Mike Brown Signs 2 Year Contract -_-

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

Wahh wahh, such overreaction and it's not even July yet. Oh noes, Brown was overpaid by 5-600k annually and the cap is going up! Sharks fans are going to meet the salary floor after years of flirting with the cap. Prepare your heart medication.

There's some pretty justifiable complaints in this thread, not just people whining about the signing (heh that rhymed). For the record, I like Doug Wilson. But this is an unnecessary signing that says that he's not serious about rebuilding or retooling. Brown is one of the most ineffective players in the NHL. Why waste a roster spot on him. He's not the 12th/13th/14th forward...he's being paid more than so.

It's about time we bring back some actual discussion in these threads. Instead of complaining about posters, we should be engaging in actual discussion and allow ourselves an open opinion.

Then again, this is HFboards

 

[Coily]

Everyone wants to rebuild.

Doug signs a player to 1/70 of the cap.

People freak out and we'll never win the cup during our "rebuild".

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Everyone wants to rebuild.

Doug signs a player to 1/70 of the cap.

People freak out and we'll never win the cup during our "rebuild".

This made me laugh more than it should have

But, to be serious for a minute, you're totally wrong, these stupid moves add up. We shouldn't be keeping brown at all unless we're tanking completely and we certainly shouldn't be paying him this much. You can say we're overreacting and you're right to an extent that one dumb move doesn't make a huge difference, except it's not one dumb move when this move just ties up $5.5M in guys who ideally wouldn't be playing on the healthy lineup of a cup contending team. (Just over $3M between Burish and Brown if you want to exclude Kennedy)

People have a right to be mad about this because little details like this matter, it isn't just NHL 14 where you sign every player to a slight overpayment and call it a day

 

[matt trick]

Wilson does so well with contracts for players in the top 90% of the lineup, but for all he has apparently learned, it looks like the one or two ridiculous fourth line signings are here to stay.

I do like the Stalock signing however.

 

[Swervin81]

I was hoping we wouldn't fall into the same trap that the Leafs fell into 3 years ago with this guy. Signing an insignificant 4th liner to a multi-year contract when he provides nothing an AHL callup or waiver pickup can't.

Guess I was wrong.

 

[Hangemhigh]

An overpayment, but he can sport a sweet mustache.
He did his job in the playoffs. At least for the first 3 games.
Also, someone needs to punch some faces.
I think he plays 70+ games if healthy next year.

 

[HOOCH2173]

Everyone wants to rebuild.

Doug signs a player to 1/70 of the cap.

People freak out and we'll never win the cup during our "rebuild".

Why do I keep thinking any moment you will hear, "Devon! Get the Tables!"

 

[RainbowDash]

Why do I keep thinking any moment you will hear, "Devon! Get the Tables!"

 

[Irbes Mask]

There's some pretty justifiable complaints in this thread, not just people whining about the signing (heh that rhymed). For the record, I like Doug Wilson. But this is an unnecessary signing that says that he's not serious about rebuilding or retooling. Brown is one of the most ineffective players in the NHL. Why waste a roster spot on him. He's not the 12th/13th/14th forward...he's being paid more than so.

It's about time we bring back some actual discussion in these threads. Instead of complaining about posters, we should be engaging in actual discussion and allow ourselves an open opinion.

1 signing that takes up 1/70th of the cap before the actual free agent period has started dictates that he's not serious about rebuilding (no it's no longer a retool, time for folks to let go)? And some wonder why there is derision for over reactions.

Calling him one of the most ineffective players in the NHL (based on adv stats I'm guessing) is nice and all but there are guys who were more ineffective getting paid more with more workloads. It shows that there's some set of skills these guys bring to warrant their (over)payment. DW evidently thinks Brown's ability to skate and hit and his cocaine fists are worth the cost. It's immaterial to me. It's 4th line signing. I like his skating ability. I like his moustache. He can hit, he can punch, he can play a bit of hockey. I prefer him to AHL scrubs. He can be moved at some point during the season if DW feels like it. Maybe they even get a 4th back.

Folks need to realise that 4th liners will eventually be paid 1m to be 4th liners just as other sports have scrubs and has-beens making 10m a year. The fiscal growth of the NHL will dictate that.

So much anger over Mike frickin' Brown but I get it. It's a lack of other meat and fat to chew on so folks don't mind the runty spoiling variety. It's tough when you're used to better cuts.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Effective 4th liners eventually get paid 1 million plus. Ineffective ones that get paid that much are a mistake. Guys like Desjardins and Sheppard are 4th liners that rightfully will get 1 mil plus. Comparing them to players that make more and have more responsibility in terms of effectiveness is apples to oranges as they don't fulfill the same role.

