Take your foot off the drama pedal. That’s a bit personal. Is he everything the Flames wanted on the ice, far from it. Embarrassment to the team and the city, please. That’s simply not true.
The city might have been a bit much as I didn’t intend for it to be personal and was talking about on ice performance, but he’s absolutely an embarrassment to the team in that regard. No doubt about it in my mind.
The city might have been a bit much as I didn’t intend for it to be personal and was talking about on ice performance, but he’s absolutely an embarrassment to the team in that regard. No doubt about it in my mind.
Since this is the thread where we're discussing Brouwer, I was listening to the Spittin Chiclets with Keith Tkachuk, who mentioned that while he was visiting Matt, he couldn't believe Matt was up at 2am playing Fort Night. When Keith asked
who he was even playing with/talking to, it was Brouwer and Smith.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mass_nerder For This Useful Post:
I am on the record saying the Flames missed the boat by not offering Vegas an incentive to select Brouwer.
I would still prefer we trade Brouwer to another team, and include a draft pick or a prospect to get them to take him. Even retain salary when doing so. I realize it could be a high draft pick.
I think Brouwer was completely absent in physical game after phyiscal game last season - even before the jaw injury. He was brought it to stand up for his teammates. He left it to Smith and Tkachuk instead.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
The Following User Says Thank You to killer_carlson For This Useful Post:
1) Mangiapane (and other top 6 type prospects) shouldn't be developing on the 4th line. Slot them into a position to succeed, or keep them in the AHL and succeeding in that role.
2) I agree that Lazar should play ahead of Brouwer for the reasons you outlined.
3) Hathaway offers more speed, but that's about it. Brouwer is a better defensive player, and if it means that we lose Hathaway next season, that's ok too. Hathaway maybe has more upside than Brouwer right now, but he is also turning 27 in November. I am not sure he will get to the point that Brouwer is now, at least not defensively, and offensively it is probably a wash. He just adds more speed and plays the pest role better, while Brouwer is much better at making plays and has much better defensive awareness. I think the Flames can afford to lose both, quite honestly.
Again, I think that Brouwer in a strictly 4th line role probably helps the Flames win more than helps them lose, and I especially like him in a 13th forward type role. With that being said, he could very well turn his game around under a new coach and become closer to the player that he was immediately before joining the Flames. I think the bottom 6 last year wasn't as weak as it is seems, and feel that the system made it more difficult for less-talented individuals to hit the scoresheet. I doubt he turns it around to be honest, but it wouldn't shock me if he did considering how consistent he was right up until the day he showed up in Calgary.
I think this line of thinking (see bolded) is dated and reflect a time in hockey where the 4th line was strictly goons. In today's hockey, I'm not sure its either top 6 AHL or top 9 NHL. I would perhaps agree with you if there wasn't depth on the Flames roster, but with the current roster, I think Mangiapane would be successful on the 4th line. Here's how I project the forward lines:
Gaud - Mony - Lind
Tkack - Backs - Neal
Benny - Ryan - Czar
Fro - Janko - XXXX
Even if it's mixed and two of Lazar, Czarnik, Ryan or Bennett are playing the 4th line, adding Mangiapane to that group is BENEFICIAL to Mangiapane, even if it's 10 mins a night. Same goes for Dube or Klimchuck.
If was during the era when Bollig, McGrattan and Stajan were on the 4th line, I would be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands, I'd rather leave a spot for a player with a future in the Flames organization than squander it on Brouwer.
Edit: Treliving even stated in a recent interview that the Flames need to play 4 lines. We all agree the 4th line was a productive black hole last season
Last edited by MarkGio; 07-05-2018 at 10:22 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarkGio For This Useful Post:
I think this line of thinking (see bolded) is dated and reflect a time in hockey where the 4th line was strictly goons. In today's hockey, I'm not sure its either top 6 AHL or top 9 NHL. I would perhaps agree with you if there wasn't depth on the Flames roster, but with the current roster, I think Mangiapane would be successful on the 4th line. Here's how I project the forward lines:
Gaud - Mony - Lind
Tkack - Backs - Neal
Benny - Ryan - Czar
Fro - Janko - XXXX
Even if it's mixed and two of Lazar, Czarnik, Ryan or Bennett are playing the 4th line, adding Mangiapane to that group is BENEFICIAL to Mangiapane, even if it's 10 mins a night. Same goes for Dube or Klimchuck.
If was during the era when Bollig, McGrattan and Stajan were on the 4th line, I would be inclined to agree with you. But as it stands, I'd rather leave a spot for a player with a future in the Flames organization than squander it on Brouwer.
Edit: Treliving even stated in a recent interview that the Flames need to play 4 lines. We all agree the 4th line was a productive black hole last season
For me, it isn't an antiquated concept - it isn't about enforcers. It is about the ability to play defence.
You are going to lean on your top offensive stars to generate goals - and these are in the top 6 for the most part, and top 9 for deep teams.
