Confirmed with Link: Flames acquire Curtis Lazar and Kostka for Jokipakka and a 2nd

[Lunatik]

I thought the TL;DR explained my point but you still missed it.

Losing Brouwer is not a problem. I am ok with it. Losing Brouwer with a "don't let the door hit you on the way out mentality" is wrong. Lose Brouwer, sure! But make a damn farce about it about how we're so sad we lost him. Played the odds and Vegas thought Brouwer was worth more than the protection package etc.

MAF's optics are HORRIBLE. He is opening being traded, knows his value is in the drain and there are open reports about him waiving his NMC. Sure it's the business, but I'm sure he'd rather not have to see himself as an open example for everyone, fans, players, GMs etc. to see as to how messy things get with NMC. He'd love to fly below the radar like a Hartnell for example and quietly deal with the business.

And you have a thing where you think they're well compensated, wipe that tear with a dollar bill.... that's your opinion. I disagree and I hope that we can agree to disagree. IMO, that thought line is short sighted and costs the org more money, time and energy long term.

I'm with you DF, I've been saying this is bad optics since it was first suggested. Brouwer picked the Flames because he was building a home in Calgary, they gave him a full NTC; if they herd him to Vegas like cattle it will look bad to other potential UFAs, especially when only a single year of his contract has passed. Exposing him at this point would be a major red flag to any UFA wanting to settle down in the city.

For those claiming bad optics isn't a thing, think about it this way..... it took Connor McDavid to start washing the stink off Edmonton for UFAs after the Pronger fiasco and how poorly management/ownership handled that situation. We like to mock Edmonton for how terrible they were but part of the reason was their inability to attract good free agents.

 

[RedHot]

TL;DR - I am not opposed to losing Brouwer, but marching him out of Calgary to Vegas like a prisoner is an idiotic thing to do.


Long version

Disagree. Furthermore, how do we know Treliving handed out a bad one with Brouwer? Quite a few fans were about to lynch GG and now Treliving is a genius now that the team has turned it around?

The optics is this. No matter how you look at it, IMO, Brouwer is not the worst of the FA contracts handed out last summer. Furthermore, he is starting to figure things out and it looks like it would be ok. No train wreck but merely ok.

Here are the problems with "optics" if Brouwer was exposed all gussied up and ready for the plucking.

1. It shows to players that a full NTC (which Brouwer has) is completely meaningless. The org will turf you whenever they want as a "business decision". No agent will give a discount to sign with you. This is further exacerbated with the way Wideman is being dealt with. IMO, the org is trying to do Wideman a solid and let him play out his contract. It does not look like Wideman has any rope left though.

As Treliving says, (Paraphrased), "You have to realize that you're dealing with people."

2. With the point above, this can cause for contracts to be more expensive long term. This ranging from Bennett bridge, Backlund deal, UFA, Stone, Ferland etc. If everyone wants that extra mil or two because they want that cushion after watching Brouwer get marched out of Calgary even though he met most of the expectations out there, that's bad for the org. But we are going to run into problems fast if Brouwer isn't a name on the protection list when he holds a NTC.

We scratch your back, you scratch ours.

3. Families. We have been great with Smid. Marching Brouwer out as he tries to settle with his family is messing all of that up. It's a major aspect of probably how we get a home town discount with Stone IMO. Don't mess that up.

4. EVEN IF you expose Brouwer, there better be a damn good deal in place in lieu of Vegas taking him and you spin that freaking story to the media. You BS the media saying, "Damn, we offered a pretty high pick and a decent prospect and Vegas still took Brouwer!" No player wants to be marched out of the organization a la Wideman. None. Any organization that does that openly immediately loses respect league wide as well as with many prospects. They may not be as upset if the other organization is ecstatic to have him, but you don't. Hrudley had a segment of the TDL a few days ago on the radio. He said it didn't matter what was what. Being traded, he felt angry to the organization for many years and it took many years to get over it.

