Troy Brouwer

[cccsberg]

So we give up on a speedy Colburn for an aging slow Brouwer, Colburn 2.5 per and Brouwer over 4 mil per how crazy is that. I think Colburn is just starting to come into his own I think he will end up biting us in the behind if we meet in the playoffs. Now instead of getting younger we just got a little older in some ways might as well of kept David Jones. Before the season is over everyone here will be wanting his contract gone so I'm on as saying bad choice BT failed miserably this yr in the FA game.

Zima, give your head a shake.  A "speedy" Colborne and an "aging, slow" Brouwer?  Really?   In what world are you living?  How about an ineffective, midling Colborne vs an in his prime, get it done consistently and at the most crucial times Brouwer?  And worried about getting younger?  We have one of the youngest teams out there and getting younger.  Having great leaders and mentors to teach our kids what it takes is now and going to be crucial.  Last thing we want is pre-mature youth floundering without guidance like the Oilers for so many years.  Finally, again BT kills it this off-season, getting us into top echelon goal-keeping at bargain basement costs, filling specific needs with proven vets and clearing out  a bunch of guys that weren't going to move the needle....   Sounds pretty solid to me.

[DirtyDeeds]

In a 300 word post about 6 of them was speaking about low possession numbers. The bulk of the post was listing 5 positives of the signing, many of them the same ones your listing.

Not sure how I was clinging to possession stats.

Well I think I have zoomed in your problem then. It appears to me that you are having trouble with counting.

 

It is clear to me you have trouble interpreting possession numbers when you are out about 30% on counting. Your post did not have 300 words in it but rather had 206. 

 

Edit: As for the 6 words only about possession my count is.. 31 about 5x your count.

[Carty]

Well I think I have zoomed in your problem then. It appears to me that you are having trouble with counting.

 

It is clear to me you have trouble interpreting possession numbers when you are out about 30% on counting. Your post did not have 300 words in it but rather had 206. 

 

Edit: As for the 6 words only about possession my count is.. 31 about 5x your count.

 

Pretty bad counting, considering he's a "stats guy"...   

 

But maybe those numbers he came up with were "advanced stats"...   

[kehatch]

Well I think I have zoomed in your problem then. It appears to me that you are having trouble with counting.

 

It is clear to me you have trouble interpreting possession numbers when you are out about 30% on counting. Your post did not have 300 words in it but rather had 206. 

 

Edit: As for the 6 words only about possession my count is.. 31 about 5x your count.

 

lol

 

I actually like Brouwer.  His possession numbers aren't great, but he has been one of the most defensively buried forwards for pretty much every team he has played for.  Obviously when you are starting in the D-Zone against the other teams best lines most shifts then you are going to have more shots against then for.  

 

I just wasn't a fan of overpaying anyone on July 1, especially a depth guy.  But I am warming up to the idea because we needed to address the position and there weren't a lot of options.  Besides, the contract isn't that bad.  

[The_People1]

lol

 

I actually like Brouwer.  His possession numbers aren't great, but he has been one of the most defensively buried forwards for pretty much every team he has played for.  Obviously when you are starting in the D-Zone against the other teams best lines most shifts then you are going to have more shots against then for.  

 

I just wasn't a fan of overpaying anyone on July 1, especially a depth guy.  But I am warming up to the idea because we needed to address the position and there weren't a lot of options.  Besides, the contract isn't that bad.  

 

I'm with ya 100% on this man.

 

Like others have said, he's overpaid about $1/1-year too much.  But i think we all like the guy and what he brings. I'm warming up to it (a little bit) because while he's overpaid, the price of not getting him is bigger.   We don't want to get into a patchwork situation throwing a LW on RW thinking it's not a problem.  RHS RW with size, character, consistency, Cup experience, willing to fight, etc.

 

Moreover, take a look at this,

http://www.generalfanager.com/leagueleaders?position=RW&shoots=Both&team=all

 

There's really, honestly, maybe 10 to 12 legit 1st line RWs in the entire NHL (some RWs are listed as LW by General Fanager for some reason).   That means at least 50% of teams in the NHL don't have a legit 1st line RW.  Crazy but many teams make do with what they have and they use a RW that complements a line rather than leads a line.

 

Lastly, there's no guarantee Gulutzan will keep Gaudreau and Monahan together.  We know from last season that Gaudreau - Bennett combination was equally as deadly (at least offensively).  Maybe, Brouwer is the missing piece for that line to give them a defensively aware linemate.  Then, Monahan Centers the second line.  Using the Chicago Blackhawks as an example, Kane and Toews don't always play together.  If we can split up Monahan and Gaudreau to form two good scoring lines, then we should.  I'd rather that then leave Bennett out to dry with no wingers to play with, or worse, turn him into a full time LW on Backlund's line.

 

So maybe,

 

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

[Going4TheCup]

Maybe Troy Brouwer can start with Matthew Tkachuk and show his leadership with Sam Bennett in line number 2? I like that that Troy got signed because I think he can have a Career year with the Flames. Troy will definitely use his height and weight to his advantage to get an assist or that Valuable Goal. I give Props to Brad Treliving for trying to improve the team with this signing and I know he will continue to improve the team like he did with the goaltending situation. #HungerForThePlayoffs

[stella1973]

I'm with ya 100% on this man.

Like others have said, he's overpaid about $1/1-year too much. But i think we all like the guy and what he brings. I'm warming up to it (a little bit) because while he's overpaid, the price of not getting him is bigger. We don't want to get into a patchwork situation throwing a LW on RW thinking it's not a problem. RHS RW with size, character, consistency, Cup experience, willing to fight, etc.

Moreover, take a look at this,

http://www.generalfanager.com/leagueleaders?position=RW&shoots=Both&team=all

There's really, honestly, maybe 10 to 12 legit 1st line RWs in the entire NHL (some RWs are listed as LW by General Fanager for some reason). That means at least 50% of teams in the NHL don't have a legit 1st line RW. Crazy but many teams make do with what they have and they use a RW that complements a line rather than leads a line.

Lastly, there's no guarantee Gulutzan will keep Gaudreau and Monahan together. We know from last season that Gaudreau - Bennett combination was equally as deadly (at least offensively). Maybe, Brouwer is the missing piece for that line to give them a defensively aware linemate. Then, Monahan Centers the second line. Using the Chicago Blackhawks as an example, Kane and Toews don't always play together. If we can split up Monahan and Gaudreau to form two good scoring lines, then we should. I'd rather that then leave Bennett out to dry with no wingers to play with, or worse, turn him into a full time LW on Backlund's line.

So maybe,

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

I agree 100% that we don't need to play mony and Johnny together! I like johnny with Bennett and when Tkachuk is ready he can play with Mony. The "Bennett and Tkachuk play similar styles so they are a perfect match" makes little sense to me. If they play similar styles then put them on different lines.

I like the TB signing and have no problem letting Colbourne go

[MAC331]

I'm with ya 100% on this man.

 

Like others have said, he's overpaid about $1/1-year too much.  But i think we all like the guy and what he brings. I'm warming up to it (a little bit) because while he's overpaid, the price of not getting him is bigger.   We don't want to get into a patchwork situation throwing a LW on RW thinking it's not a problem.  RHS RW with size, character, consistency, Cup experience, willing to fight, etc.

 

Moreover, take a look at this,

http://www.generalfanager.com/leagueleaders?position=RW&shoots=Both&team=all

 

There's really, honestly, maybe 10 to 12 legit 1st line RWs in the entire NHL (some RWs are listed as LW by General Fanager for some reason).   That means at least 50% of teams in the NHL don't have a legit 1st line RW.  Crazy but many teams make do with what they have and they use a RW that complements a line rather than leads a line.

 

Lastly, there's no guarantee Gulutzan will keep Gaudreau and Monahan together.  We know from last season that Gaudreau - Bennett combination was equally as deadly (at least offensively).  Maybe, Brouwer is the missing piece for that line to give them a defensively aware linemate.  Then, Monahan Centers the second line.  Using the Chicago Blackhawks as an example, Kane and Toews don't always play together.  If we can split up Monahan and Gaudreau to form two good scoring lines, then we should.  I'd rather that then leave Bennett out to dry with no wingers to play with, or worse, turn him into a full time LW on Backlund's line.

 

So maybe,

 

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

I think such a move would be premature given the short time Gaudreau and Monahan have been together. Where I see us now is finding ways to support our core pieces and the success to date, not break it up. These two are about to make significant money and I'm sure Bennett won't be far behind. You have to surround these young upcoming talents with solid experienced players such as Frolik and Brouwer even if you have to over pay for our situation. I'm not so sure you can simply take stats and say this player is only worth 3.5M any longer. GM's will continue to be challenged to match up talent that works well together and that won't always be able to be done on the cheap.

[cccsberg]

I'm with ya 100% on this man.

 

Like others have said, he's overpaid about $1/1-year too much.  But i think we all like the guy and what he brings. I'm warming up to it (a little bit) because while he's overpaid, the price of not getting him is bigger.   We don't want to get into a patchwork situation throwing a LW on RW thinking it's not a problem.  RHS RW with size, character, consistency, Cup experience, willing to fight, etc.

 

Moreover, take a look at this,

http://www.generalfanager.com/leagueleaders?position=RW&shoots=Both&team=all

 

There's really, honestly, maybe 10 to 12 legit 1st line RWs in the entire NHL (some RWs are listed as LW by General Fanager for some reason).   That means at least 50% of teams in the NHL don't have a legit 1st line RW.  Crazy but many teams make do with what they have and they use a RW that complements a line rather than leads a line.

 

Lastly, there's no guarantee Gulutzan will keep Gaudreau and Monahan together.  We know from last season that Gaudreau - Bennett combination was equally as deadly (at least offensively).  Maybe, Brouwer is the missing piece for that line to give them a defensively aware linemate.  Then, Monahan Centers the second line.  Using the Chicago Blackhawks as an example, Kane and Toews don't always play together.  If we can split up Monahan and Gaudreau to form two good scoring lines, then we should.  I'd rather that then leave Bennett out to dry with no wingers to play with, or worse, turn him into a full time LW on Backlund's line.

 

So maybe,

 

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

Two things I totally agree with.  First, Brouwer is a good pick-up and should really help the team.  Second, we really have no idea yet as to what GG is going to bring coaching-wise and as far as line-ups go.  Training camp should be very interesting.

[travel_dude]

..... 

 

 

So maybe,

 

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

 

I'm not convinced that Brouwer was brought in to play the top line.  It makes sense, but so does building pairs up and down the lineup.  Bennett does not have anyone right now.  You don't want to just give him leftovers.  I would argue that you need to give Sam the best available vet, so he either gets Frolik or Brouwer.  His other wing is going to be whoever is the next best player prospect on the list, whether that is Shinkaruk/Poirier/Mangiapane now or Tkachuk later.

[conundrumed]

Paying bottom 6 over $2.5-mil-per is in itself, a bad idea in a salary cap era (except a good 3rd line Center should make as much as $4-mil-per).

 

Sure, I really like the sound of a third line made up of Frolik - Backlund - Brouwer but man, that's not leaving a lot of money elsewhere.

But the money issue is caused by D contracts, we could pay for a good 3rd line if we weren't paying bottom 3 D $12mil.

Also, if you think Brouwer is overpaid by a mil, you expected a drop in pay as he was 3.6 last year.

He brought Washington Oshie, so you have to factor in how much value he has. If we really suck, imagine what he brings back at trade deadline.

It isn't a value deal, and everyone seems to think he'll be useless in yr 4, but that doesn't make it so.

[MAC331]

I'm not convinced that Brouwer was brought in to play the top line.  It makes sense, but so does building pairs up and down the lineup.  Bennett does not have anyone right now.  You don't want to just give him leftovers.  I would argue that you need to give Sam the best available vet, so he either gets Frolik or Brouwer.  His other wing is going to be whoever is the next best player prospect on the list, whether that is Shinkaruk/Poirier/Mangiapane now or Tkachuk later.

One school of thought could be they got Brouwer to help both Tkachuk and Bennett now. I definitely think Brouwer better fits how Bennett plays the game than JG and SM. I agree with the "scraps" comment and would have said no reason to experiment on Bennett's line like they did all last season with the top line.

