Speculation: Armchair GM Thread: The other one was locked and LazarBeams asked for a new one so I

[InfinityIggy]

I read on Friedmans 30/30 thoughts today that he thinks Calgary maybe talking to Colorado about Duchene, what would a Duchene to CGY trade look like if it was to happen, as unlikely as it sounds ??

My intuition is that it would be a Duchene for Bennett swap with minor pieces.

 

[Anglesmith]

Would that not then be a great example of being an anchor?

I'd love to see Brouwer have even an average season, but if he continues playing the way he did last year, fans are justified to not want someone using up valuable cap space in prime contending years. He hasn't shown he deserves otherwise.

Fans are definitely justified in being disappointed or angry at how the signing turned out for last year. But the fault, really, lies with management. They signed him to the contract for the dollar value and term that they did, because of their analysis of what his play would be like with the Flames. And at least to this point, they have been very wrong about that.

The player's responsibility is to go out there and try to be the best player he can be and contribute to winning on and off the ice. There are several examples of players who don't do that, and in those situations criticism of the player is completely justified. Whether they whine to the media, demand trades and check out on the team, don't show up to meetings and set a poor example, etc., those are all things where dumping on the player is justified. If your opinion of Brouwer is that he didn't try, then it makes sense to be angry at the player, but that diverges from my own opinion for sure.

What I see is that Brouwer tried hard, but unfortunately Brouwer just isn't as good a player as his contract would suggest. I criticized the signing at the time, and given how last year went, I'm still not happy with management for signing that deal. I think it was their mistake. But I'm not angry at Brouwer, because I feel like he's, to this point, done what is asked of him, which is to play hard and do what he can on and off the ice.

And for what it's worth, I don't feel like analysis of what a player can do is the same as dumping on a player. Even saying that he should be scratched isn't dumping on a player. But "**** Brouwer" statements are just dumb, in my opinion.

 

[Ainsy01]

My intuition is that it would be a Duchene for Bennett swap with minor pieces.

I most certainly would. Bennett ceiling is Duchene.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I most certainly would. Bennett ceiling is Duchene.

More like floor. Duchene is soft, ****-poor defensively, inconsistent offensively and a perennial loser. I wouldn't trade anything more valuable than a middle-six winger + a C prospect for him, especially considering he probably plays on our third line anyway.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Brouwer, Fox, Gillies/Rittich and Kylington

For Duchene + 3rd

Too much? I think we have excess capital at both D and G. Would give us a ridiculous lineup imo.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Fans are definitely justified in being disappointed or angry at how the signing turned out for last year. But the fault, really, lies with management. They signed him to the contract for the dollar value and term that they did, because of their analysis of what his play would be like with the Flames. And at least to this point, they have been very wrong about that.

The player's responsibility is to go out there and try to be the best player he can be and contribute to winning on and off the ice. There are several examples of players who don't do that, and in those situations criticism of the player is completely justified. Whether they whine to the media, demand trades and check out on the team, don't show up to meetings and set a poor example, etc., those are all things where dumping on the player is justified. If your opinion of Brouwer is that he didn't try, then it makes sense to be angry at the player, but that diverges from my own opinion for sure.

What I see is that Brouwer tried hard, but unfortunately Brouwer just isn't as good a player as his contract would suggest. I criticized the signing at the time, and given how last year went, I'm still not happy with management for signing that deal. I think it was their mistake. But I'm not angry at Brouwer, because I feel like he's, to this point, done what is asked of him, which is to play hard and do what he can on and off the ice.

And for what it's worth, I don't feel like analysis of what a player can do is the same as dumping on a player. Even saying that he should be scratched isn't dumping on a player. But "**** Brouwer" statements are just dumb, in my opinion.

I agree with what you are saying outside of the play hard bit. I've seen Brouwer play hard. With Chicago. With St. Louis. With Washington. What we got for at least the second half didn't feel like him playing like he can.

If it was due to injury, I sympathize. But if he's only playing 4th line minutes and playing injured, rest him and play our other options.

 

[Anglesmith]

Brouwer, Fox, Gillies/Rittich and Kylington

For Duchene + 3rd

Too much? I think we have excess capital at both D and G. Would give us a ridiculous lineup imo.

If you were Colorado, would you be happy getting a cap dump, two maybe defencemen and a maybe goaltender for your best centre who is currently in his athletic prime?

And you're throwing in a 3rd?

I think if Sakic did read HFBoards and read this proposal, he would instantly

 

[Rangediddy]

If they can spout their ******** putting him down, why can't I spout mine to defend him? Why is one way more okay than the other? The fact that I have to defend the way I am to you of all people, is what has me pissed off.

It's because nobody's spouting ******** about you and putting you down. You're calling this fanbase pathetic.

Have you noticed that nobody is positioning their arguments about Brouwer as "Anyone who thinks Brouwer is a good player is an idiot". Whereas your defense of him is "Everyone who thinks he's an anchor is pathetic". Everyone's opinion is being given as their opinion on the player but your opinion is focused on everyone who doesn't share yours, rather than the player.

