Let's Go Blues

Question: Are guys who score 40 points a season worth 6M per year? Is someone who is 32 or over who scores ~40 points (usually less) a season worth 6M per year?

Just for the record...

2015-16 'season
40+ points players aged 32 or over - 26
10+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 18 (16 in that same 40+ points group)
20+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 10 (all 10 in that 40+ group)

Using all players 32+ who played last season, only 1 in 5 are actually productive. Yes, we can play games with defense vs offense, teams and guys around them and all that stuff. Are you as a GM, willing to take the gamble on an older FA, giving him a fat contract with a 5 or longer year term, in the hopes he will be 1 of those 20%???

Yes, there are some who are better options than others, but those wind up costing more than the 6M per. Does anyone honestly believe Backes will be worth 6M per season at 35, 36, and 37 the way he plays his game? Or Lucic when he hits age 32 and still has 3 years left on his deal? Yes, some guys got paid today, but, IMHO, GMs over-paid - especially in length of deals.

theohall wrote:Question: Are guys who score 40 points a season worth 6M per year? Is someone who is 32 or over who scores ~40 points (usually less) a season worth 6M per year?

Just for the record...

2015-16 'season
40+ points players aged 32 or over - 26
10+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 18 (16 in that same 40+ points group)
20+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 10 (all 10 in that 40+ group)

Using all players 32+ who played last season, only 1 in 5 are actually productive. Yes, we can play games with defense vs offense, teams and guys around them and all that stuff. Are you as a GM, willing to take the gamble on an older FA, giving him a fat contract with a 5 or longer year term, in the hopes he will be 1 of those 20%???

Yes, there are some who are better options than others, but those wind up costing more than the 6M per. Does anyone honestly believe Backes will be worth 6M per season at 35, 36, and 37 the way he plays his game? Or Lucic when he hits age 32 and still has 3 years left on his deal? Yes, some guys got paid today, but, IMHO, GMs over-paid - especially in length of deals.

What a silly question, of course not! Backes, for instance, is actually worth 7m, just ask Paul Stastny.

Wait, how do they match up, you ask? Well, they are only 2 years apart in age and since the last two years:

Paul Stastny - 2015 - 46 points, 1 point playoffs 2016 - 49 points, 13 point playoff
Dave Backes - 2015 - 58 points, 2 point playoffs 2016 - 45 points, 14 point playoff

The sad part is, Dave probably would have taken less money to stay if we didn't keep Hitch. So maybe consider this a 5m or 5.5m question, which just makes matters worse.

We know. The Blues over-paid Stastny, just like they over-paid Berglund, just like they over-paid Ott, just like they are still over-paying Bouwmeester...

So given this, is your 3rd line C/LW/RW - which is where Backes would be playing - worth 5.5M-6M per season?? That would be the same over-paying mistake of which you are complaining, thus continuing to compound the issue.



Would you like to see them continue to over-pay players and keep aging veterans, or actually build a younger, faster team capable of actually winning a Cup vice keeping a "heavy team" which has consistently failed when faced with similar, but faster talent?

So far, they haven't over-paid for anyone with a new contract this off-season.

Hitchcock is gone in 2017. The acquisitions now are for after this season, which is allowing Armstrong not to be tied to Hitch's only acquire heavy guys mentality.

Oaklandblue wrote:

theohall wrote:Question: Are guys who score 40 points a season worth 6M per year? Is someone who is 32 or over who scores ~40 points (usually less) a season worth 6M per year?

Just for the record...

2015-16 'season
40+ points players aged 32 or over - 26
10+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 18 (16 in that same 40+ points group)
20+ goals for players aged 32 or over - 10 (all 10 in that 40+ group)

Using all players 32+ who played last season, only 1 in 5 are actually productive. Yes, we can play games with defense vs offense, teams and guys around them and all that stuff. Are you as a GM, willing to take the gamble on an older FA, giving him a fat contract with a 5 or longer year term, in the hopes he will be 1 of those 20%???

Yes, there are some who are better options than others, but those wind up costing more than the 6M per. Does anyone honestly believe Backes will be worth 6M per season at 35, 36, and 37 the way he plays his game? Or Lucic when he hits age 32 and still has 3 years left on his deal? Yes, some guys got paid today, but, IMHO, GMs over-paid - especially in length of deals.

What a silly question, of course not! Backes, for instance, is actually worth 7m, just ask Paul Stastny.

