[News] Bouma, Byron, and Jooris and 20 other players file for Salary Arbitration

[Vulcan]

Honestly there are some people who just don't value our physical players. Saying it nicely, I think they don't understand hockey very well but that's just my opinion.

[442scotty]

Kind of a bummer but the reality is that you cant keep everyone and with all the new guys coming because of great drafting and development some good players will have to move on. Guess we will find out if Bouma is one of them.

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

You're the only person in this thread today suggesting Bouma should play in the top six.

So then, without a top six role and inflated stats, he's basically an older Micheal Ferland? Then let's trade him and keep Ferland.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

So then, without a top six role and inflated stats, he's basically an older Micheal Ferland? Then let's trade him and keep Ferland.

No, man, let's trade Bouma and Ferland and Smith, because they're basically just older third round picks!!

[InconvenientTruth]

Bouma was played in the top 6 for a good chunk of the season. He absolutely should never be used that way.

[Azhouse]

What the hell is "the eyeballs crowd"?

[bax]

Originally Posted by InconvenientTruth

If you are playing him in the top 6 it absolutely is about getting points.

Backlund was carrying his mail on the penalty kill too. Bouma makes the shot block that the color guy raves about, but it's Backlund tying up plays on the wall and breaking up zone entries that is really making the difference.

Honestly, any legitimate third line player, preferably with a year or two of RFA control that won't cost us 2M gets Bouma.

Nobody is valuing Bouma based on his goal totals other than you and pepsishark. Most posters realize that 16 goals could very well be a career year for Bouma.

Bouma's age and style of play is an exact match with the flames chance to compete for a championship. Trading him for a pick would send the wrong message to the entire team, the guy is worth 2 million a year.

Sometimes hockey isn't always about "maximizing the value" of an asset. Bouma will help us win games next year. Prospects are just that, prospects. No sense in trading away a player that you know will help in order to put someone in your line up who might help in order to save a million bucks.

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Honestly there are some people who just don't value our physical players. Saying it nicely, I think they don't understand hockey very well but that's just my opinion.

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM.
It's not about size. If your top six is 13-23-24, 63-11-67, you have six spots for Colborne, Jones, Stajan, Bouma, Bollig, Granlund, Byron, Jooris, Raymond, and Shore. If you have to get rid of a couple of those guys, why not get a good return? Bouma and Colborne give you the best return. Pick one.

[bax]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

So then, without a top six role and inflated stats, he's basically an older Micheal Ferland? Then let's trade him and keep Ferland.

There's more to hockey than point totals. Why are you against having Ferland and Bouma? Is depth a bad thing?

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

Not even close. With the excess of forwards, and players like Bill Arnold likely looking to make a jump to the NHL, it simply makes sense to get the maximum return on a disposable winger. Lance is not more valuable playing 4th line minutes if he's leapfrogged by younger players, as is fairly likely to be the case. Imagine if you could replace Schlemko with a young, mobile D-man, plus a pick, in a trade for Bouma. I'd do it.

The key to getting better is not to stay the same. If Lance played well with Backlund, Bennett and Frolik should play even better with Backlund. That's called improvement. You don't just stick Bouma on the line again and move the other 2 down the depth chart because it worked okay the year before.

Again, Booms role really isn't to score goals. Might I remind you he's only 25 himself. Guys like Arnold etc haven't done or proven squat all at the NHL level.

You get better by upgrading not downgrading, at this point you are suggesting we downgrade Bouma with guys like Arnold.

There are plently of young mobile dman on the team that can play the 7th dman role. Or heck they can just re-sign Schlemko for that role.

At the end of the day it's nice to have million picks but only 20-23 guys make the team.

Bouma likely won't be playing with Backlund this year anyways. He'll be back to bottom 6 role which is what he's great at.

[bax]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM.

It's not about size. If your top six is 13-23-24, 63-11-67, you have six spots for Colborne, Jones, Stajan, Bouma, Bollig, Granlund, Byron, Jooris, Raymond, and Shore. If you have to get rid of a couple of those guys, why not get a good return? Bouma and Colborne give you the best return. Pick one.

Because you want to keep the players that will help you win, it's not about getting the best return when that return would be minimal at best.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by bax

Andrew Ladd was a fourth overall pick who was putting up 40-50 points with the Blackhawks. Bickell had a terrific post season and they overpaid because of it. Not great comparisons in my opinion because we aren't going to be paying Bouma 4 million a year. Something around 2 million/year for what he brings is great for the Flames.

You say we need players "like" Bouma except ones who can play in the playoffs without facing injuries. I hate to break it to you, but that sort of player doesn't exist. Bouma randomly broke his hand while blocking a shot. That play doesn't happen and he plays a full season plus playoffs.

Instead of moving him out to make room for Ferland, why not keep both for added depth? That's what strong teams have. Multiple options because injuries happen to every team.

