Is Bouw a Bust?
Puck Daddy Greg Wyshyski takes a look at the Bouwmeester signing the (lack of) impact it's had on the Flames this year.
over 2 years ago
Kent Wilson
35 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
That seems like a pretty fair articule to me. Bouwmeester has been, I would say, excellent defensively but you don’t pay a guy just shy of 7M dollars to be excellent just defensively. For that kind of scratch you expect an elite all-around d-man.
I was pleased when he was signed in the off-season (Less pleased that he was traded for considering that I don’t think we got him on a discount at all… I think we got fair market value that we could have had if D. Sutter had just waited until July 1) but that was on the assumption (Now obviously incorrect) that it meant Phaneaf was on the way out. Which brings us to what I think explains the decline… in Florida JB was their Phaneaf, he was the guy on the blueline expected to shoot the puck, make the play, provide the offense from the backend. All those shots we see phaneaf take are ones that JB should be taking but he’s not because Phaneaf is.
So yeah… trade Phaneaf please.
Not going to happen. I have said many times before-Dion still has the potential to be a top 5 in the NHL d-man. Another thing that gets overlooked is that Dion has a NTC that kicks in July 1, 2010. The only way Dion will go anywhere is if:
1. Dion is traded by a new GM if Sutter is fired before July 1st;
2. Dion wants to go somewhere else and allows the trade to go through.
Sutter is not going to trade Dion because there is no incentive for him to do so. He is a “Sutter-Like” player, and the fact that his entire hockey life since he was 16 has been influenced by the Sutters in a coaching or GM role, it would be seen as a failure to Darryl to get rid of him.
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Jan 26, 2010 10:29 AM PST reply actions
By definition, you can only have one #1 defenseman. You can only have one featured shooting threat on the PP. Most importantly, you can’t pay elite wages for depth.
Matt had it pegged back in November
Wasn’t a huge fan of the signing (not because I thought JBo was bad or anything, just the waste of money putting that much into another d-man), and am still not a huge fan of it now. He’s certainly helping keep the team together defensively, but the Flames could’ve found someone to do that for at least 3 million less. Shit, Keith only has a cap hit of what, 5 million? So why do we have two defensemen who are below his level and making that much more money than he is?
by SmellOfVictory on Jan 26, 2010 12:28 PM PST reply actions
*extended for 5.5, my bad. Still significantly lower than Phaneuf or Bouwmeester.
by SmellOfVictory on Jan 26, 2010 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
It’s a 13 year term which is a big no no, Chicago’s taking on literally all of the risk there. Whereas Calgary is paying more to put more of the risk on Bouwmeester.
Sometimes I think we forget that the money is both huge and real, the money-making and money-spending aspect may not be relevant to us fans but to ownership I bet it’s almost everything. I bet there were a ton of debate for the Eriksson demotion last year, for instance.
I think Keith is young enough and good enough that it was a good move on Chicago’s part, but I think I recall you mentioning your dislike of long-term contracts before (injury risk and so forth), which is fair. Just a difference of opinion on that one.
I do realize that the money is huge and real, which is exactly why I think a lot of these players are silly. If they really cared about winning as much as they say they do, they’d take substantial “discounts” on what is considered their fair market value in order to give the GM the ability to make the team stronger as a whole. Like hypothetically, if I was an Iginla-calibre player (when he extended his contract) I’d take 4-5 mil easily, to provide more room to get other high quality players. I know it’s easy to talk smack about how you’d do certain things when you’re not in that situation, but really? Who needs that much money? Especially in an area where your worth is determined by your wins/cups/stats as opposed to how much you make.
by SmellOfVictory on Jan 26, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
C’mon. Why should they take less then what they can negotiate? This is their job not their hobby. I don’t begrudge them one bit taking whatever they can get.
Besides which, if all player took ‘discounts’ on their fair market value then it’s not a discount it’s just a new definition of ‘fair value’. One of the more annoying trends is this assumption that the onus for some reason always needs to be on players to somehow curb the excesses of management.
