least the first two years of his deal - but he won't bring back value and as we approach the later years of the deal will passively limit our options.

Don't really see it that way. We needed a veteran, big, strong, tough, right shot RW and we got one. What opportunity are we missing out on? Treliving filled a hole. You'd rather we didn't fill our holes and instead hoped for opportunities in the future? I don't really understand your perspective.

Basically your post completely failed when you started to compare the value we get from players signed as RFAs and players on ELCs to players signed as UFA. They are basically non-comparable players in terms of the value you get from their contracts.

[Firebot]

One thing I don't get.

Frolik was signed to a 5 year 4.3 million dollar AAV contract just a year ago and is only 2 years younger than Brouwer.

Brouwer is bigger and is the definition of a power forward, and has been scoring at the same 40 point ratio as Frolik. He was signed to a 4 year (less term) 4.5 million AAV contract.

People liked Frolik's contract last year and it was still good now. His contract will be ending while he is 33, while Brouwer's contract will end at 34.

The magical 30 seems to be clouding people's judgement.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Firebot

One thing I don't get.

Frolik was signed to a 5 year 4.3 million dollar AAV contract just a year ago and is only 2 years younger than Brouwer.

Brouwer is bigger and is the definition of a power forward, and has been scoring at the same 40 point ratio as Frolik. He was signed to a 4 year (less term) 4.5 million AAV contract.

People liked Frolik's contract last year and it was still good now. His contract will be ending while he is 33, while Brouwer's contract will end at 34.

The magical 30 seems to be clouding people's judgement.

Something tells me that's not it.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And you're making the classic mistake of comparing RFAs to UFAs as if they should be bringing the same value per dollar. You can't compare RFAs (Brodie, Backlund) or young players to UFAs and have it be a sensible comparison because it isn't.



And you'll notice all of those except Gio were RFAs or young players. You shouldn't expect to have UFAs on steal of a deals, UFAs don't work like out, its pretty obvious.



He's worth his contract because he's a veteran UFA and that's market value for them. Trying to argue he isn't worth it while using RFAs as comparable is folly.



All teams can afford a couple overpaid UFAs and the only way you generally get them is to overpay slightly or greatly. Last year we had Wideman, Raymond, Hudler and Stajan as overpaid UFAs with Jones as an overpaid RFA. Raymond, Jones and Hudler are gone. Wideman will be gone within a year or sooner. Brouwer can be one of our slightly overpaid via UFA veterans. Veterans are important for young teams. We may not ever sign a huge impact UFA player. Our huge impact players are likely to come from within. Our huge impact forwards are likely to be Monahan, Gaudreau, Bennett and Tkachuk. You only need a couple complimentary players to fill out your top 6 at that point, there's no need for more huge impact veterans IMO. Brouwer is a great complimentary piece to our young skilled players as he's a right shot, big and strong, a good veteran and can produce.



Don't really see it that way. We needed a veteran, big, strong, tough, right shot RW and we got one. What opportunity are we missing out on? Treliving filled a hole. You'd rather we didn't fill our holes and instead hoped for opportunities in the future? I don't really understand your perspective.

Basically your post completely failed when you started to compare the value we get from players signed as RFAs and players on ELCs to players signed as UFA. They are basically non-comparable players in terms of the value you get from their contracts.

Well said. It's easy to complain without providing any solutions of their own. This team needs to move forward, no time to wait for Poirer to find his game, if he even has one.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Firebot

One thing I don't get.

Frolik was signed to a 5 year 4.3 million dollar AAV contract just a year ago and is only 2 years younger than Brouwer.

Brouwer is bigger and is the definition of a power forward, and has been scoring at the same 40 point ratio as Frolik. He was signed to a 4 year (less term) 4.5 million AAV contract.

People liked Frolik's contract last year and it was still good now. His contract will be ending while he is 33, while Brouwer's contract will end at 34.

The magical 30 seems to be clouding people's judgement.

One was after a miracle season. This one is after a bad one. People are jaded.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Something tells me that's not it.

It's the HERO chart you're looking at, isn't it?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Thank you for posting what should be obvious but has been missed by many a poster in this thread. No one sensible is saying Brouwer is a scrub 4th liner that doesn't improve the team. However 4.5 million a year, for 4 years, is not small money relative to the salary cap.

This is the same money TJ Brodie is making over the same time span. Brodie will expectedly outperform his contract, which is what you need across the roster to win a Stanley Cup. I would add Backlund as another player I expect to outperform his contract, as well as ELC/Bridge guys like Tkachuk, Kulak, and Jankowski.

Among guys who won't "outperform" their contracts we have core players who should expect to perform to the value of their contracts (Gaudreau, Monahan, Giordano, Hamilton, Bennett?).