One of those lines is going to be a strong defensive line usually, and the really good 4th lines in the league help in this regard. I think you should have 4th line players that can PK and help in that regard, so that your better offensive players have fresher legs.
Mangiapane probably wouldn't help with that much.
I do think (and agree) with rolling 4 lines, but Mangiapane will then end up getting sheltered in the defensive situations, right?
I think for a handful of games, it is probably beneficial to have a player like Mangiapane get his ears wet playing on the 4th line, but it shouldn't go beyond that. He needs to either be moved up the lineup and provided with more opportunity in offensive situations, or sent to the AHL and allowing his offensive creativity (and confidence) to continue developing.
I just think the team is going to ride their top offensive players more, and utilize that 4th line for help on the PK to take some tough minutes (Stajan will be missed in his ability to do that) and allow your more offensive stars to have fresher legs. That 4th line absolutely should be contributing on the score-sheet as well, but defence is where I believe they should be spending the a large portion of their minutes to help the team.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
I don't believe for one second that it makes the team worse if Troy Brouwer is playing for the Flames this fall. He is still better than many of their other options.
regardless of what the lines are, those 10 are ahead of him. That leaves 2 spots from the following players:
Czarnik, Lazar, Hathaway, Mangiapane, Foo, Dube and Brouwer.
I think it's a safe bet that Czarnik is in the lineup and is ahead of him. That leaves 1 spot from the other 6 guys. Is he better than them all? Even if you think he is, it is a marginal difference. And I would rather the spot was given to whichever of the young guys earned it.
Rotate them, keep them hungry. Let them provide energy. For me, that is a better use of the spot.
Also, if buying him out is the difference between a long term deal or not for Hanifin, then I definitely think it's worth it.
One final note on the cap space: having a little room to be able to pick someone up at the deadline, or pick up an emergency goalie if Smith got hurt, is well worth having.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Since this is the thread where we're discussing Brouwer, I was listening to the Spittin Chiclets with Keith Tkachuk, who mentioned that while he was visiting Matt, he couldn't believe Matt was up at 2am playing Fort Night. When Keith asked
who he was even playing with/talking to, it was Brouwer and Smith.
I think this is a whole team systematic problem, cause I was playing Fortnite just now and had a Janko070 and Masterking060, on my team.
Since this is the thread where we're discussing Brouwer, I was listening to the Spittin Chiclets with Keith Tkachuk, who mentioned that while he was visiting Matt, he couldn't believe Matt was up at 2am playing Fort Night. When Keith asked
who he was even playing with/talking to, it was Brouwer and Smith.
Lol that was a good one. Had to wait to play that late because Brouwer and Smith weren't allowed to play until their kids went to bed
sorry to try to bring this thread back away from Brouwer bashing...
Is Hanifin the same as Hamilton was when the Flames got him? That would be the case that Hanifin might make to the arbitrators. Hamilton 5.75 x 6 in 2015-16
The cap in 2015-16 was 71.4 M the cap this year 79.5 an increase of 8.1 M or 11.34%
Just doing the math the Hamilton ask for Hanifin for a Hamilton level contract would be 6.4 x 6
Is Jankowski going to be the Flames #2C as a lot of posters have him? What is the going rate for a #2C in their arbitration RFA year?
It is pretty much agreed that at age 23 Lindholm is at least the equivalent of Backlund (5.35 x 6) 3 x 2 for his RFA years and 6 x 4 for his UFA years = 30 /6 or 5 x 6.
Does arbitration indicate that the players want more than what the Flames are offering?
...Is Hanifin the same as Hamilton was when the Flames got him? That would be the case that Hanifin might make to the arbitrators. Hamilton 5.75 x 6 in 2015-16...
Hanifin is ineligible for arbitration.
Quote:
Is Jankowski going to be the Flames #2C as a lot of posters have him? What is the going rate for a #2C in their arbitration RFA year?
Eventually? That is the hope. This season? Not likely. If Jankowski gets there eventually that would be fantastic, but he is not yet a second line centre. Not even close.
Quote:
It is pretty much agreed that at age 23 Lindholm is at least the equivalent of Backlund (5.35 x 6) 3 x 2 for his RFA years and 6 x 4 for his UFA years = 30 /6 or 5 x 6.
Does arbitration indicate that the players want more than what the Flames are offering?
EVERY player wants more than what has been offered by their club. Arbitration itself does not indicate anything about ongoing negotiations. As has been pointed out already a few times in this thread, it is one of the very few rights that RFAs retain under the current CBA, which is why tonnes of them trigger it when they can.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The Jankowski case might be the most tricky. With his 17 goals he might ask for $2M+ but I'm sure the flames would only want something like $1.25 deal.
I call BS on Smith. His kids are all 6 and under IIRC. He could have played by 9.
There's a good chance that they could have started at 9
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mass_nerder For This Useful Post:
