View Single Post
Old
01-18-2012, 10:40 AM
  #44
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Two seasons ago the PPG average of the Toews/Kane tandem was .987. Last year it was .974. So far this season without Brouwer in the line-up it’s .924.

There is no magical increase in production without Brouwer. Any drop in Toews/Kane production is likely to be directly proportional to how much less time they play with Sharp who is on a whole other level compared to Brouwer/Stalberg/Brunette/Bickell.

Brouwer and Stalberg are two completely different skill-sets that bring different things to a line. On THIS team, whose most physical forwards are players that you don’t want to see get too much ice-time in the playoffs, a player of Brouwer’s skill-set would be important..
The numbers are slightly down because Kane is having his worst season since his rookie season, but I'm sure that's because Brouwer isn't there helping him, right? Brouwer never got high minutes here, and was one of the players that you didn't want to see on the ice come playoff time (below avg defense, limited offense) I don't care how many hits he had, or how many goals he scored. He didn't strike fear into opponents like say Ott, Clowe, Neil do, and he was far too inconsistent to play a meaningful role every night.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Sure he can, on LW while Sharp plays center. Sharp might be a better winger than a centerman, but the TEAM gets the best matchups when it can roll Toews-Sharp-Bolland down the middle. One of Toews-Sharp would get a mismatch after Bolland matches up against the other team’s top line.
If the team wanted Sharp at C, he would be there, especially this year when we are weak up the middle. I wouldn't mind if he played C, but I wouldn't want Brouwer anchoring that line down like T & K. And I'm pretty sure we tried brouwer with Sharp and Hossa quite a few times and it never panned out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
True. Quenneville also couldn’t find a home on his power-play for a defenceman who is currently leading NHL defencemen in power-play production. Nor could he find a home for a top-six forward who’s production is that of a top-six forward.
Q tried Campbell on the PP, and Campbell never succeeded, did you watch any of the hockey games when he was here? Funny how he got 2nd pairing minutes and didn't show anything to put him on the 1st unit PP. Same goes for Brouwer, he was given top 6 minutes at times, didn't do anything with them, was incompetent when it came to defense, so he found himself on the lower lines.

Why would Q force something like Campbell on the PP, or Brouwer in the top 6...that doesn't work?



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
And note that almost all of the players in the top 10 in hitting have spent their entire careers with the organization that drafted them. They are highly valued players except here for some strange reason..
You're right, let's over pay a guy because he is a top 10 hitter, doesn't bring anything defensively, and disappears offensively for very long stretches....at least while he was here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Qualitatively I would take a top-six forward over a bottom-six forward 10 times out of 10.
Brouwer would not be a top 6 player here, just because his stats put him in the top 180 players, doesn't make him a top 6 forward on our team. There is more to line structure than points. For instance, Bolland is a top 6 forward points wise, but he is our 3rd line C....not sure what you don't get about this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
No question Callahan’s improvements are not likely to be matched by Brouwer, hence the $2 million premium on Callahan’s salary.
Brouwer will never match Callahan offensively, in their best years, and won't even get a sniff of Callahans selke type defense, ever. That's why he is paid like he should be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Ott is overpaid. Brouwer is not. Ott is three years older and has had his career year (read: his statistical anomaly) and has now returned to his usual level of goals in the low teen’s and the 40-point mark an unlikelihood. A 3rd-liner getting paid more than a 2nd-liner.
Ott's points per game this season = .526
Brouwers points per game this season (his best year) = .535

They are equal offensively, Ott PK's (better defensively) is tougher, and meaner and is a C.
Both are overpaid about the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
And Bolland as the 2nd-line center is a HORRIBLE idea. Why give away the advantage of matchups we enjoy when Bolland matches up against the other team’s #1 line and they then have to match one of Toews or Sharp with a scrub line?.
Look at Vancouver, their shut down C is on their 2nd line, worked well for them last year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
In which alternate universe is Neil as good offensively as Brouwer ??????.
Neil get's a point every 34.8mins of ice time, Brouwer get's a point every 31mins of ice time. Really not that much difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Yes really.
You are comparing Brouwer to Backes? That's like comparing Toews to Bolland.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Of course you don’t get Backes for $2,350,000. Better players cost more money, more than what the ‘Hawks are throwing at completing their top two lines.
You mean the top 2 lines that are one of the highest scoring top 6 in the entire NHL?


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
20-goal scorers don’t play on 4th lines, regardless of their salary..
That's funny, Brouwer was playing on our 4th line at times last year, and when the team was fully healthy. He scored 20 goals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Foligno's contract is up this year after which he will likely make more than Brouwer, further showing what a bargain Brouwer’s contract is. Foligno’s career highs so far are 17 for goals, 20 for assists, 34 for points, so I wouldn’t be anointing him a better offensive player just yet.
Foligno is on pace for roughly 50pts in his first year playing with a competent offense. Brouwers best year (this year) and he is on pace for 44. Foligno's defensive game is better too. If he makes more than Brouwer, I want no part of him either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
As with Foligno, his offensive superiority is imagined rather than real. Scored 35 points as a rookie five years ago and that remains his career high. Career best of 16 goals, has trouble staying healthy and has a salary over $3 million. .
Never said he was great offensively, but he has the potential to be a selke type shut down C, much like Bolland. The only reason he makes 3+ mil is because PHX has to over pay players to stay there. Not to mention he is a very good defensive C which is far more valuable than a hitting W.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Ladd couldn’t play with Sharp and Hossa because Sharp has never played center before ???

I can understand Ladd’s salary being too rich for the ‘Hawks, but how is he only a 3rd-line NHLer? In a 30 team league? With 180 top-six forwards? How does a player that finishes 59th in scoring among forwards last year not be perceived as being a top six forward ?

Why is there this perception that the league is filled with Boston’s and Detroit’s where 20-goal scorers are 4th-liners and Andrew Ladd is a 3rd-liner?
Here we are again, the team doesn't want Sharp at C.
Should we go and acquire a big RW to play with Toews because Kane can play C? No.

He is not a 3rd liner in the NHL. Like Bolland, he is definitely a top 6 forward that would be used on our 3rd line because of the way our lines shake out. Versteeg (the year we one) had top 180 stats, but was a 3rd liner. (same with Ladd)


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Again the point being that better players will obviously cost more money. A 20-20 guy with 200 hits isn’t as good as those guys, but has good value at $2,350,000 and fits the ‘Hawks budget of trying to get low-cost complements for the big four upfront. Instead the brass spent that money on Brunette. .
I can twist that, and say they spent Brouwers money on Carcillo (which was turning out great before the injury) and Carcillo was bringing just as much to the club as Brouwer ever did. Carcillo wouldn't of had 20assists, but was on pace for 26 goals was on pace for 200+ hits, was playing well within our top 6, all for a low cost of 775k.

Saying all that, wasn't Brouwer traded before Campbell? Chicago, at the time, didn't have a lot of cap space to deal with, and it was either Brouwer or Frolik. Unfortunetly, Frolik greatly out performed Brouwer in the playoffs last year and earned that spot over Brouwer. Yes, I would love to have Brouwer instead of Frolik, but at the time it looked like a great decision and we got a 1st round pick out of it. We would of never got a 1st round pick with Frolik.

Maybe now they can package Frolik with that 1st rounder, or another one, and get a better player than Brouwer or Frolik in return. Salary doesn't much matter when you have a ton of cap space.

Hawkaholic is online now   Reply With Quote