Gilbert Brule in Flames Preseason Games!

[STONE.]

Wow. There's a name that should bring some fantasy hockey players back (and perhaps give them nightmares).
One of the more hyped, more discussed guys on this board years ago -- and what a bust!

I don't think he's worth looking at anymore (31 years old, hasn't been putting up particularly amazing numbers in the KHL).
But interesting to see his name again!

[Godin]

Well that's interesting. Is Calagary that desperate? I know it's preseason but, why?

[Shift Disturber]

Honestly I don't understand why teams sign these washed up has-beens and never-weres to PTOs, especially if they have legitimate younger players - like the Flames do - who can step in and play. And this after the finally ditched Brouwer.

[Shift Disturber]

Well that's interesting. Is Calagary that desperate? I know it's preseason but, why?

After the forwards they acquired, the Flames can actually ice four skilled lines...so no, they aren't desperate. Old habits die hard I guess.

[Magicstew]

Needed an extra body for split squad games.

[The Comish]

Needed an extra body for split squad games.

This. Exactly.

[Hoopo]

Honestly I don't understand why teams sign these washed up has-beens and never-weres to PTOs, especially if they have legitimate younger players

A try-out is pretty low stakes and sometimes I think they do it just as a hail mary, maybe sometimes out of pity or even for a guy's dignity or a favor for someone. The teams probably already have a good idea what their roster is going to look like, and which young guys they want to let marinate a while longer. The Flames definitely let him join camp on a PTO when their roster was full with prospects in the system, I doubt they have any intention of letting Brule take it much further than a PTO.

[Savvy1982]

It's zero risk for the team, and it makes them "Good Citizens" in the hockey community for letting these guys have a shot, even if it's an infinitesimally small one.

Besides - Sometimes they really do catch lightning in a bottle with a PTO, and then they look like geniuses.

No risk? Potential reward? And they look like good guys for doing it? Seems like an easy yes for most teams.

[Atomic Wedgy]

Hockey is a small world. People know people and get favours done. There's nothing wrong with that. Ice him in a tryout and see what he can do. Costs them nothing, gives an ex-NHL'r a chance and lets someone call in a favour. No one loses in this scenario.

[Godin]

Needed an extra body for split squad games.

They will be doing a bit of that since they have a team in Japan. I hear Devon Setoguchi isn't doing much either and he's 31 as well.

I would just think that it would be a good time to look a little deeper into your system. Brule isn't going to make the team so why not look at someone in your own system?

[2014olympicgold]

You need to have a certain amount of "NHL players" in your pre-season lineup per the CBA. That's how these guys get PTO's especially during the split squad and back-to-back games.

[Godin]

You need to have a certain amount of "NHL players" in your pre-season lineup per the CBA. That's how these guys get PTO's especially during the split squad and back-to-back games.

There you go. Now we know. Thanks 2014.

[2014olympicgold]

NHL CBA from 2013, page 112, 15.4, article C:

(c) A Club shall be permitted to dress a minimum of eight (8) veterans for any Exhibition Game. For purposes of this Section 15.4(c), a veteran shall constitute either: (1) a forward or defenseman who played in thirty (30) NHL Games during the previous season, (2) a goaltender who either dressed in fifty (50) or more NHL Games or played in thirty (30) or more NHL Games in the previous season, (3) a first round draft choice from the most recent year's Entry Draft, or (4) any Player who has played one-hundred (100) or more career NHL Games. The matter of Player participation in Exhibition Games shall be referred to the NHL/NHLPA Competition Committee for its consideration and recommendations, if any, in accordance with Article 22.

[Shift Disturber]

NHL CBA from 2013, page 112, 15.4, article C:

Thanks - this makes more sense than the what-have-they-got-to-lose explanation.