AlbertaBoy12 Posted May 1, 2017 Report Share Posted May 1, 2017 10 hours ago, MAC331 said: Yeah sorry you won't convince me in a million years it is worth keeping Stajan or Bouma for another year on this team. I am not against leaving Ferland with Gaudreau and Monahan but I don't think that should be our final answer for that position. We have a number of LW players coming that we need the 4th line entry spot for such as Klimchuk, Shinkaruk and Lomberg. As I said if they sign Versteeg you don't need Chiasson for the 4th line RW and I would rather have some opportunity for Hathaway and possibly Pribyl to have an entry RW position next season. Outside of Giordano, Hamilton and Brodie it should be interesting to see the plan for 4 more defensemen. its not about convincing you, my point was that we might not be able to get rid of them in which case you dont really have a choice, thats how I built my lineup because im not trading assets to get rid of them. Id much rather have chiasson playing 4th line rw at 1 million dollers then pribyl or hathaway, I dont think hathaway is good enough and his numbers support that. The only thing hathaway has been good for is being a pest but hes not consistent enough at the NHL level. Pribyl has not proven anything at the AAA level and probably will need a good camp to make his to way to the big club. A 4th line of janko, stajan and chiasson would solve alot of our problems on the 4th line, as long as stajan plays the wing. Versteeg should be a top 9 winger so him being on the team doesnt affect chiasson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Heartbreaker said: That's what we did in the 80's, except the Ducks were the Oilers. The only time we beat them was when Steve Smith was working as a double agent, and the year that we won the cup - the Kings took them out in the first round. Then we swept the Kings. Love. I heard Fletcher talk about the reason for trading Reinhart being that they wanted to give the Canucks a better chance at beating the oilers. That way the Flames could stay ahead in the standings and win the division and make for better matchups in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 14 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said: its not about convincing you, my point was that we might not be able to get rid of them in which case you dont really have a choice, thats how I built my lineup because im not trading assets to get rid of them. Id much rather have chiasson playing 4th line rw at 1 million dollers then pribyl or hathaway, I dont think hathaway is good enough and his numbers support that. The only thing hathaway has been good for is being a pest but hes not consistent enough at the NHL level. Pribyl has not proven anything at the AAA level and probably will need a good camp to make his to way to the big club. A 4th line of janko, stajan and chiasson would solve alot of our problems on the 4th line, as long as stajan plays the wing. Versteeg should be a top 9 winger so him being on the team doesnt affect chiasson. I will choose to disagree with you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertaBoy12 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: I will choose to disagree with you here. In what way!? youre telling me you think hathaway was better then chiasson this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 2 hours ago, AlbertaBoy12 said: In what way!? youre telling me you think hathaway was better then chiasson this season? No I would simply choose to use the position in a different way than keep Chiasson around. Stajan time to go not move him to LW. Bouma if he isn't gone and doesn't show up to play next season bury him if he cannot be traded. Hathaway I can take or leave, I have Versteeg on that line in my make up to help Jankowski out with his experience. Should Pribyl progress enough to be worthy of a look we could use the 4th line RW spot for it. I wouldn't mind seeing a line of Lomberg, Jankowski and Hathaway wreck some havoc on a few teams. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 44 minutes ago, MAC331 said: No I would simply choose to use the position in a different way than keep Chiasson around. Stajan time to go not move him to LW. Bouma if he isn't gone and doesn't show up to play next season bury him if he cannot be traded. Hathaway I can take or leave, I have Versteeg on that line in my make up to help Jankowski out with his experience. Should Pribyl progress enough to be worthy of a look we could use the 4th line RW spot for it. I wouldn't mind seeing a line of Lomberg, Jankowski and Hathaway wreck some havoc on a few teams. LOL I agree with burying Bouma. Stajan will be selected by LV, most likely, due to his cheap actual salary. I don't mind Chaisson as a depth player, since he actually was able to score goals. My problem with him is around his usage for most of the year (he's not a top 6 player) and his hockey sense. As far as prospects go, we are lacking on the RW side. Brouwer just makes the lineup more difficult to fix. Ferland/Bennett/Lazar - I like this setup since we have two players with snarl and a high energy guy on the wing (can double at center). Ferland goes to his natural spot, and will get some prefered zone starts. Bennett gets a couple of guys that can actually hit the net. Versteeg/Janko/Brouwer - I think is a better use of Brouwer. Janko is the responsible center that doesn't get pushed around as much as Stajan. Versteeg offers versatility. Brouwer is net-front presence. Chaisson or Hathaway (13th F) - No clear