It doesn't matter that it's Mike Brown. It's a point of evidence on whether DW has figured out one of his longstanding issues. This is one of them and this doesn't look good for him. Being smart with depth signings and how much you spend is vitally important. This is why, when they traded for Kennedy needlessly or overspend in small portions on numerous players, that they didn't have space to acquire anyone at the deadline...or even in the off-season since the left side of the blue line has been an issue for years now.

He has a problem identifying depth issues and Brown is a depth issue regardless of salary.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Wilson does so well with contracts for players in the top 90% of the lineup, but for all he has apparently learned, it looks like the one or two ridiculous fourth line signings are here to stay.

I do like the Stalock signing however.

I think it is more that FANS do a good job predicting contracts for players in the top 90% of the lineup, but fail for the other ones.

GMs have long memories. They saw how Brown performed in the playoffs this year...someone else would have probably given him the same contract.

If DW wanted to keep Brown, he had to pay.

 

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

Effective 4th liners eventually get paid 1 million plus. Ineffective ones that get paid that much are a mistake. Guys like Desjardins and Sheppard are 4th liners that rightfully will get 1 mil plus. Comparing them to players that make more and have more responsibility in terms of effectiveness is apples to oranges as they don't fulfill the same role.

It doesn't matter that it's Mike Brown. It's a point of evidence on whether DW has figured out one of his longstanding issues. This is one of them and this doesn't look good for him. Being smart with depth signings and how much you spend is vitally important. This is why, when they traded for Kennedy needlessly or overspend in small portions on numerous players, that they didn't have space to acquire anyone at the deadline...or even in the off-season since the left side of the blue line has been an issue for years now.

He has a problem identifying depth issues and Brown is a depth issue regardless of salary.

Bingo.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think it is more that FANS do a good job predicting contracts for players in the top 90% of the lineup, but fail for the other ones.

GMs have long memories. They saw how Brown performed in the playoffs this year...someone else would have probably given him the same contract.

If DW wanted to keep Brown, he had to pay.

If he has a long memory, why is he focusing on the two games he did well and forgetting the other four playoff games and 48 regular season games where he was a liability? To me, it just seems like keeping him is using selective memory and focusing on the small sample size where he was good and ignoring the vastly larger size that shows he was horrible.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If he has a long memory, why is he focusing on the two games he did well and forgetting the other four playoff games and 48 regular season games where he was a liability? To me, it just seems like keeping him is using selective memory and focusing on the small sample size where he was good and ignoring the vastly larger size that shows he was horrible.

As to why he is putting an emphasis on the playoffs...well, that is because they are the playoffs. Playoff performance is valued at a premium in this league...like it or not. That is why Bickell is paid four million and the Kings might keep Brown and Richards.

The other 4 playoff games...well that is why Brown is getting 1 million and not 2 million.

Now, I think the biggest problem with this move, is that DW thinking that he can solve the issues with the team's core by changing something in the complement. IMO, you look at players like Marleau, Thornton, Vlasic, and Pavelski...they don't really play with an edge in their game. Now that Boyle is gone, that is something even more lacking.

DW has addressed this issue by getting players like Torres, Wingels, Desjardins, Burish, and yes, Brown, in the periphery. But that doesn't solve the issue with the core...

 

[hockeyball]

This also may very well be a couple of things we are not considering:

1) Brown stepped up and played his best when we needed it. This may be Wilson rewarding him, it's only two years, and setting an example. Step up and you will get paid.

2) It's worth noting it's only 2 years, same with Stalock. It's basically a tryout for the post rebuild team. During the 2 years, it really doesn't matter. Wilson isn't an idiot, he knows making the playoffs next season is actually detrimental to what he's trying to accomplish. If Brown is terrible, so be it, if he lives up to it it's not going to effect the team results much anyway in the next 2 seasons.

3) Wilson may very well be overpaying guys on 2 season deals in order to reach the cap floor for the next 2 seasons. If the Sharks trade Marleau, Thornton, Niemi, and Stuart after already having dumped Boyle and Havlat, they may actually have cap floor issues. Overpaying a few guys (remember these are still tiny contracts anyway) for 2 seasons isn't the end of the world since he plans on the rebuild taking 1-2 years anyway.

Basically, the 2 year part for both deals is very telling. He picked that number for a very specific reason and that reason is more than likely the amount of time the Sharks are not contending anyway, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

As to why he is putting an emphasis on the playoffs...well, that is because they are the playoffs. Playoff performance is valued at a premium in this league...like it or not. That is why Bickell is paid four million and the Kings might keep Brown and Richards.

The other 4 playoff games...well that is why Brown is getting 1 million and not 2 million.