[travel_dude]

One school of thought could be they got Brouwer to help both Tkachuk and Bennett now. I definitely think Brouwer better fits how Bennett plays the game than JG and SM. I agree with the "scraps" comment and would have said no reason to experiment on Bennett's line like they did all last season with the top line.

 

It's easy to see that the two top RW are Brouwer and Frolik, in no particular order.  Chiasson is by default the next one.  

 

The top line lacked a consistent RW last year.  Those auditioned didn't have the ability to keep the pock or get it back again.  The line suffered, if you can believe that with two player having their best seasons.  It suffered because they were scored on and they spent shifts just trying to get the puck out.

 

Bennett's line was really just part of a season.  When he wasn't on Backlund's wing, he was on Granlund's.  He never had any more than fill-ins after that.  He could play with Shinkaruk or Ferland or Poirier or Tkachuk on his LW, but he better have somebody pretty special on RW.

 

I have no problem separating Frolik and Backlund.  They were an awesome pair, but do we really have to put the two together when we have holes elsewhere?  Backlund has improved every player that was on his line, so why not add players that could be complimentary.  Ferland and Chiasson might be a good fit.  Ferland plays well without the puck, but needs the right role defined to match his skills.  Chiasson had a rough ride in Ottawa, but maybe he gets turned around with Backlund.

[AlbertaBoy12]

One school of thought could be they got Brouwer to help both Tkachuk and Bennett now. I definitely think Brouwer better fits how Bennett plays the game than JG and SM. I agree with the "scraps" comment and would have said no reason to experiment on Bennett's line like they did all last season with the top line.

I think a top 6 of JH-mony-frolik, and tkachuk-bennett-brouwer might be great, the only problem I see with that is who is the pair that plays with backlund. I dont think we want to bury chiasson in terms of zone starts, would he look good on monys right side, I think it might be a good fit. 

 

BT seems to like pairings, and it seems thats the way alot of NHL teams are going. A top 9 with pairings of JH-mony, tkachuk-bennett and backlund/frolik is nothing to scoff at, then the players like chiasson, ferland, brouwer are thrown in there and its starting to look like a pretty good top 9. The only thing that needs to get sorted out is our 4th line and im pretty happy with our forward group.

 

JH-mony-Chiasson

tkachuk-bennett-brouwer

Ferland-Backlund-Frolik

[DirtyDeeds]

I agree 100% that we don't need to play mony and Johnny together! I like johnny with Bennett and when Tkachuk is ready he can play with Mony. The "Bennett and Tkachuk play similar styles so they are a perfect match" makes little sense to me. If they play similar styles then put them on different lines.

I like the TB signing and have no problem letting Colbourne go

It's all fine and dandy for Flames Fans here on the forums to play armchair Coach and mix up the line combinations. However they are a fickle bunch here, so beware.

 

As soon as the lines get changed expect a whole wave of "Keep the Lines together so they can develop some chemistry" posts will show up from many of the same people who are mixing and redistributing them today.

[kehatch]

I'm not convinced that Brouwer was brought in to play the top line. It makes sense, but so does building pairs up and down the lineup. Bennett does not have anyone right now. You don't want to just give him leftovers. I would argue that you need to give Sam the best available vet, so he either gets Frolik or Brouwer. His other wing is going to be whoever is the next best player prospect on the list, whether that is Shinkaruk/Poirier/Mangiapane now or Tkachuk later.

If we were talking about a skill forward I would agree. But a RW with size is exactly what Treliving has been looking for the top line, so it's tough not to see him go there. That said, we still have an entire off season, training camp, and preseason to go with a brand new coach so anything can happen. Plus, it isn't like the lines will stay static all season.

[Kulstad]

It's all fine and dandy for Flames Fans here on the forums to play armchair Coach and mix up the line combinations. However they are a fickle bunch here, so beware.

 

As soon as the lines get changed expect a whole wave of "Keep the Lines together so they can develop some chemistry" posts will show up from many of the same people who are mixing and redistributing them today.