Even two 4 million dollars year is more than the average person makes in a lifetime (even including the higher tax brackets, etc), and you still get paid if you get injured, do you not? I’m not saying what the players do is wrong or that it’s not understandable, but I am saying that it makes a lot more sense to work for a bit less (while still being paid a ridiculous amount) in order to help build a winning team. I’m not saying the onus is on the players to curb the excesses of management, but I’m willing to bet a lot of deals are made because of the player/agent’s demands as much as the “excesses of management.”
And I do realize that, if all players did it, it would end up dictating market value. Evidently that wouldn’t happen, but some players do seem to take less than their market value to play with a particular team, and unfortunately those players are not Dion Phaneuf or Jay Boowmeester. And D Sutter seems to basically be an idiot in terms of what he’s willing to pay players, so as far as the Flames go, we can definitely at least partially blame the excesses of management.
by SmellOfVictory on Jan 26, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
I’d wager that’s true. That’s the only way that I can explain the Primeau – Stralman – Stralman trades this past off-season. All that happened out of it was the Flames basically trading a 2nd round draft pick for a third round draft pick to save 800K (the difference between Primeau’s one-way salary and Stuart’s one-way salary).
Definitely. And I bet Darryl still had some opposition about getting Stuart exclusively for the minors.
this totally makes sense and also finally explains (though the answer was there all along) why daz would deal the preferrable stralman over kronwall (it was BECAUSe stralman was better that other teams wanted him).
by walkinvisible on Jan 26, 2010 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
It was becaues Stralman was an offence only Dman on a team with Phaneuf, Giordano and Bouwmeester, while Kronwall can actually play some D.
This strikes me as a false dichotomy in this situation. I don’t know if Stralman’s defense is up to NHL standards (most players at 23 years old aren’t there yet), but his offensive abilities apparently are.
Kronwall, to my eye, looks very much like a fringe NHLer in every aspect of the game. And he’s 28. He’s now playing on the farm after clearing waivers. He was – and is – clearly the lesser of the two assets. Now perhaps that’s why Sutter chose to flip Stralman for a return. Or maybe he wasn’t comfortable with another blueliner under 25. Whatever the reason, it really can’t be because Kronwall is a better player…because he isn’t.
If you are looking at a guy to be the 7th D and step in in case of injury, at the time, I probably would have kept Kronwall over Stralman as well. You would only be looking to use either player in case of injury, and as a #6 logging <10 minutes a night, I’d rather have the guy who is less likely to hurt you. Stralman would have gotten no chance whatsoever in an offensive role for the Flames, and his defence would have been a liability.
In retrospect, keeping Stralman might have been the better move, but that is a situation that never would have revealed itself in Calgary.
I have to agree with Res here. Neither really had draft pedigree nor an established level of ability at the NHL level (and for Stralman he didn’t have established level of ability at the pro level either).
So you have to go to the guy with more pro games played.
I don’t buy that in the slightest. Anton Stralman entering this season had played more games at the NHL level (88) than Staffan Kronwall has, even with Kronwall’s 11 games this year added in. More to the point, there was almost zero chance that Kronwall was going to develop in any significant way given his age. He’s the finished article, for better or worse, and that article at best was no better than Stralman. Stralman is younger than Dion Phaneuf, and there are people that are shitting their pants around here saying that you can’t trade Dion because he may further develop. There was no downside to keeping the player who was younger and almost certain to be better in the near term. He would have roughly 30 games under his belt this year, and the Flames have been pretty healthy by league standards.
As for the games and minutes played argument, that’s not supported by history. The Flames themselves have had a player from outside the season-opening top six finish as a regular three years running, starting Gio in 06/07, then Hale, and Pardy last year. They all played between 13-15 minutes a night, and Gio played the fewest games of any of them in his year with 48. Hale and Pardy played nearly 60 each. Further, look around the league at how many teams have to routinely reach 8 deep for significant chunks of the season, and do so every year.
by Robert Cleave on Jan 27, 2010 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
why are we even talking about this when anders eriksson (and, i might add with some delight, tömi mäki) are still listed as in the flames’ system ?!?!?
by walkinvisible on Jan 27, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, good old Anders Eriksson. He can be on Calgary’s roster and Phoenix’s, and still be entirely incapable of playing in the NHL. That’s a talent not many men can boast.
by Robert Cleave on Jan 27, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t agree for one second that Stralman would have 30 games under his belt. The only way he plays that many is if Sutter doesn’t go and get Johnson, and given Stralman is an inferior defensive defenceman at this point, I doubt Sutter would have trotted him out there to get scored on night after night, even knowing that he would get the easiest match-ups. He is being protected like mad in Columbus, and is still failing.