You seem to enjoy taking the contrarian view (and there's nothing wrong with that), but I don't understand why your feelings get so hurt because if it. You legitimately seem offended by other people's opinions.

 

[Mobiandi]

Brouwer, Fox, Gillies/Rittich and Kylington

For Duchene + 3rd

Too much? I think we have excess capital at both D and G. Would give us a ridiculous lineup imo.

That's a steal for us but I don't want to trade any goalie given we're putting all of our eggs in the Gillies/Parsons/Rittich basket

 

[Anglesmith]

I agree with what you are saying outside of the play hard bit. I've seen Brouwer play hard. With Chicago. With St. Louis. With Washington. What we got for at least the second half didn't feel like him playing like he can.

If it was due to injury, I sympathize. But if he's only playing 4th line minutes and playing injured, rest him and play our other options.

Those are all perfectly constructive points to discuss. Management did always talk about his leadership being key last season, and it's a lot harder to take a leadership role when you aren't "one of the guys." In addition, I think the guys in the best position to evaluate his effort would be the coaching staff, and the coaching staff would have no incentive to keep him in the lineup if he was dogging it even a little. Firstly, because there goes the whole "role model" aspect, and secondly, because it would make him shape up and maybe provide more when he gets back in.

Now, whether that rhetoric and behaviour was all to make him attractive to Vegas, we won't ever know...

 

[Mr Snrub]

Brouwer, Fox, Gillies/Rittich and Kylington

For Duchene + 3rd

Too much? I think we have excess capital at both D and G. Would give us a ridiculous lineup imo.

None of those assets are really tangible other than Brouwer, and if Colorado wanted Brouwer they would've just re-signed Iginla. So I doubt they bite.

It's still more than I would ever give up for a player like him, though.

 

[Mobiandi]

Best guess?

My guess? Sakic would ask for Brodie in a 1-for-1 swap.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Those are all perfectly constructive points to discuss. Management did always talk about his leadership being key last season, and it's a lot harder to take a leadership role when you aren't "one of the guys." In addition, I think the guys in the best position to evaluate his effort would be the coaching staff, and the coaching staff would have no incentive to keep him in the lineup if he was dogging it even a little. Firstly, because there goes the whole "role model" aspect, and secondly, because it would make him shape up and maybe provide more when he gets back in.

Now, whether that rhetoric and behaviour was all to make him attractive to Vegas, we won't ever know...

I mean, the coaching staff feels obligated to play him because of his contract, to be fair.

However, I think it's worth noting that Gulutzan is a prototypical player's coach in that he understands the guys and what needs to happen to get them motivated, and he gave Brouwer the A throughout the entirety of his worst career season. I've heard nothing but good things about Brouwer's leadership ability and his personality off-ice. He publicly owned up to a bad season after the playoffs. As trite as it is to say "coaching should play him because of intangibles", I think if we all saw what Troy was like behind closed doors he would have far more fans here.

 

[The Gnome]

I did not like Brouwer's play last year. But pretending he wasn't trying or was just sitting back and collecting paycheques is a complete farce. I don't think that conclusion is reasonable for someone watching him play. He tried very hard and failed repeatedly.

I've seen enough of Brouwer's career to make that statement. Dude coasted most games, I'm not happy with his effort level at all. Go out there and bury some dmen into the boards and be a a complete ass in front of the net. I saw none of that last year.

 

[Lunatik]

I've seen enough of Brouwer's career to make that statement. Dude coasted most games, I'm not happy with his effort level at all. Go out there and bury some dmen into the boards and be a a complete ass in front of the net. I saw none of that last year.

He did that until his injury. He seemed to avoid those situations after that, my guess is because of the hand injury and not wanting to be in a position he had to fight

 

[Anglesmith]

I mean, the coaching staff feels obligated to play him because of his contract, to be fair.

That wouldn't jive with my perception of Treliving. Realistically, coaches don't write the cheques or have to worry about contracts at all. They are given the task of making the team they are given win.

I doubt coaches ever feel any kind of obligation to play a player based on contract, but management might. The only reason for what you're talking about to happen would be a specific mandate from management, and I don't believe that the management group that allowed the demotion of Mason Raymond would demand any special treatment with regards to Troy Brouwer. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Mr Snrub]

That wouldn't jive with my perception of Treliving. Realistically, coaches don't write the cheques or have to worry about contracts at all. They are given the task of making the team they are given win.

I doubt coaches ever feel any kind of obligation to play a player based on contract, but management might. The only reason for what you're talking about to happen would be a specific mandate from management, and I don't believe that the management group that allowed the demotion of Mason Raymond would demand any special treatment with regards to Troy Brouwer. But that's just my opinion.

To be fair, the guy also makes literally twice as much as Mason Raymond, so I think we can assume they're slightly different situations.

