It makes sense, even next year. If the retention is the same as the buyout cost, with half the term, it's just a smart hockey move. Mistakes are made all the time, sometimes you just have to swallow hard and own up to it. I don't even hate Brouwer, but $4.5 is way too much, for what he brings to the table
It simply does not make sense. First of all, Brouwer just played the worst season of his career, even with retention do you really think we'd be getting a fair return for him? As opposed to holding onto him for one more year where he'll almost certainly look better, and then if you still want to trade him you get significantly more?
Next, unless you're Chayka apparently, you reserve your retention trades for guys you simply need off the team out of necessity. We're not in a big enough cap pinch as it stands to justify that. Maybe if we have to sign Bennett and Tkachuk in two years and we really need the space, Brouwer's contract becomes a problem, but that's a last resort.
Third, the logic behind not retaining is simply sound. You don't pay a guy to play against you, end of story.
Last, to circle back around, Brouwer just had an awful year, worse than his rookie campaign. He will likely never be worth 4.5 million, but if he turns it around and plays like he did out east, he will be close enough that retaining 1.5 million would be more than the amount he's actually overpaid.
Rittich didn't look very good in his NHL game, guys have ceilings. That's the worst thing about goalies, it's next to impossible to tell, until they're in the position to fail.
Personally I think Rittich looked fine up here, and evaluating a goalie's ceiling via his very first NHL game for a team he's had maybe one practice with is foolish.
Give Rittich some preseason games. If he looks shaky, then acquire a leftover backup for cheaper than during UFA?
Via trade, or...?