better player here. They have different skills. You could actually use Chaisson on Bennett's wing, but Hathaway would be better suited in place of Brouwer. Even though we won a lot of games with Hathaway in the lineup, his numbers were almost as bad (or worse) than Brouwer's. Chaisson fared much better. Sign them both and bring up Janko. Need to still find that top 3 RW. I love Ferland, but I don't think he is quite ready for that role. He did great in a limited viewing, but I think he could help Bennett a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 2 hours ago, travel_dude said: I agree with burying Bouma. Stajan will be selected by LV, most likely, due to his cheap actual salary. I don't mind Chaisson as a depth player, since he actually was able to score goals. My problem with him is around his usage for most of the year (he's not a top 6 player) and his hockey sense. As far as prospects go, we are lacking on the RW side. Brouwer just makes the lineup more difficult to fix. Ferland/Bennett/Lazar - I like this setup since we have two players with snarl and a high energy guy on the wing (can double at center). Ferland goes to his natural spot, and will get some prefered zone starts. Bennett gets a couple of guys that can actually hit the net. Versteeg/Janko/Brouwer - I think is a better use of Brouwer. Janko is the responsible center that doesn't get pushed around as much as Stajan. Versteeg offers versatility. Brouwer is net-front presence. Chaisson or Hathaway (13th F) - No clear better player here. They have different skills. You could actually use Chaisson on Bennett's wing, but Hathaway would be better suited in place of Brouwer. Even though we won a lot of games with Hathaway in the lineup, his numbers were almost as bad (or worse) than Brouwer's. Chaisson fared much better. Sign them both and bring up Janko. Need to still find that top 3 RW. I love Ferland, but I don't think he is quite ready for that role. He did great in a limited viewing, but I think he could help Bennett a lot more. I have spoke my peace on this one so no more going round and round for me. I think both Brouwer and Chiasson's scoring were as benefactors from being on some scoring lines. Brouwer with Frolik and Backlund is his best use IMO not a 4th line role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Brouwer with Frolik and Backlund is his best use IMO not a 4th line role. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 Just now, travel_dude said: Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Not really when you stop placing people because you don't like them and think about their true talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, MAC331 said: Not really when you stop placing people because you don't like them and think about their true talents. Brouwer had his chances on the top lines... He was a poor fit, and tended to drag the line down... Backlund had over twice his point production, and Frolik wasn't far behind that... So not a great linemate for them either... Only 2 players on the team had a worse +/-, no doubt Brouwer has talent, but so far he's doing a pretty good job of hiding it somewhere... The best spot for Brouwer and his contract is probably on a different team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Carty said: Brouwer had his chances on the top lines... He was a poor fit, and tended to drag the line down... Backlund had over twice his point production, and Frolik wasn't far behind that... So not a great linemate for them either... Only 2 players on the team had a worse +/-, no doubt Brouwer has talent, but so far he's doing a pretty good job of hiding it somewhere... The best spot for Brouwer and his contract is probably on a different team... If that doesn't happen I think this would be a line that brings out the best in him. Ever year is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, Carty said: Brouwer had his chances on the top lines... He was a poor fit, and tended to drag the line down... Backlund had over twice his point production, and Frolik wasn't far behind that... So not a great linemate for them either... Only 2 players on the team had a worse +/-, no doubt Brouwer has talent, but so far he's doing a pretty good job of hiding it somewhere... The best spot for Brouwer and his contract is probably on a different team... @ 4.5 x 3 Brouwer is gonna be hard to trade. But what if we offered him to the Debbies @ 1 million retained for Boston's 2nd rounder this year? Sure, we eat a million for 3 years but open up 3.5 for the same term & gain that 2nd. A better deal than the buyout some mention. Of course we do this after the LV draft on the off chance (slim as it is) LV takes him. Alternately after the draft we do the same retention offering him to Vegas for a decent prospect/tweener from the skaters they select. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameFan4Life Posted May 2, 2017 Report Share Posted May 2, 2017 If we truly want him gone we should make a deal with LV to take a solid checking stay at home Dman from one of the teams that have surplus and give them a decent pick and Brouwer for said Dman. I am not sure if this type of trade is allowed but it sounds good to me. If it isn't allowed there is always a trade at the draft with LV for the same type of deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said: @ 4.5 x 3 Brouwer is gonna be hard to trade. But what if we offered him to the Debbies @ 1 million retained for Boston's 2nd rounder this year? Sure, we eat a million for 3 years but open up 3.5 for the same term & gain that 2nd. A better deal than the buyout some mention. Of course we do this after the LV draft on the off chance (slim as it is) LV takes him., Alternately after the draft we do the same retention offering him to Vegas for a decent prospect/tweener from the skaters they select. Not bad ideas... Since Brouwer has 3 years left and Stajan only has one along with a lower cap hit, Brouwer is my first choice to go... The problem with any deal for Brouwer, including the Debbies is his NTC... If Brouwer can't be shuffled to Vegas, the Flames are also stuck with him for a full season (without a buyout) until his modified NTC kicks in (list of 15 teams he can't be traded to)... I think it might also be easier to unload Stajan elsewhere (even though he also has a modified NTC) by sweetening a deal, and if that's not possible, he's a better candidate for a buyout... ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Carty said: Not bad ideas... Since Brouwer has 3 years left and Stajan only has one along with a lower cap hit, Brouwer is my first choice to go... The problem with any deal for Brouwer, including the Debbies is his NTC... If Brouwer can't be shuffled to Vegas, the Flames are also stuck with him for a full season (without a buyout) until his modified NTC kicks in (list of 15 teams he can't be traded to)... It is also likely easier to unload Stajan by sweetening a deal, and if that's not possible, he's a better candidate for a buyout... Brouwer has to submit a list of 15 teams he can't be traded to. Since he & his agent knew about the draft (odds are LV is 1 of the 15). That leaves 16 teams he can be traded to & @ 3.5 instead of 4.5 looks more attractive. Worst case you go 50% but I doubt we have to go that low. Still better than the 2/3 buyout that drags on the cap for double term. I still don't see Stajan as being hard to trade (although I see him as the best candidate for LV to pick). Unless the ask is too high he'll help most teams during the season with his versatility & his contract combined with the versatility makes him an ideal deadline pickup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: Brouwer has to submit a list of 15 teams he can't be traded to. Since he & his agent knew about the draft (odds are LV is 1 of the 15). That leaves 16 teams he can be traded to & @ 3.5 instead of 4.5 looks more attractive. Worst case you go 50% but I doubt we have to go that low. Still better than the 2/3 buyout that drags on the cap for double term. Brouwer still has a full NTC for next season... The modified clause kicks in for the last 2 seasons... If it comes down to it at some point, they can always threaten him with benching him as an incentive to accept a trade... Brouwer is well aware that they did it to Wideman for poor performance with an even higher salary... I't seemed like Wideman had already checked out and didn't care that much about it, but I think Brouwer might... 9 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: I still don't see Stajan as being hard to trade (although I see him as the best candidate for LV to pick). Unless the ask is too high he'll help most teams during the season with his versatility & his contract combined with the versatility makes him an ideal deadline pickup. That's sounds about the same as I see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjgallow Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 On 01/05/2017 at 0:44 PM, travel_dude said: ^^^^^ I'm saying you don't build a team to win against the Ducks. They are not a model of a winning team. You build your team against the league as a whole. We weren't dominated by them; we lost because our depth and goaltending failed us. Our 4th line would have been a healthy scratch on the Ducks. Our 3rd pair was not sufficient. I don't agree that our issues were constrained to depth and goaltending, but, I actually REALLY agree that it's a massive mistake to think of building a Duck-beating team. That would just be an incredible dissapointment of a goal. Anaheim is Not anything special in the playoffs. Of course, that's why I feel we have to look past the obvious when building for next year. Even if we Did lose because of special teams and goaltending, that's highly unlikely the recipe to winning round 2 or beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Carty said: Brouwer still has a full NTC for next season... The modified clause kicks in for the last 2 seasons... If it comes down to it at some point, they can always threaten him with benching him as an incentive to accept a trade... Brouwer is well aware that they did it to Wideman for poor performance with an even higher salary... I't seemed like Wideman had already checked out and didn't care that much about it, but I think Brouwer might... That's sounds about the same as I see it... NTC or NMC? Capfriendly is where I got the 15 team no trade part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, jjgallow said: I don't agree that our issues were constrained to depth and goaltending, but, I actually REALLY agree that it's a massive mistake to think of building a Duck-beating team. That would just be an incredible dissapointment of a goal. Anaheim is Not anything special in the playoffs. Of course, that's why I feel we have to look past the obvious when building for next year. Even if we Did lose because of special teams and goaltending, that's highly unlikely the recipe to winning round 2 or beyond. Ducks look to be a playoff team for @ least the next few years. Either we have