Wait, how do they match up, you ask? Well, they are only 2 years apart in age and since the last two years:

Paul Stastny - 2015 - 46 points, 1 point playoffs 2016 - 49 points, 13 point playoff
Dave Backes - 2015 - 58 points, 2 point playoffs 2016 - 45 points, 14 point playoff

The sad part is, Dave probably would have taken less money to stay if we didn't keep Hitch. So maybe consider this a 5m or 5.5m question, which just makes matters worse.

I haven't seen any evidence that Backes would have returned if Hitch wasn't around for the first year of his contract, and I find it extremely hard to believe that there's any truth to that. I know lots of fans hate Hitch. That's fine. But it doesn't mean that the players are irate that he's back next year though.

What I've been hearing is that money was never an issue in the negotiations. But, Backes wanted 5 years and Armstrong wouldn't budge on 4. Really, I wouldn't have even liked a 4 year/$24mil deal. I think $6mil is a small stretch today. In 3-4 years I think it will be an albatross.

Backes couldn't walk away from the deal he was offered. The length of contract and the money was just too much. I don't blame him; it's business.

I am glad the Blues declined to go that high with either the term or the money. It's a foolish contract, imo. Good luck to David and his family.

I am totally pissed we signed perron. He's still a crybaby bitch and a problem in the room. There's a reason he's been moving around to different teams the last few years, and it isn't because of his skill. I think it's a bad, bad signing and will ultimately screw us. I look for him to move at the deadline or before, no matter how many goals he scores.

So glad detoilet took ott... good riddance.

Brouwer's deal is a huge albatross too; glad we let him walk.

So far there wasn't much out there that I thought the blues should go after, so I am pleased with most of what has happened in FA so far.

With Perron, the contract proves how temporary his signing is. The Blues need help at LW. The market for LWs wasn't that great among UFAs. The Blues depth at LW isn't ready, yet. So.... they sign Perron to a 2-year cap-friendly, easily movable deal - in case it isn't working out. Had the Blues gotten Taylor Hall, I doubt they would have signed Perron. On Perron's side of things, it's his opportunity to prove he isn't a problem in the room and can be a productive LWer. Given the Blues are clearly transitioning from an old to a new core, it shouldn't hurt that much. Heck, if the Blues keep Fabbri at LW and don't move him to C, Perron is the 3rd line LW, anyway behind Schwartz and Fabbri. How much of Perron's issues in St Louis were from dealing with Andy Murray and how much were Perron? I don't know. We'll see where it goes.

Interestingly, the Perron for Paajarvi trade in 2013 has turned into the Blues having Perron, Paajarvi, and Barbashev (the pick from Edmonton) for 2016. Although I'd rather not have Paajarvi.

Potential lines assuming Fabbri stays on LW:
1st line - STL
2nd line - Fabbri/Stastny/big question mark
3rd line - Perron/Steen/?
4th line - ?/Brodziak/?

Players on the roster for the question mark spots "big question mark" excluded:
Righties - Upshall, Jaskin, Reaves
Lefties - Berglund, Paajarvi (hopefully not Magnus - just don't re-sign him, please).

And this is before accounting for whomever makes the roster in camp from the prospects - which should happen.

theohall wrote:With Perron, the contract proves how temporary his signing is. The Blues need help at LW. The market for LWs wasn't that great among UFAs. The Blues depth at LW isn't ready, yet. So.... they sign Perron to a 2-year cap-friendly, easily movable deal - in case it isn't working out. Had the Blues gotten Taylor Hall, I doubt they would have signed Perron. On Perron's side of things, it's his opportunity to prove he isn't a problem in the room and can be a productive LWer. Given the Blues are clearly transitioning from an old to a new core, it shouldn't hurt that much. Heck, if the Blues keep Fabbri at LW and don't move him to C, Perron is the 3rd line LW, anyway behind Schwartz and Fabbri. How much of Perron's issues in St Louis were from dealing with Andy Murray and how much were Perron? I don't know. We'll see where it goes.

Interestingly, the Perron for Paajarvi trade in 2013 has turned into the Blues having Perron, Paajarvi, and Barbashev (the pick from Edmonton) for 2016. Although I'd rather not have Paajarvi.

Potential lines assuming Fabbri stays on LW:
1st line - STL
2nd line - Fabbri/Stastny/big question mark
3rd line - Perron/Steen/?
4th line - ?/Brodziak/?

Players on the roster for the question mark spots "big question mark" excluded:
Righties - Upshall, Jaskin, Reaves
Lefties - Berglund, Paajarvi (hopefully not Magnus - just don't re-sign him, please).

And this is before accounting for whomever makes the roster in camp from the prospects - which should happen.