I am not opposed to Vegas taking Brouwer. But to march him out a live mouse to a feed a scorpion is the most idiotic thing that the organization can do goodwill wise. At least make him feel like he was worth two first rounders if you are going to lose him. HF may joke, "Take him for a bag of pucks." But seriously, how does that help a player to know that openly, his value is low?

- It's a bad contract. The on ice production is not helping the team, you could even make the argument he's hurting who ever he plays with. This level of production and play is simply not worth 4.5 mil.

- It's a business, and if someone is underperforming, things could change. Every player and agent knows this. Once again, we wouldn't even be having this issue if he was playing halfway decent.

- There's going to be a lot of hurt feelings this summer, and I guarantee there will be much, much more painful breakups around the league. TB doesn't even have a NTC, there will be guys who will basically be forced to waive those.

 

[RedHot]

And in terms of optics, consider this. If you gave the Kings a chance to go back in time, and use a compliance buyout on their captain, and leader, the great Dustin Brown, I guarantee they would. Along with Mike Richards. Bad contracts sewer teams, much more then bad optics could ever dream if.

 

[Fig]

And in terms of optics, consider this. If you gave the Kings a chance to go back in time, and use a compliance buyout on their captain, and leader, the great Dustin Brown, I guarantee they would. Along with Mike Richards. Bad contracts sewer teams, much more then bad optics could ever dream if.

Either way, we can all argue till we're blue in the face. I don't mind if management exposes Brouwer. I would hope that they spend the time to make sure it doesn't look completely awful like the farce that is MAF at the moment. This isn't to use baby gloves on Brouwer. This is to protect our organization from consistently being on many player's NTC, perhaps getting more favourable signings without having to overpay just to compete in FA etc.

 

[Anglesmith]

Here are the problems with "optics" if Brouwer was exposed all gussied up and ready for the plucking.

1. It shows to players that a full NTC (which Brouwer has) is completely meaningless. The org will turf you whenever they want as a "business decision". No agent will give a discount to sign with you. This is further exacerbated with the way Wideman is being dealt with. IMO, the org is trying to do Wideman a solid and let him play out his contract. It does not look like Wideman has any rope left though.

The whole reason for Brouwer to sign an NTC is because of an understanding that teams can and will exercise business decisions to help the team at the expense of players. All a player has to do to avoid this is make themselves valuable through their play. Players sign NTCs because they realize that even if they are a valuable player, a team has to give something to get something to help the team a lot of the time, and they don't want that something to be themselves. The difference between an NTC and an NMC is that an NMC doesn't allow a player to be moved out for no return. That is to say, a player gets an NMC to protect against a situation where his value to the team is so low that they just want out of his contract any way possible. Brouwer did not sign one of these, so if, indeed, he has played him into a situation where the Flames are better off losing him for nothing, it is not a personal matter at all for the Flames to take this option.

In terms of optics, let me ask you this: was Toronto trading Clarkson to Columbus a bad "optics" move for them? No, of course not. The signing was terrible, everyone laughed at them for it, and then they found a way out of that situation. Is the Clarkson fiasco going to hurt their ability to sign free agents? Not in a million years.

At the end of the day, the reason optics don't really play into it, in my opinion, is because the decision is going to be 100% based on how management views Brouwer's on-ice and off-ice contributions this season. He signed the contract he signed, and he's had 60 games now to show his value and how it matches up with his AAV. By the end of the playoffs, he'll have had ample opportunity to earn the right to be protected, which isn't a supremely high bar to hit as a right-handed right-winger on this team. So it's all more or less up to Brouwer and how he plays.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Not really, we know the assets we gave up and know if protected a better player than before will be available to Vegas. Lazar got the same return as Sven Baertschi, but as much as I picked at Sven's game he had shown significantly more potential than Lazar has. Paying a 2nd for a guy who most likely will top out as a 3rd line energy player, is poor asset management. I hope I am wrong, I'd love to see him become a top 6 player for us but he's done nothing in his career to suggest it's possible.

