Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Caps extend Troy Brouwer (3 years, $3.666M cap hit)
1. You would have thought Caps management would have learned from the Ward signing
2. Brouwer isn't worth that cap hit but Hawks fans need to stop pretending like he's worth $1.5 or something crazy cheap. $3.6 is too much but $2.75-$3.25 would be about right. Either way, not that far off
3. Favorite Troy Brouwer moment=When he got to bring the cup to his dad who was really sick in the hospital. Very cool stuff that the Hawks won and he got to make his dad happy....also when he tried to hit a guy and ended up flying shoulder first into the boards : )
1. You would have thought Caps management would have learned from the Ward signing
2. Brouwer isn't worth that cap hit but Hawks fans need to stop pretending like he's worth $1.5 or something crazy cheap. $3.6 is too much but $2.75-$3.25 would be about right. Either way, not that far off
3. Favorite Troy Brouwer moment=When he got to bring the cup to his dad who was really sick in the hospital. Very cool stuff that the Hawks won and he got to make his dad happy....also when he tried to hit a guy and ended up flying shoulder first into the boards : )
I thought they would have learned from the Poti signing
He's a great guy to be a role player on any roster... not at that price. I like Brouwer, but he is what he is. Hawks let him go once it became clear the type of money he would be looking for in relation to what he really adds to the team.
I don't care that there's a $70 million cap (pre-new CBA), I don't care if I'm one of "those guys" in every FA signing thread.
$3.5 million-plus for a physical 18-goal scorer is TOO MUCH.
Yeah dude, that's like... 200K dollars per goal! If a guy like Parise got that, he'd be making... let's see... 6.2M dollars! Outrageous, right?
Anyway, people need to come to terms with the higher value of "role players" in today's NHL. It seems like every time a guy like this signs, it's deemed an overpayment. Prust, Samuelsson, Winnik, more recently Marchand. There are plenty of examples from last year too. Outside of the occasional hometown discount or the like, this is the new reality for role players.
There is a lot more to hockey than just scoring goals. This is why deals like this are quite ubiquitous and fair.
Absolutely, and forgive me for perhaps not giving Brouwer all of the credit that he deserves. I still think it's just too much for what he brings to the table.
I wouldn't want Cal Clutterbuck making $3 million on my team, let alone closer to $4 million. Granted, Brouwer is probably a better overall player than Clutterbuck, but I still think there's a comparison to be made there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg Jesus
Anyway, people need to come to terms with the higher value of "role players" in today's NHL. It seems like every time a guy like this signs, it's deemed an overpayment. Prust, Samuelsson, Winnik, more recently Marchand. There are plenty of examples from last year too. Outside of the occasional hometown discount or the like, this is the new reality for role players.
I'm well aware. I don't post a lot here, but I read through enough posts on July 1st, etc. to see that every reply to a signing is "OH, look at that stupid GM overpaying for so-and-so, have fun missing the playoffs!" or "$x.xx million for so-and-so, what a joke!" It happens every year. And yes, I agree that most people fail to realize the value of players relative to the salary cap and the average player salary!
With that said, I just don't or can't think of Troy Brouwer being a $3.6 million player. Even if I go back a few years when the cap was lower, I don't picture him being a $3 million player. This is just one of those instances that legitimately seems like an overpayment to me.
I think it's slightly high, too. But I just wanted to make sure that money can come for a lot of different things. I would put him at like 2.5.... but I'm not too mad at seeing this number. I think there are guys like Cooke out there at 1.8 or Dupuis that do similar things.
Seems like overpayment to me, but he's a great fit in Washington, obviously it would be nice if they got him on a friendlier deal, but it could be worse.
I wouldn't want Cal Clutterbuck making $3 million on my team, let alone closer to $4 million. Granted, Brouwer is probably a better overall player than Clutterbuck, but I still think there's a comparison to be made there.
Well, your comparing Clutterbuck (24-25 years old) to Troy Brouwer (27 years old).
I would gladly pay Clutterbuck around ~$2mil at this moment in time. But in 2 years, if he puts up regular 15-20 goal seasons, plays a good consistent physical game, and is at his UFA year, I would expect his worth to sky rocket.
We're talking about a contract, completely different than the Spezza/Backstrom debates.
What he did ON ANOTHER TEAM has 0 effect on his contract negotiations with OUR TEAM. Not even close to being similar to the Spezza/Backtstrom debate.
I'd love to hear why.
Or are you really saying that what a player has done in the last 82 games/calendar year is all that should be considered in contract negotiations? Or does that only apply when you are with a new team?
Or are you really saying that what a player has done in the last 82 games/calendar year is all that should be considered in contract negotiations? Or does that only apply when you are with a new team?
Do you think Turris' play in Pheonix had any weight on his contract extension with Ottawa?
Do you think Turris' play in Pheonix had any weight on his contract extension with Ottawa?
Probably not as much as in other cases, but I'm sure it was still a factor. However, I think we both know that's a very different situation. Turris obviously got paid more based on his potential, which happens all the time with young players now.
But I will definitively say that the Senators didn't in a complete vacuum say Turris had 29 points in 49 games with the Senators - that equals 3.5M over 4 years! End of analysis! They obviously also took in to account his history (e.g. draft position), his age, his playoff (and regular season, for that matter) performance with Phoenix (*gasp!*) and his performance in an offensive role with the Senators compared to a bottom 6 role with Phoenix (*gasp!*) in order to gauge how good he will be going forward.
Was that supposed to prove to me that Washington either didn't or shouldn't care about anything Brouwer did before last year? Because obviously I still don't think that's true.
And I also still don't understand how when we are deciding how much money a player should make, we should only look at his most recent season; however, if we are looking at who is better without money involved, we should put less weight on the most recent season.
You're not very good at the whole discuss and debate thing, are you?
As usual, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
You're the one who trailed off talking about Turris when my original point was Brouwer's play in Chicago is irrelevant to his contract discussions in Washington.
You're the one who trailed off talking about Turris when my original point was Brouwer's play in Chicago is irrelevant to his contract discussions in Washington.
Of course it is irrelevant, but his play hasn't changed since his Chicago days.
You're the one who trailed off talking about Turris when my original point was Brouwer's play in Chicago is irrelevant to his contract discussions in Washington.
How is writing a paragraph supporting my opinion on something "trailing off"?
And what does this have to do with Brouwer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic
Of course it is irrelevant, but his play hasn't changed since his Chicago days.
No it is definitely relevant.
For example, if a player is injury-prone and has just had his first full season in 5 years, you don't think the team might be leary of signing him to a long-term deal?
e.g. Let's say Rick DiPietro was a UFA in Summer 2012. He signs with Columbus and plays the whole coming season and is top 5 to 10 in multiple goalie stats and for all intents and purposes, has a great year. Summer 2013 comes and he is UFA again. Is Columbus now going to give him a 10 year deal with a 6M cap hit because he had one great season? No, of course not. They will be very cautious given his extensive history of injuries and his resulting poor play before the most recent season.