Even if we kept Stralman to start the season, I personally doubt he would be a Flame right now anyway. He would have gotten very little offensive opportunity, and his defensive play would have led Sutter to look somewhere else sooner rather than later.
Where do you get the idea he’s being overly sheltered? The skill D that CBJ is sheltering is Kris Russell, by a mile. There’s no evidence to back anything else up. Stralman plays middling comp, and has a middling Zone Start. As well, Columbus out-shoots the other team badly when he’s on ice. In fact, the opposition only get 22.6 SA/60, which is the best rate of any of their D. The reason he’s leaking goals is because the SV% behind him is .893%. Are you suggesting he’s completely at fault for that, and that Kipper would be just as shitty as Steve Mason with Stralman in front of him against the third string? As for not getting opportunities, you may well be right there, since this is the same team that trots Robyn Regehr out on the PP without the slightest sense of irony.
by Robert Cleave on Jan 27, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
i think it’s hilarious that the “bust” is jaybouw when the guy plays just shy of half a game every night and is consistantly sound against the opposition’s toughest players…. the bust is probably dion at 6mil, regehr at 4, or even sarich at 3. i think we’d be getting significantly more out-scored if jaybouw wasn’t around.
so what if he’s not scoring. let’s get some FORWARDS for that job.
This article is typical media blame game stuff because it ‘gets’ people. It’s the same as last year with Kipper. How many people repeatedly said “Oh Kipper is washed up.” “he’s getting worse and worse every year” “he’s a bust”
As I see it, this is not a surprise. When Bouwmeester came here, I didn’t expect him to rack up the offensive totals, because the focus of the team was going to be defense-first. Not, surprisingly, Kipper is once again, our star savior and we can’t score. Although last year, everyone wanted to hang Kiprusoff.
Now that defense is solidified and goals against are down, so are goals for. Wow. So the media blames Jbo and Regher and Phaneuf. Cause THAT makes perfect sense.
Defensemen score goals primarily as a result of the actions of the forwards, either, joining rushes or on powerplays (due to forwards likely driving penalty calls) agreed?
So if the forwards cannot score, we aren’t suddenly going to get 50-60 goals out of a couple of defenders. I still don’t understand why people want to dismantle what is functioning in favor of repairing what isn’t.
Kiprusoff last year was the same great goalie on a possesion driving team, that played as open a game as the Flames have in the last ten years, and his stats suffered. Now we’re back to grinding it out and playing defensively and the d is better, but we want to dismantle that “d”
WHY? Well in both instances it’s because we always want to help Iggy. Everything is about helping Iggy. It was never “man, let’s help Kipper”… he was “just a sieve.” It’s not “let’s help JBO,” it’s “he just cannot score, he’s so overrated”
Maybe it’s time we all really realized that Iginla is not the player everyone seems to think he is. He is NOT a game changer and he’s not a creative forward. I don’t want to trade away Dion, or Reggie to get Iggy someone to play with. I would rather keep the “d”, keep the goalie, and trade Iginla, and get the good part of the team someone to play with.
The “D” is quote unquote struggling because the forwards stink. So change the forwards. I don’t know about you guys, but if half my house is falling down, I’m not going to tear down the good half, to build up the bad half.
Who’s more valued around the league? Iggy or Phaneuf?
Who has more likelihood to get better next year? Iggy or Phaneuf?
So trade Iggy and get two dynamic young forwards in return for the same cash.
but that ain’t going to happen, not in Calgary.
if half my house is falling down, I’m not going to tear down the good half, to build up the bad half.
awesomeness.
by walkinvisible on Jan 26, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
We all agree around here that the forwards obviously need to be improved. But the Flames have the third cheapest forward corps in the league and one of the most expensive bluelines. I don’t even know if trading Iginla for a return that spreads out his dollars somewhat won’t go any real way to fixing the problem.
At some point, some of the money in the back-end has to be moved up front. Whether it’s a big chunk like Phaneuf or a smaller one like Sarich.