This is no different than drafting Hunter Smith in the 2nd round - which was also a wasted pick by the same criteria as he has the same potential you describe (except taller).

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Brouwer is really good on special teams. Like an elite elite PK guy and there is a lot of value in that.

He stands in front of the net and takes a beating and that's important (although Tkachuk is better).

Honestly his 5 on 5 game just isn't good enough to make 4.5 million.

Optics don't matter to this team. We don't have the cap space to go out and get free agents anyway.

Cap space >> optics.

 

[Lunatik]

This is no different than drafting Hunter Smith in the 2nd round - which was also a wasted pick by the same criteria as he has the same potential you describe (except taller).

Except Smith hadn't had 3 years in the NHL prior. But I agree Smith was a poor pick.

 

[BVicious]

Method Man / DoubleF

If you believe it's bad optics to expose Brouwer, what is the alternative?

 

[Volica]

Method Man / DoubleF

If you believe it's bad optics to expose Brouwer, what is the alternative?

Use a lot of valuable cap space on a guy who is currently playing like a 4th liner. Really the only option. That or lose someone much more valuable to the team or not sign someone who could be of major value.

 

[Lunatik]

Method Man / DoubleF

If you believe it's bad optics to expose Brouwer, what is the alternative?

I think you have to work out a deal for Vegas not to take whoever you expose out of Brouwer, Ferland and Lazar.

Or (and everyone will hate this idea), trade Bennett for a younger (or one with less NHL experience) expansion exempt forward with similar potential.

 

[BVicious]

I think you have to work out a deal for Vegas not to take whoever you expose out of Brouwer, Ferland and Lazar.

Or (and everyone will hate this idea), trade Bennett for a younger (or one with less NHL experience) expansion exempt forward with similar potential.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the optics argument. As well, if BT gives up yet another asset to protect an exposed player, I'm going to start to question his decisions on building a winning team now and the future.

The same argument can be made that Brouwer would have more opportunity and a bigger role in LV. Gifting him a role next year because of his contract, over players that might earn a spot that we've drafted, sends a horrible message to this team and it's prospects.

 

[The Gnome]

You guys worry way too much. Players have to be exposed, it's not the Flames fault that an expansion draft is looming. If you think they won't expose Brouwer barring an incredible PO run, then you're all dreaming. If you don't live up to a nice contract, don't expect to be protected. Hurt feelings or not, nobody is going to bat an eyelash at the flames exposing Brouwer...There will be a lot of other drama surrounding the expansion process than TB and the Calgary Flames.

I imagine 1 of Bouma or Brouwer is going to Vegas.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I think you have to work out a deal for Vegas not to take whoever you expose out of Brouwer, Ferland and Lazar.

Or (and everyone will hate this idea), trade Bennett for a younger (or one with less NHL experience) expansion exempt forward with similar potential.

Which to me is ultimately what I think will end up happening.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Which to me is ultimately what I think will end up happening.

Why the Flames would "work out a deal" for Vegas not to take Brouwer, when Vegas taking Brouwer is in their absolute best interest, is beyond me.

Flames should be working out a deal for Vegas to exclusively take Brouwer instead of Kulak, Bouma or Stajan or Shinkaruk.

 

[Dertell]

The whole reason for Brouwer to sign an NTC is because of an understanding that teams can and will exercise business decisions to help the team at the expense of players. All a player has to do to avoid this is make themselves valuable through their play. Players sign NTCs because they realize that even if they are a valuable player, a team has to give something to get something to help the team a lot of the time, and they don't want that something to be themselves. The difference between an NTC and an NMC is that an NMC doesn't allow a player to be moved out for no return. That is to say, a player gets an NMC to protect against a situation where his value to the team is so low that they just want out of his contract any way possible. Brouwer did not sign one of these, so if, indeed, he has played him into a situation where the Flames are better off losing him for nothing, it is not a personal matter at all for the Flames to take this option.