to beat them or rely on others to do it so we don't have to. We needn't out muscle them but 1 way or the other we have to exorcize the ghost that seems to haunt the Flames. Regardless, if we can consistently beat the Ducks & other teams we are a much better team than the 1 that hovers around the playoffs & goes out in the 1st. No 1 player will do that for us but a full team commitment sure makes a difference. That happens with confidence which I say easily destroyed more often then I like. If you don't believe in yourself nor your teammates you start 2nd guessing. That causes losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 34 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said: NTC or NMC? Capfriendly is where I got the 15 team no trade part. As for what I could find now and as I remember it Flyerfan, next season is a full NTC and after that is when it changes to a modified NTC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowtownguy Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 5 hours ago, Carty said: Brouwer still has a full NTC for next season... The modified clause kicks in for the last 2 seasons... If it comes down to it at some point, they can always threaten him with benching him as an incentive to accept a trade... Brouwer is well aware that they did it to Wideman for poor performance with an even higher salary... I't seemed like Wideman had already checked out and didn't care that much about it, but I think Brouwer might... I dunno about you, but I am pretty impatient waiting for these veterans to come up big at some point. Wideman totally irritated me. I felt like one of those tools who kept waiting for Elvis to come out of hiding after he snuffed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 On Brouwer, I don't think BT made this deal with his eyes closed and unless he is taken as an exposed player in the ED I think the Flames stay committed to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 18 hours ago, MAC331 said: Not really when you stop placing people because you don't like them and think about their true talents. When did I ever say I don't like the player? I was psyched when we signed him because I thought he would bring his big game experience and big body to the Flames. What I base my opinion on is what I have seen on the Flames. He was regularly the worst player on the ice for our team (fancy stats). He normally the worst player on whatever line he played on. His scoring and playmaking ability were a big letdown for a guy that played most of the season around 15-18 minutes per game and #1 PP time. Compare him to Ferland, who played very little PP time and mostly 3rd or 4th line minutes, even when on the top line. If you expect a player that is unable to outchance an opposing team in shots for, chances for, etc., then why is it you think he should be playing on the line with the biggestest responsibility for keeping the other lines in check? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC331 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 37 minutes ago, travel_dude said: When did I ever say I don't like the player? I was psyched when we signed him because I thought he would bring his big game experience and big body to the Flames. What I base my opinion on is what I have seen on the Flames. He was regularly the worst player on the ice for our team (fancy stats). He normally the worst player on whatever line he played on. His scoring and playmaking ability were a big letdown for a guy that played most of the season around 15-18 minutes per game and #1 PP time. Compare him to Ferland, who played very little PP time and mostly 3rd or 4th line minutes, even when on the top line. If you expect a player that is unable to outchance an opposing team in shots for, chances for, etc., then why is it you think he should be playing on the line with the biggestest responsibility for keeping the other lines in check? Why would I think he could be part of a line that keeps the opposition in check, let me think, he has been doing it his whole career. You seem to want to base everything on scoring contribution, even there he finished with decent stats. I didn't care for his play many times throughout the season, there could be a number of reasons for it. I'm not going to let one down season allow me to think the player is useless when his track record shows much differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 1 hour ago, MAC331 said: Why would I think he could be part of a line that keeps the opposition in check, let me think, he has been doing it his whole career. You seem to want to base everything on scoring contribution, even there he finished with decent stats. I didn't care for his play many times throughout the season, there could be a number of reasons for it. I'm not going to let one down season allow me to think the player is useless when his track record shows much differently. I base it on what has he done for me. This year Bouma and Brouwer have been two of the biggest letdowns. Sure, Brouwer could be on a down year or had the same trouble adjusting to the team as Elliott. It's a stretch to say that he is capable of raising his game to that of Backlund and Frolik's. If you care to read this article (negative slant, but the charts don't lie), you may have a different opinion about his track record. I doubt it. Just providing for your reading pleasure. https://flamesnation.ca/2016/07/01/why-the-troy-brouwer-signing-looks-bad-for-the-flames/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.