I agree that Bouma isn't part of the "core", but for 2 million I don't see one reason why you wouldn't keep him. Plus Sean needs to keep his room mate right?

Added depth is good, in theory. But the problem is we have too many NHL ready forwards. Keeping both Ferland and Bouma seems good, but who do we cut?

Backlund, Bennet, Bollig, Bouma, Byron, Colborne, Ferland, Frolik, Gaudreau, Granlund, Hudler, Jones, Jooris, Monahan, Raymond, Shore, Stajan.

There are 17 guys for 13 or 14 roster spots. Add Poirier who stands a chance of forcing his way onto the roster and you've up to 18, so now you've got to cut a bunch of guys.

Everyone wants to fire Raymond into the sun. Granlund and Poirier can be sent back down without waivers, but what if they earn their spots? What if someone else goes all Jooris at main camp and earns a spot?

Depth is great, but it's going to lead to some tough decisions. I'm just saying that I'd be willing to move someone not named Bennet, Gaudreau, Hudler or Monahan for the right price.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM.
It's not about size. If your top six is 13-23-24, 63-11-67, you have six spots for Colborne, Jones, Stajan, Bouma, Bollig, Granlund, Byron, Jooris, Raymond, and Shore. If you have to get rid of a couple of those guys, why not get a good return? Bouma and Colborne give you the best return. Pick one.

You have 8 spots, because no team will run a roster with only 12 forwards. You also have flexibility with Granlund, Ferland, and Jooris being waiver exempt. You also have injuries to deal with over the course of the season.

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Again, Booms role really sin't to score goals. Might I remind you he's only 25 himself. Guys like Arnold etc haven't don't or proven squat all at the NHL level.

You get better by upgrading not downgrading, at this point you are suggesting we downgrade Bouma with guys like Arnold.

There are plently of young mobile dman on the team that can play the 7th dman role. Or heck they can just re-sign Schlemko for that role.

At the end of the day it's nice to have million picks but only 20-23 guys make the team.

Bouma likely won't be playing with Backlund this year anyways. He'll be back to bottom 6 role which is what he's great at.

The problems this franchise has had in the past is the arrogant notion that a young up-and-comer can't fill the roll of an overpriced, but established bottom 6.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH ROOM.
It's not about size. If your top six is 13-23-24, 63-11-67, you have six spots for Colborne, Jones, Stajan, Bouma, Bollig, Granlund, Byron, Jooris, Raymond, and Shore. If you have to get rid of a couple of those guys, why not get a good return? Bouma and Colborne give you the best return. Pick one.

BS.

Whatever the Flames could get for any of those players isn't going to help this team win a Cup or keep it from winning a Cup. If we have to keep only 7 out of those 10 guys then I'm saying goodbye to:

1. Byron
2. Raymond
3. Bollig

Bouma would be near the bottom of my list .

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

The problems this franchise has had in the past is the arrogant notion that a young up-and-comer can't fill the roll of an overpriced, but established bottom 6.

So now Booms is overpaid? without a contract but he's overpaid. Great logic.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

The problems this franchise has had in the past is the arrogant notion that a young up-and-comer can't fill the roll of an overpriced, but established bottom 6.

You're really worked up over a few hundred K.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by saillias

Sorry what. Trade Bouma because he broke his hand on a blocked shot?

So you'd prefer we acquire the guy who blocks that shot and his hand is made of steel and thus it doesn't break, or would you prefer a player who simply wouldn't block that shot?

Kris Russell blocks a lot of shots and never uses his hand. A player that blocks shots from his knees with one hand on the stick and his other palm toward the shooter is going to get hurt a lot.

I admire Bouma's do anything to win attitude, but I'd be willing to sell high on a player with his injury history and break neck style.

[bax]

Originally Posted by pepsishark

The problems this franchise has had in the past is the arrogant notion that a young up-and-comer can't fill the roll of an overpriced, but established bottom 6.

Bouma isn't going to be overpaid. Plus he's only 2 years older than Bill Arnold. He isn't some veteran falling out of the league

[pepsishark]

Originally Posted by bax

There's more to hockey than point totals. Why are you against having Ferland and Bouma? Is depth a bad thing?

I'm not, I just don't feel Bouma is that far and away better than the space he takes up. I am, however, a big believer in the difference maker Ferland can be, and I also would be choked if Bouma took his spot on the team.

If Poirier and Arnold challenge for spots in the coming year as well, and we presume to know Raymond and Bollig can't be moved at this time, realistically you are left to maximize return to free up some space. I personally hope it's Colborne, but if I'm Treliving, I'm tempted to move Lance based purely on his value.

That's all this conversation was about in my eyes. Not some absurd notion that I'm hell-bent to make the Flames worse. In fact, I think you could get a decent defenseman for Bouma and become better; one that would ideally become a top-4 in a season or two.