There will always be a player or two who is not performing at the level of their pay. We can call that "Inevitible #4 Defenseman Signing", "Lance Bouma", Matt Stajan, heck I'd even argue Frolik isn't expected to perform at a level commensurate to his pay.. Was a right handed shot power play scorer a team need? Certainly. No argument there. But we've added another player who will fall into this category of not being worth his contract.

We got away with having Raymonds and Engellands the past few years because our stars were getting paid pennies on the dollar. Now when our stars will be paid US dollars on the Canadian dollar, we will constantly be up against the cap with virtually zero flexibility to make a large scale move - the acquisition of a game-breaking type veteran talent. Your veteran forward group needs to have at least one huge-impact players - every recent champ with a young core has still had a guy Hossa, Brown, Gaborik, Sharp or the like in its top six. We not only lack that calibre of top six veteran forward, but we've actively elected to fill that player's reserved cap space with Brouwer. No one sensible is going to trade us a Mark Stone for a Troy Brouwer.

It's lost opportunity cost, not a bad player. In isolation Brouwer is a player that has had a positive impact for his teams over at least the past six seasons and should be a middle sixer for us for at least the first two years of his deal - but he won't bring back value and as we approach the later years of the deal will passively limit our options.

Nothing has been 'missed' by most posters - you are simply over-reacting and exaggerating the impact of Brouwer's salary.

Brodie signed as an RFA. But never mind that (and you knew that).

No team is going to have 23 dream contracts like Brodie's. It's a simple distribution. The average salary is $3M. ELCs will always be the one tail of the distribution, and UFA-aged players will be the other end. YOu just want to make sure you avoid the 'disasters'.

Brouwer is $1.5M over the average salary. That is no big deal at all. Just as Frolik's contract isn't a problem.

When you start getting too many large contracts, you're obviously going to get into trouble.

But the Flames are about to lose most of their UFA contracts (Wideman, Engelland, Bollig and next year Stajan).

That's a lot of leadership going out the door. Brouwer comes in as a replacement. And he's a better player.

You don't like it? Fine. But don't sit here and try and tell us we're all missing anything.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's the HERO chart you're looking at, isn't it?

The joke's getting well used, but I don't need a hero chart to tell me Frolik is a much better player than Brouwer.

But I'm glad you're more interested in creating an argument than a discussion.

[Strange Brew]

Brouwer is a good player and will help the team. No doubt about it. What I am concerned about, is would Flames have been better off keeping their powder dry for when they are closer to being a contender? Next two years are likely prime for Frolik, Brouwer and Giordano. Feels like the teams window isn't really there yet so will these contracts be drags when the team is ready to contend?

On the other hand, this team may be a lot closer to contention than I think. If so, next couple of years wil be great. And frankly given the absolute lack of success this franchise has had outside of 2004 in last 25 years, maybe it's about time we became playoff contenders. Everyone's trade value goes up then.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Some people just aren't going to like any contract a veteran UFA signs but not signing any of them ever isn't very realistic.

This. UFAs don't come cheaper just because we'd like them to come cheaper. They cost what they cost. And if you don't want to pony up the cash and term for UFAs to fill out important roles on your roster, then what's the alternative? Cross your fingers and hope a Poirier steps up next season and pots 20 goals, plays the PP, kills penalties, and provides a strong physical presence?

It would be nice if the Flames had a couple prospects step up every season and take on significant 2/3rd line roles so they wouldn't have to go the expensive UFA route. But they don't have that luxury. No team does. That's why everyone has to dip into the UFA market now and then if they hope to compete.

Brouwer was third in TOI among forwards on the third best team in the NHL last season, playing for the most demanding coach in the league. He immediately becomes the 4th or 5th best forward on the Flames. He is not over the hill, and his salary is in line with what other players of his quality cost. The Flames will be a significantly stronger team next season with him in the lineup than without him.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The joke's getting well used, but I don't need a hero chart to tell me Frolik is a much better player than Brouwer.

But I'm glad you're more interested in creating an argument than a discussion.

You really think being condescending is the best course of action at this point?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What I am concerned about, is would Flames have been better off keeping their powder dry for when they are closer to being a contender? Next two years are likely prime for Frolik, Brouwer and Giordano. Feels like the teams window isn't really there yet so will these contracts be drags when the team is ready to contend?

On the other hand, this team may be a lot closer to contention than I think.

I think the Flames are close. With even average goaltending next season, I expect they will be in the playoff mix. Forwards peak early (at least in terms of goal-scoring), and I expect Gaudreau and Monahan are nearing that peak, so the window is opening.

That doesn't mean the Flames should go trading away young assets for veterans to put them over the top. But Treliving hasn't done that. It's a process.