 

Pffffft!  Whatever, DD.  We're nothing if not open-minded and willing to experiment around here.  You sound like you've "been there, seen that" before, but we're a pretty (small L) liberal bunch around these parts.

[jjgallow]

Pffffft!  Whatever, DD.  We're nothing if not open-minded and willing to experiment around here.  You sound like you've "been there, seen that" before, but we're a pretty (small L) liberal bunch around these parts.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with trying new combinations

[Carty]

 

There's nothing wrong with trying new combinations

 

I certainly hope that you don't let your kids play with your toys....  

[CBTC-FLAMES-EDITION]

I certainly hope that you don't let your kids play with your toys....  

Haha. A great problem to have. Some solid additions in that bag gives us so many options. Looks like Swedish twins there though. Sure this isn't the Canucks bag???

[Flyerfan52]

I'm with ya 100% on this man.

 

Like others have said, he's overpaid about $1/1-year too much.  But i think we all like the guy and what he brings. I'm warming up to it (a little bit) because while he's overpaid, the price of not getting him is bigger.   We don't want to get into a patchwork situation throwing a LW on RW thinking it's not a problem.  RHS RW with size, character, consistency, Cup experience, willing to fight, etc.

 

Moreover, take a look at this,

http://www.generalfanager.com/leagueleaders?position=RW&shoots=Both&team=all

 

There's really, honestly, maybe 10 to 12 legit 1st line RWs in the entire NHL (some RWs are listed as LW by General Fanager for some reason).   That means at least 50% of teams in the NHL don't have a legit 1st line RW.  Crazy but many teams make do with what they have and they use a RW that complements a line rather than leads a line.

 

Lastly, there's no guarantee Gulutzan will keep Gaudreau and Monahan together.  We know from last season that Gaudreau - Bennett combination was equally as deadly (at least offensively).  Maybe, Brouwer is the missing piece for that line to give them a defensively aware linemate.  Then, Monahan Centers the second line.  Using the Chicago Blackhawks as an example, Kane and Toews don't always play together.  If we can split up Monahan and Gaudreau to form two good scoring lines, then we should.  I'd rather that then leave Bennett out to dry with no wingers to play with, or worse, turn him into a full time LW on Backlund's line.

 

So maybe,

 

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

Shinkaruk - Monahan - Frolik

Bouma - Backlund - Chiasson

Interesting that still unsigned Hudler isn't on that list.

 

Your lineup shows a lack of LW.

I'd go:

Backlund - Monahan - Frolik

Gaudreau - Bennett - Brouwer

 

I only listed the top 6 but would try those combos in training camp & exhibition. If no magic there flip Gaudreau & Backlund.

[stella1973]

Tkachuk-Mony-Frolik

Johnny-Bennett-Brouwer

Ferland-Backlund-Chiasson

Shinkaruk-Stajan-Poirier

 

I like Bennett with Johnny

[irock19]

Troy Brouwer is slow but he does create space. He's not even close to a first liner. Frolik would be a better option even though he didn't gel well with JG and SM last year. Dan Prybil has got serious wheels but he's not physical like Brouwer. BT way over payed for him for some reason again.

[Flyerfan52]

Troy Brouwer is slow but he does create space. He's not even close to a first liner. Frolik would be a better option even though he didn't gel well with JG and SM last year. Dan Prybil has got serious wheels but he's not physical like Brouwer. BT way overpaid for him for some reason again.

It wasn't an overpay as 4.5 is a decent price for a guy with his tools. The contract only takes him to 34 so he shouldn't fade much if @ all.

He's being paid like a 2nd/3nd liner hybrid who will play top 2 lines so nothing lost there unless we luck into a 1st liner willing to play for those $s. Until then he & Frolik can contend for who plays with our version of the Golden 1s.

Depending on new coach GG we could see anyone there including "Swiss Army Knife" Stajan.

[irock19]

Not sure Brouwer can keep up with JG and SM. Probably why he's always been a bottom 6 guy. I would of saved Murray Edwards money and waited for training camp to play out and if GG said we still don't have the RW that we need then BT should explore the trade market then. I would of gave up TJ Brodie to get the1st line winger we need.