Oh certainly, I am all for ‘trimming’ the D and moving the Sarich contract. I have been saying that for ages. My thoughts are that the game is now won through the neutral zone, as opposed to in, like in the dead puck era. So teams are stacking two fields of players and skimping on the third.
Detroit famously has done the *Forwards, *D, – Goalie.
Pittsburgh does * Forwards, -D, * Goalie
Vancouver does * Forwards, -D, *Goalie (although more balanced than Pit maybe)
and so on.
I think that Calgary can go *Goalie, * D, Youth and creativity up front – speed, pressure, strong backcheck.
I like that Sutter is talking about bringing up players from the AHL. I say bring up Backlund for a 3 game stretch, with Dawes and Moss hurt and see what he can do. Why the eff not?
I think Calgary’s problem lies in the relationship between the forwards and the D, or lack thereof. The forwards don’t drive possession through speed, and back check aggressively enough to allow the D to play to it’s strengths.
That’s my recipe for success anyway, but hey, I’m writing this at 3:16 in the afternoon, I’m no GM. I see that the Flames future lies in the Net > Kipper, Irving, Ortio and on D – Jbo, Reggie, Phaneuf, Gio, Pelech. So we need to skimp $$ somewhere… That means youth, speed, possession, strong backcheck game up front.
The futures of Langkow, Iggy, Connie, Jokinen are all downhill from here. Time to look to changes there.
When things go to hell, like everyone is starting to think is happening to the Flames, the instinct of people is to attack the best players rather than the worst. Happens in every sport, there are tons of examples of this. I wish JBo would score more (and think he would if Phaneuf weren’t around, by the way), but he is not the problem with the Flames. Not his play and not his salarly slot. He is one of the only bright spots. Everyone who is suddenly “against the move when it was made last summer”, my memory may be bad but I don’t recall much of that back then, other than the fears that there is too much money invested in the D. Now, there are a lot of things I’d throw mud at before throwing it at Boumeester.
Yeah that was literally the only concern (the $$ on the D), it was brought up by Kent and others. As far as Bouwmeester’s ability I wrote that post saying Bouwmeester was a great defenseman in Florida and his play this season supports that, as much as Puck Daddy and his sources want to deny it.
Speaking of Puck Daddy, he’s a blogger which I have automatically associated with being les main-streamy and thus more intelligent. But I also recall him being a gigantic homer (don’t remember which team) and he writes a ton of pieces like this that are basically riding the wave of the latest hockey news. Which is fine, he doesn’t advertise his material to be cerebral (and it definitely is not such). But I consider him basically MSM insofar as his views go.
I think his piece was fair. He was asking the question more than answering it and it’s a fair question to ask given Bouwmeester’s counting stats and his contract.
He’s NJD fan as far as I can recall.
Devils fan, correct.
As for his work, he’s pretty openly aspirational. If you want to make a career at this stuff, which he clearly does, it likely seems risky to stray very far from convention. I don’t begrudge him the dough, and in return I don’t feel the need to always take him seriously, since he’s primarily in the entertainment business.
by Robert Cleave on Jan 26, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, you walk a fine line with that sort of audience exposure.
I had an email exchange with Jean Lefebvre the other day. One thing that came up was my trying to adjust to the relatively large audience around here (because I was always a “niche” writer at best). And this humble site is many orders of magnitude smaller than puck daddy still.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Flames Schedule
Last 5 Games
Anaheim
|
Sat 04/07 | W 5 - 2 |
|
Vancouver
|
Thu 04/05 | W 3 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 03/31 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
Colorado
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Wed 03/28 | L 0 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Jersey Fouls: Penner Pancakes; Attack of the FrankenJerseys; Winnipeg’s beer tribute
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: LA Kings juggernaut; Oilers coaching scenario; Game Show Friday!
- Will Mike Green return to the Washington Capitals?
- Jamaica’s Winter Olympic ice hockey dream bolstered by IIHF acceptance
- Penalties in 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Who’s drawing them, and who’s taking them?
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Colorado Avalanche sign forward Milan Hejduk to one-year deal through 2012-13 season
- Hejduk staying with Avalanche
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead LA Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
- King, Quick lead Kings to brink of Cup final with 2-1 win over Coyotes in Game 3