In terms of optics, let me ask you this: was Toronto trading Clarkson to Columbus a bad "optics" move for them? No, of course not. The signing was terrible, everyone laughed at them for it, and then they found a way out of that situation. Is the Clarkson fiasco going to hurt their ability to sign free agents? Not in a million years.

At the end of the day, the reason optics don't really play into it, in my opinion, is because the decision is going to be 100% based on how management views Brouwer's on-ice and off-ice contributions this season. He signed the contract he signed, and he's had 60 games now to show his value and how it matches up with his AAV. By the end of the playoffs, he'll have had ample opportunity to earn the right to be protected, which isn't a supremely high bar to hit as a right-handed right-winger on this team. So it's all more or less up to Brouwer and how he plays.

I think this says everything that needed to be said. Players on the trade block after the 1st year of their deal isn't anything unprecedented.

But this is all pretty unimportant because all the big buy UFAs get NMCs these days. Like literally all of them. The others hope to get some of the money and term left, or even just a contract.

 

[BVicious]

my last thoughts on expansion draft:

The protected list should include the obvious players, including Lazar and Ferland. Roll the dice and hope they grab Brouwer. Free up 4.5 per for the next 3 years instead of paying that to a guy that has fallen down the depth chart. I think a lot of people forget, Tkachuk basically took this guys role, it's no ones 'fault'.

Then next season you have some open spots for guys to earn a role, and/or 4.5 million to replace that role if needed. That money helps us sign Stone/Versteeg if needed.

An Expansion Draft allows GM's to potentially Right a wrong, and the optics are irrelevant, it's just the way it is when a team enters the league.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Which to me is ultimately what I think will end up happening.

Why would Treliving pay a 2nd for Lazar - a player who is unlikely to have a significant impact for the rest of this season - prior to the expansion draft, if he knew he would then need to pay additional assets to keep one of Brouwer, Ferland or Lazar?

I mean, I guess it's a possibility, but if Treliving pays assets to keep a bad contract, his reputation takes a significant hit in my eyes.

 

[Calculon]

Tkachuk wildly exceeding expectations not only makes Brouwer redundant, it makes his cap hit problematic, specifically the last year on it. Getting out of that contract now rather than dealing with a buyout in the final year is only prudent management.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if Lazar was brought in to be Brouwer's replacement next year.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Tkachuk wildly exceeding expectations not only makes Brouwer redundant, it makes his cap hit problematic, specifically the last year on it. Getting out of that contract now rather than dealing with a buyout in the final year is only prudent management.

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if Lazar was brought in to be Brouwer's replacement next year.

Not only that, but both Frolik and Backlund took steps forward this year, and we brought in Versteeg at the last minute too.

When we signed Brouwer, there were three very big holes in our top nine.

Gaudreau-Monahan-X
X-Backlund-Frolik
X/Ferland-Bennett-Stajan (at least that's what most of us thought it would be)
Bouma/Ferland-Hamilton-Hathaway

 

[Lunatik]

Why would Treliving pay a 2nd for Lazar - a player who is unlikely to have a significant impact for the rest of this season - prior to the expansion draft, if he knew he would then need to pay additional assets to keep one of Brouwer, Ferland or Lazar?

I mean, I guess it's a possibility, but if Treliving pays assets to keep a bad contract, his reputation takes a significant hit in my eyes.

I think it will be more paying them to take a poor contract. I suspect the Flames will give up an asset for the Golden Knights to take Stajan.

 

[Fig]

Method Man / DoubleF

If you believe it's bad optics to expose Brouwer, what is the alternative?

