Cameron Matthew Fowler

[SameOldBlues]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

[skilles]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

What are you comparing it to that makes it horrible?

[steve li]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

Who would you have sign and at what term? Not some idealized trade or wishful thinking, but based on who is/was available?

[skilles]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

Who would you have sign and at what term? Not some idealized trade or wishful thinking, but based on who is/was available?

I suspect that is the disconnect, people are comparing these signing to "wishful thinking"

[Harry S Deals]

If the wheels continue to fall off id absolutely looks to deal Fowler now. 4 team NTC this season, NTC rest of the deal.

Play Kessel, promote someone doesnt matter. This spot can be filled internally or with a much needed more physical vet UFA this summer

[The Average Gatsby]

Anyone want totry to take a stab at the logic of the extension as far as timing? Why the rush to sign him? He played well when he was traded obviously, but he’s an older guy. It’s not like he’s going to get better and price himself out.

A real head scratcher to me.

Because we desperately need nhl d men, its 3 years. I'd still take the deal today

He was still signed for another year though so needing nhl d doesn’t really answer why there was a rush to sign him last summer

They signed him when they thought they were powering out of their rebuild and were going to be competitive again. He was a big part of fixing the team last season. It makes sense in that context. With the benefit of hindsight it would’ve been better to not sign him and deal him at the deadline though.

[leedog68]

They have been looking for a partner for 55 since JBo broke his heart. They found him in Fowler and they both played some of the best hockey of their lives together. They haven't played together at all this year. This idea of forcing Broberg and Parayko together didn't work well day 1 and hasn't improved. And Broberg was good with Faulk. The biggest problem with the D personnel is not having a Leddy or Suter type to play with Mailloux. Speaking of Leddy, wasn't he on waivers? What happened with that?

[SameOldBlues]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

Who would you have sign and at what term? Not some idealized trade or wishful thinking, but based on who is/was available?

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

Who would you have sign and at what term? Not some idealized trade or wishful thinking, but based on who is/was available?

Way too many variables to answer that, but that doesn’t have anything to do with my opinion that it was a terrible signing based on Fowler still had another year left on his contract and it would have been much more prudent to let him play out at least half of the last year of the contract to properly judge whether his good play in the Note was either 1. The typical ‘new team bump’ that explains his newfound scoring/point accumulations of old in his prime Anaheim years and it wasnt sustainable (which data and eye test shows this is the correct option in hindsight), or 2. Him turning back the clock and being able to sustain his stellar play.

I cant fathom how anyone can say it was a good signing in retrospect. But hey, to each their own, some fans can never see bad in any moves Army makes, and some fans cant see any good in his moves, I use to be the latter, now im more moderate in my praise and criticisms…I hope.

[callitwhatyouwant]

Anyone want totry to take a stab at the logic of the extension as far as timing? Why the rush to sign him? He played well when he was traded obviously, but he’s an older guy. It’s not like he’s going to get better and price himself out.

A real head scratcher to me.

it's easy. We needed a couple capable NFL defensemen. Fowler is that. You guys really are quite ridiculous when you judge play in a vacuum. Parayko/Fowler were one of the best pairings last year. They wanted to elevate Broberg so they did that. (questionable decision) But Faulk and Fowler are plenty good to be a 2nd pairing. Guess what Tucker is not good and LM is not good yet. Fowler having to babysit someone who has never played in the NHL when his strength is moving the puck and offensive zone play, isn't a recipe for success. It's a totally different scenario where Suter and Tucker were anti offense last year so Suter basically just attempted to make pucks go to die when he was out there with Tucker.

Fowler will have a bounce back year next year and everyone will say the same thing they said about Faulk. Trade him! Maximum value. Derr Derr he's not a good player. No, it's possible for good players to have down years especially when paired with young players. It's really not that complicated. This isn't directed at you specifically. But it's not a head scratcher. You have to sign someone. Someone who is having success in your system is the logical move. It's the GM and Coaches fault for overvaluing Tucker and thinking he could be 3rd pairing with Mailloux.

[Pierre McGuire]

They have been looking for a partner for 55 since JBo broke his heart. They found him in Fowler and they both played some of the best hockey of their lives together. They haven't played together at all this year. This idea of forcing Broberg and Parayko together didn't work well day 1 and hasn't improved. And Broberg was good with Faulk. The biggest problem with the D personnel is not having a Leddy or Suter type to play with Mailloux. Speaking of Leddy, wasn't he on waivers? What happened with that?

That’s why I believe they are gonna make a move for an LHD.
Broberg - Parayko
New LHD - Mailloux
Fowler - Jiricek

Maybe you have Broberg play with Mailloux and put the new guy with Parayko but Fowler should be on the 3rd pair next season.

[TruBlueFan_1970]

I didn’t have a problem with the extension. I had a problem with the timing and the amount.

Timing - he was signed for this season, so there was no rush to extend him. They could have waited to see a half or full season performance and then make a decision. If they weren’t sold on signing him, he would be a rental right now that you could trade for a pick or prospect. That is not hindsight, it is simply a rush to sign when you didn’t need to.