Now, I think the biggest problem with this move, is that DW thinking that he can solve the issues with the team's core by changing something in the complement. IMO, you look at players like Marleau, Thornton, Vlasic, and Pavelski...they don't really play with an edge in their game. Now that Boyle is gone, that is something even more lacking.

DW has addressed this issue by getting players like Torres, Wingels, Desjardins, Burish, and yes, Brown, in the periphery. But that doesn't solve the issue with the core...

Wow...just wow. Playoff performance apparently is only valued at a premium when you do well but when you suck in the playoffs, like Brown did save for a handful of shifts, that gets ignored. It's ridiculous to me to think that even if Brown held his own for the other games that he'd get 2 million...for a guy that doesn't even play ten minutes a night at his best. Your comparison to Dustin Brown, Bickell, and Mike Richards are apples and oranges compared to Mike Brown. They are far more effective players with different roles than Mike Brown. That should go without saying yet you're bringing them into this for some reason.

You're playing a mind-reading game if you think that this move is somehow indicative of DW's plan going forward with the core. It is a separate issue and should be treated as such.

As for your depth issues being addressed argument, there is a much longer list of failed attempts to address it than those that have succeeded. Just look at the team this year with Burish, Havlat, Kennedy, Brown, and honestly so is Torres. Just because he's done moves to try and address it doesn't mean he succeeded. He has failed on the whole of it in this regard.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Brown did not perform well in these playoffs. Possession wise, his line was absolutely dominated. He dragged down Torres and Desjardins who are both solid possession players that normally outplay their competition.

 

[Irbes Mask]

Brown did not perform well in these playoffs. Possession wise, his line was absolutely dominated. He dragged down Torres and Desjardins who are both solid possession players that normally outplay their competition.

I don't think you can ignore Torres' limited mobility and speed when discussing him alongside Brown. Torres missed over 90% of the regular season, it's unrealistic to expect him to be at 100% for the games he 'played' in the playoffs.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Brown did not perform well in these playoffs. Possession wise, his line was absolutely dominated. He dragged down Torres and Desjardins who are both solid possession players that normally outplay their competition.

You're probably overrating the important of possession to NHL GMs/Doug Wilson.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Wow...just wow. Playoff performance apparently is only valued at a premium when you do well but when you suck in the playoffs, like Brown did save for a handful of shifts, that gets ignored. It's ridiculous to me to think that even if Brown held his own for the other games that he'd get 2 million...for a guy that doesn't even play ten minutes a night at his best.

I think that it is what it is. GMs greatly value playoff performance...

Also, I think many would disagree that Brown "sucked" in the playoffs besides those 2-3 games.

Put it this way. Day one of the playoffs, Mike Brown materializes on your team, at a cap hit of 1.2 million. He then has the playoff series that he had. Overall, I think that many GMs would be happy with that equation. You may not be, perhaps because you are looking at metrics or just see it differently...

Your comparison to Dustin Brown, Bickell, and Mike Richards are apples and oranges compared to Mike Brown. They are far more effective players with different roles than Mike Brown. That should go without saying yet you're bringing them into this for some reason.

All three are "overpaid" players who struggled during the RS, yet had a strong playoffs.

Of course those players paid bigger roles on their team, and were better for longer...but they are also paid a lot more.

As for your depth issues being addressed argument,

Nope. The argument is that DW has tried to solve issues with the core by tinkering with the depth.

If the Sharks have had depth issues, for the most part, its been largely secondary to the issue of the core of the team not stepping up.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think that it is what it is. GMs greatly value playoff performance...

Also, I think many would disagree that Brown "sucked" in the playoffs besides those 2-3 games.

Put it this way. Day one of the playoffs, Mike Brown materializes on your team, at a cap hit of 1.2 million. He then has the playoff series that he had. Overall, I think that many GMs would be happy with that equation. You may not be, perhaps because you are looking at metrics or just see it differently...



All three are "overpaid" players who struggled during the RS, yet had a strong playoffs.

Of course those players paid bigger roles on their team, and were better for longer...but they are also paid a lot more.



Nope. The argument is that DW has tried to solve issues with the core by tinkering with the depth.

If the Sharks have had depth issues, for the most part, its been largely secondary to the issue of the core of the team not stepping up.

And if they greatly value playoff performance, they would see that it would be tough to find an objective standard in which Brown actually performed in. If he didn't suck, he wouldn't have been scratched for game six. If you can find an objective standard that shows he performed well, let me know and we can discuss its merits.

Brown's credit for a good playoff run is essentially a goal, an assist, and two times where he managed to hit Quick. But out of all the other times he was on the ice, he and his line were flat-out dominated and stuck in their own zone for extended periods of time. His forecheck produced next to nothing. His physicality was actually a detriment since he was going out of position a lot.

If people think his overall play is good enough, I don't think they're looking into it with enough attention to detail because it's there and it shows how badly he performed.

As for your comparisons, all those reasons are why they aren't comparable and I don't even know why you brought them up. Better players, bigger roles, higher salaries, and somehow comparable in playoff performance? Yeah, no.

And I said that DW has tried to fix the depth issues and he has also failed for the most part at it. Just because the issue is secondary doesn't mean that it doesn't have a direct impact on your probabilities of success in the playoffs. It very much does and in many years was the reason why they lost a playoff round. But the big problem is that when you say that the core doesn't step up, you're leaving out the reality that in every single playoff run, there are going to be core players that don't produce. They all cannot produce every series. The defense, goaltending, and scoring depth have to be there to overcome that or you're never going to win the Cup. Depth is a vital ingredient to success in this league...you don't win the Cup without it just as much as you don't win without star players playing well enough to win a series or two on their own.

 

[HOOCH2173]

hmm maybe the Brown signing is a red herring. remember they signed Seto and then shipped him off to another team.

And look how well that turned out!

 

[OrrNumber4]

And if they greatly value playoff performance, they would see that it would be tough to find an objective standard in which Brown actually performed in. If he didn't suck, he wouldn't have been scratched for game six. If you can find an objective standard that shows he performed well, let me know and we can discuss its merits.

Who says it has to be objective? You may prefer it that way, and only want objective arguments, but many people don't see it that way...and many NHL GMs don't see it that way. Which is why they hire scouts and experts to help them make decisions.

Brown's credit for a good playoff run is essentially a goal, an assist, and two times where he managed to hit Quick.

Which one could argue played a huge part in SJ beating LA in those two games.

If people think his overall play is good enough, I don't think they're looking into it with enough attention to detail because it's there and it shows how badly he performed.

That's fine. Maybe you saw something that DW and presumably other GMs didn't see.

As for your comparisons, all those reasons are why they aren't comparable and I don't even know why you brought them up. Better players, bigger roles, higher salaries, and somehow comparable in playoff performance? Yeah, no.

Just showing how playoff performance can be so highly valued.

And I said that DW has tried to fix the depth issues and he has also failed for the most part at it. Just because the issue is secondary doesn't mean that it doesn't have a direct impact on your probabilities of success in the playoffs.

Sure. But you need to fix the core issues first.

But the big problem is that when you say that the core doesn't step up, you're leaving out the reality that in every single playoff run, there are going to be core players that don't produce.

I would say that in any run to the SC-final, there will be a series or two were a certain core player struggles to produce. With the Sharks, it seems to happen too frequently. Too frequently, everyone, or close to it, gets shut down.

They all cannot produce every series.

To be fair, several SC-winners in the past have had core players that DID produce every series. Not all of their core players, but some of them.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Who says it has to be objective? You may prefer it that way, and only want objective arguments, but many people don't see it that way...and many NHL GMs don't see it that way. Which is why they hire scouts and experts to help them make decisions.



Which one could argue played a huge part in SJ beating LA in those two games.



That's fine. Maybe you saw something that DW and presumably other GMs didn't see.



Just showing how playoff performance can be so highly valued.



Sure. But you need to fix the core issues first.



I would say that in any run to the SC-final, there will be a series or two were a certain core player struggles to produce. With the Sharks, it seems to happen too frequently. Too frequently, everyone, or close to it, gets shut down.



To be fair, several SC-winners in the past have had core players that DID produce every series. Not all of their core players, but some of them.

A GM needs to hire a scout and expert to help make a decision on a player he is seeing all the time? I can understand that when the player is from another team...not their own guy. If there is a lack of objectivity in personnel decisions, that's a much greater concern than Brown himself. And I'd like to know how you know that many GM's don't see it that way.

The second part conveniently neglects that it disappeared for the remaining part of the series yet that gets swept under the rug. Why is two games of success (for argument's sake) being used and four games of failure and one scratch being ignored in that assessment?

The third part holds a key word that is a big problem...presumably. There's no reason to assume that just because DW gave him the contract that everyone else would.

The fourth part still is apples to oranges.

The fifth part...no you don't. You can fix them both at the same time or either before the other...it makes no difference.

The sixth part...it happens and will happen a lot. That's why most teams that do succeed get a lot of help from their defense, goaltending, and depth scoring. None of those seemed to show up either.

To the last part, if the depth scoring shows up, the focus eventually gets drawn away from the top guys and they might find success...or the coaching staff alters the lines to try and generate something. Neither of that really happened outside of switching Hertl and Pavelski now and then.

 

[LeeIFBB]

For $1MM+ he should be getting punched in the face a whole lot more.