Regardless, I agree with you that Brouwer was being played for a reason; neither Treliving nor Gulutzan seem to think he's useless or could be replaced by a guy like Lazar or Hathaway (at least not consistently).

 

[Ainsy01]

More like floor. Duchene is soft, ****-poor defensively, inconsistent offensively and a perennial loser. I wouldn't trade anything more valuable than a middle-six winger + a C prospect for him, especially considering he probably plays on our third line anyway.

Cmon... hes also a 4 time 20g scorer and a one time 30 goal scorer. That would be Bennetts offensive ceiling. While I dont disagree with your other comments, the kid can score. If Bennett ever has 418 points (174 goals) in 572 games, it would be miraculous.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Cmon... hes also a 4 time 20g scorer and a one time 30 goal scorer. That would be Bennetts offensive ceiling. While I dont disagree with your other comments, the kid can score. If Bennett ever has 418 points (174 goals) in 572 games, it would be miraculous.

I think Duchene is being underrated by a few and overrated by his GM.

The more I think about Kessel, the more I like the idea. Guy was a Conn Smyth winner in my books in 15-16. Still wouldn't like the price though, nor am I sure we can make it work cap wise.

 

[Skobel24]

I want to see Brouwer return. He's been a very consistent guy in his career, and until this season, he's been quite solid. I fully suspect he'll rebound.

Regarding Duchene, I'd love to add him but I can't see how they'd fit his cap into the Flame situation. He is incredibly talented, and a ****** year from just about every single player on that team doesn't change a thing. Duchene is still a very good option for the top 6. He reminds me of Marc Savard.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Cmon... hes also a 4 time 20g scorer and a one time 30 goal scorer. That would be Bennetts offensive ceiling. While I dont disagree with your other comments, the kid can score. If Bennett ever has 418 points (174 goals) in 572 games, it would be miraculous.

He has had some pretty impressive seasons points-wise but the last few he's struggled to do much outside of what a second-line centre would, while getting first-line deployment. Duchene:

• consistently has played with at least one of MacKinnon, Landeskog, Rantanen, Stastny or Iginla
• always plays top line and gets the best o-zone starts
• has been on the Avs first PP unit for as long as I can remember
• plays wing as much as centre
• doesn't really drive the play, simply relies on speed to carry the puck into the o-zone and waits for things to happen
• probably gets no better than he is right now

I don't think there's any player that we have who's comparable in getting privileged situations like Duchene other than Monahan, and Monahan at least is average defensively, is younger, and has been better offensively the last two years.

I think Bennett becoming an offensive specialist who scrapes up 20 goals a year is the safest of safe bets as far as what he ends up as. In fact, I think Bennett would've been as good last year as Duchene was if he were playing wing on a line with Johnny or Mony or both, getting first PP minutes, and not relied upon to drive play.

 

[djpatm]

So just to get this straight, you think Bennett's floor is a level he's never achieved before?

lol I don't think you know what the word floor means.

At this point his floor is a total bust cause if he regresses again he could be out of the league in a couple years. That's what floor means.

Bennett's optimistic projection is probably a Duchene level player but it's not even close to his floor. If he puts up points like Duchene than the Flames should count their lucky stars cause by this time in Matt's career he had a 55 point and 67 point season.

 

[Mr Snrub]

So just to get this straight, you think Bennett's floor is a level he's never achieved before?

lol I don't think you know what the word floor means.

At this point his floor is a total bust cause if he regresses again he could be out of the league in a couple years. That's what floor means.

Bennett's optimistic projection is probably a Duchene level player but it's not even close to his floor. If he puts up points like Duchene than the Flames should count their lucky stars cause by this time in Matt's career he had a 55 point and 67 point season.

Clearly you didn't read my entire post, or really any of my post. If Bennett were getting the sort of privileged treatment Duchene is, he would already be as good offensively, and better defensively. Not to mention that Duchene has been good in the past but that the last two years has looked like a second and third line player, respectively.

The two players are being used in very different manners, if Bennett were the go-to offensive guy on this team he'd already have a 20-goal season too.

 

[djpatm]

Clearly you didn't read my entire post, or really any of my post. If Bennett were getting the sort of privileged treatment Duchene is, he would already be as good offensively, and better defensively. Not to mention that Duchene has been good in the past but that the last two years has looked like a second and third line player, respectively.

The two players are being used in very different manners, if Bennett were the go-to offensive guy on this team he'd already have a 20-goal season too.

Bennett had lots of chances on the top line during both seasons of his career and quickly couldn't cut it.

If Bennett was good enough for the top line, he'd play on the top line.

 

[Rangediddy]

Bennett had lots of chances on the top line during both seasons of his career and quickly couldn't cut it.

If Bennett was good enough for the top line, he'd play on the top line.

Same with Ferland. This is his 3rd or 4th go at the top line and he's finally working there.

Sam is young and appears to have confidence issues. Once he figures it out, he's fully capable of being a productive 1st line... center or winger, whatever he is.