Amount - I would have been fine at $4-4.5m, but not the $6.1m they gave him. Even in a rising cap environment, that’s an overpayment. Similar 30+ year old vets have resigned this year for similar term but less AAV. Examples are McDonaugh with TBL at $4.1m/3 yrs and Chiarot at $3.87m/3yrs.

Army rushed, Fowler isn’t playing at the same level as last year, and we overpaid. Similar situation to Buch and same mistake made.

[Harry S Deals]

They have been looking for a partner for 55 since JBo broke his heart. They found him in Fowler and they both played some of the best hockey of their lives together. They haven't played together at all this year. This idea of forcing Broberg and Parayko together didn't work well day 1 and hasn't improved. And Broberg was good with Faulk. The biggest problem with the D personnel is not having a Leddy or Suter type to play with Mailloux. Speaking of Leddy, wasn't he on waivers? What happened with that?

That’s why I believe they are gonna make a move for an LHD.
Broberg - Parayko
New LHD - Mailloux
Fowler - Jiricek

Maybe you have Broberg play with Mailloux and put the new guy with Parayko but Fowler should be on the 3rd pair next season.

I think i am in agreement with you here

Broberg - Parayko
New LHD - Mailloux
Fowler - Jiricek

Lindstein, Tucker, UFA

Are we writing off Tyler Tucker too soon though? 12pts 49.7% Corsi, Hits, fights. The issue with Mailloux AND Tucker is actually Mailloux AND Tucker. One of these guys at a time would be fine with the opposite being a solid dependable veteran. But bringing both along at the same time esp early in the season caused issues.
Im also not writing off the possibility that Lindstein could play as soon as next October. He plays a simple, smart game, moves the puck, skates. Id like to see him get his taste this season so he has the experience and knows what to work on this summer

[MiamiLaw]

A lot of responses here are focusing why we need a player like Fowler and why his numbers may be down. You guys are kind of missing the crux of the issue. Why did he need to be signed last summer with still a year to go? He is not a young guy. It was very unlikely he was going to explode (or even sustain his torrid pace) and completely price himself out. It isn't like they could not have signed him right now (with much more information/leverage now that things didn't go great) or even next summer before free agency. If you had $6.1 to give him to age 37, he is taking that all day at 34 years old no matter when it is offered. If he signed a $4.5 mil deal, I would be singing a much different tune.

The only real risk to not signing him right when it was possible was that he would somehow sour on STL during this season and want to test the market. But if that happened, why would you want him here anyways? Nothing that has been said has really done much to justify why signing him last summer was any benefit to the team given the amount he signed for.

[SameOldBlues]

I didn’t have a problem with the extension. I had a problem with the timing and the amount.

Timing - he was signed for this season, so there was no rush to extend him. They could have waited to see a half or full season performance and then make a decision. If they weren’t sold on signing him, he would be a rental right now that you could trade for a pick or prospect. That is not hindsight, it is simply a rush to sign when you didn’t need to.

Amount - I would have been fine at $4-4.5m, but not the $6.1m they gave him. Even in a rising cap environment, that’s an overpayment. Similar 30+ year old vets have resigned this year for similar term but less AAV. Examples are McDonaugh with TBL at $4.1m/3 yrs and Chiarot at $3.87m/3yrs.

Army rushed, Fowler isn’t playing at the same level as last year, and we overpaid. Similar situation to Buch and same mistake made.

Perfectly stated.

[DoneLurking]

A lot of responses here are focusing why we need a player like Fowler and why his numbers may be down. You guys are kind of missing the crux of the issue. Why did he need to be signed last summer with still a year to go? He is not a young guy. It was very unlikely he was going to explode (or even sustain his torrid pace) and completely price himself out. It isn't like they could not have signed him right now (with much more information/leverage now that things didn't go great) or even next summer before free agency. If you had $6.1 to give him to age 37, he is taking that all day at 34 years old no matter when it is offered. If he signed a $4.5 mil deal, I would be singing a much different tune.

The only real risk to not signing him right when it was possible was that he would somehow sour on STL during this season and want to test the market. But if that happened, why would you want him here anyways? Nothing that has been said has really done much to justify why signing him last summer was any benefit to the team given the amount he signed for.

If Fowler maintained his play this season with the expected rise in the salary cap, his next deal is probably higher than the now $6.1 cap hit. We should at least mention that that too is a factor in this.

[SameOldBlues]

Horrible contract, period. The timing makes it even more incredulous and irresponsible. Ive let up on some of my criticisms regarding Army, but he’s still making blatant mistakes regarding contracts, timing etc.

What are you comparing it to that makes it horrible?

Im comparing it to the contract of one Cameron Matthew Fowler. I know you’re Mr. Contrarian and you’re on record as thinkin it as a good extension, I cant fathom why, but I also dont care. You’re on my list of people I find impossible to discuss hockey with tho, cause of your penchant to argue just to argue, and once again. Sidetracking my opinion by askin what Im comparing his contract to is just a semantical attempt at arguing krap I didnt even bring up. If I was thinkin in terms of comparisons then I wouldve said so, but my comment is and was regarding the unnecessary early signing of Fowler, which I see as a big mistake. You dont, groovylicious, the end.