I'd trade prior to expansion to Vegas and agree they sign Eggs in the 72 hour window or expose then do a media circus about how Vegas didn't agree to a package worth approx a low 1st to ignore Brouwer. However, if Management is serious about keeping Brouwer, I think we pay Vegas to ignore Lazar. We will just have to watch it unfold.

I am not opposed to moving Brouwer. I am opposed to unceremoniously stand him in a field for Vegas to pluck him. Publicly make him seem like a valuable guy before he ends up gone. Make it look good and classy. Don't turn it into a public break up like MAF.

I think you have to work out a deal for Vegas not to take whoever you expose out of Brouwer, Ferland and Lazar.

Or (and everyone will hate this idea), trade Bennett for a younger (or one with less NHL experience) expansion exempt forward with similar potential.

The latter part is difficult to envision a deal that makes sense, but could work. I think it's easier to make the optics of Brouwer going to Vegas look good than this type of move though.

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the optics argument. As well, if BT gives up yet another asset to protect an exposed player, I'm going to start to question his decisions on building a winning team now and the future.

The same argument can be made that Brouwer would have more opportunity and a bigger role in LV. Gifting him a role next year because of his contract, over players that might earn a spot that we've drafted, sends a horrible message to this team and it's prospects.

Burke allowed Cammellari to walk for nothing for the sake of "optics". It's a thing. What perhaps MM and I are arguing, is that optics isn't just a pride thing. It can cause tangible costs to the organization and be expensive.

Calgary may not have to give any assets to protect anyone at all if a pre-negotiated trade is put in place. Many assume McPhee would looovee a shot at getting Brouwer, a guy he's familiar with from Washington. He doesn't need a sweetener to move in the ED.

ie: Trade Brouwer pre-draft for a 2nd + 3rd. Offer one of those pick back for Vegas to sign Engelland in the 72 hour window.

You don't tank Brouwer's value, optics are great (optics).
Eggs goes home. Local Vegas guy. Write an article (Optics).
McPhee gets to spread his time and energy in the expansion draft more evenly rather than all on the same day, plus good promotion heading into the ED signing a local guy.

Calgary in: 3rd (Paid 2nd back to sign Eggs let's say)
Calgary out: Brouwer + Engelland

End result? IMO, similar to straight up exposing Brouwer and losing Eggs who can resist playing close to home and making history. But optics are way better. Obviously Brouwer has to waive to go to Vegas, but it's better all him to feel he moves on his terms.

Fantasy? Sure. More work? Yup.


The way I say optics doesn't mean I am opposed to moving Brouwer.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

I think it will be more paying them to take a poor contract. I suspect the Flames will give up an asset for the Golden Knights to take Stajan.

That's essentially the same thing to me. You're still paying an asset to take Stajan instead of Brouwer, thus paying to keep Brouwer.

Regardless, Stajan, IMO, has most definitely been the more positively impactful player of the two, and he is on both a shorter and cheaper contract.

Brouwer has been made redundant. Almost unpredictably if we're being honest by a combination of Tkachuk and Ferland outplaying him, and Brouwer hasn't upped his game in response.

He's a good PK'er, but I'm positive there are a lot of other good PK'ers for near league minimum. Tkachuk, Ferland and Bennett are all probably better net from presences on the PP. And Brouwer at 5 on 5 is not a very good player.

I don't blame Trelibing for signing Brouwer, as he filled a need at the time. I would however, blame Treliving if he didn't take the opportunity to wash his hands and move on, or even worse pay to keep a bad contract.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I think it will be more paying them to take a poor contract. I suspect the Flames will give up an asset for the Golden Knights to take Stajan.

I'd be surprised. Bouma maybe, but Stajan is still a big part of the leadership of this team.

 

[Fig]

I think maybe the mods should spin some of these posts into an expansion draft thread.

Personally, I'd rather lose Brouwer over Stajan. Stajan can fit well enough on the 3RW role to replace Brouwer, and I think in a season or two, Lazar might be able to replace that void too.

Back on topic. I like the Lazar move.