That's pretty much how I see it too. This is low-medium risk, medium-high reward. He clearly has offensive upside. If he can turn that into production like he did in Anaheim, we'll love this deal and maybe get to see that upside for more than 2 years. I'm willing to see if he has matured (people tend to do that in their 20's), and as said, maybe Andy Murray was part of the problem.

If it doesn't work out, it's a 2 year deal, the first year being a transition year in which we're probably not going to be at the top of the league. It's also not a huge amount of money that will hamstring the team. So, if it doesn't work out, I don't think it's going to be a huge blow.

Also worth noting that he turned down a bigger contract from his childhood team in Montreal because he wanted to come back here. In terms of attitude, that's at least a little promising.

Maybe Andy Murray was the problem? What maybe? He screwed up the old core irreversibly. Our coaching decisions post Q have been nothing short of atrocious. Not one good coach for the youth amongst the bunch. Maybe if they'd held onto Davis Payne we'd have a Cup by now.

Anyone else read the Larry Brooks story about contracts and structure?

Apparently, Stamkos contract is only 1M salary per year with the rest being annual bonuses. Ladd and Okposo got similar deals. So under the current CBA contracts are guaranteed at 67% of face value. However, bonuses are guaranteed at 100%. In other words, these three GMs figured out (or these player's agents) how to circumvent the CBA things to prevent long term guaranteed contracts, because with the bonuses being 100% guaranteed, these three contracts are essentially guaranteed at 88%. This whole CBA deal was supposed to keep NHL salaries down, but when an NHL defenseman (Ekblad) is scheduled to make 7.5M per season in his 4th year compared to MLB stars Mike Trout and Brice Harper who didn't get 1/3rd of that in their 4th year, salaries aren't being kept down.

As Brooks claims, expect this CBA circumvention via bonuses to be addressed during the next CBA in 2020/21.

I am finding the brave face that many Blues fans are putting on regarding Perron pretty hilarious. This certainly isn't the shit that was being said about him as he went out the door, when many claimed that yeah, pretty much even-up for Pajaarvi (who was already a failed prospect).

theohall wrote:Anyone else read the Larry Brooks story about contracts and structure?

Now that is interesting. Your point about Ekblad is spot on. This is going to get out of hand quickly. Again, Tank's deal is seeming pretty good, eh? See, I can give Armstrong some credit.

theohall wrote:Consider this and tell me Montreal didn't get the better end.

I didn't realize that originally. Read a couple articles about it. Damn. The trade makes much more sense now. Predators got the better player by far but have taken on enormous risk. As pointed out in things I read, it's not exactly a likely scenario. But still, yeah, the risk is there.

theohall wrote:With Perron, the contract proves how temporary his signing is. The Blues need help at LW. The market for LWs wasn't that great among UFAs. The Blues depth at LW isn't ready, yet. So.... they sign Perron to a 2-year cap-friendly, easily movable deal - in case it isn't working out. Had the Blues gotten Taylor Hall, I doubt they would have signed Perron. On Perron's side of things, it's his opportunity to prove he isn't a problem in the room and can be a productive LWer. Given the Blues are clearly transitioning from an old to a new core, it shouldn't hurt that much. Heck, if the Blues keep Fabbri at LW and don't move him to C, Perron is the 3rd line LW, anyway behind Schwartz and Fabbri. How much of Perron's issues in St Louis were from dealing with Andy Murray and how much were Perron? I don't know. We'll see where it goes.

Interestingly, the Perron for Paajarvi trade in 2013 has turned into the Blues having Perron, Paajarvi, and Barbashev (the pick from Edmonton) for 2016. Although I'd rather not have Paajarvi.

Potential lines assuming Fabbri stays on LW:
1st line - STL
2nd line - Fabbri/Stastny/big question mark
3rd line - Perron/Steen/?
4th line - ?/Brodziak/?

Players on the roster for the question mark spots "big question mark" excluded:
Righties - Upshall, Jaskin, Reaves
Lefties - Berglund, Paajarvi (hopefully not Magnus - just don't re-sign him, please).

And this is before accounting for whomever makes the roster in camp from the prospects - which should happen.

I've been gone since the day before the Elliot trade, but wow is about all I can say.

I hated to see Elliott go especially for the return package. Also, the Blues went from being a big team to being very average at best in size. I see the Blues being caught in the middle between speed and size. Makes me worry about this next year.

Also, I noticed that you think Perron and Steen on the same line would work. Maybe I'm mistaken, but if I recall correctly, Steen could not stand Perron's consistent primidona attitude?

So if we qualified Magnus, does that mean we're stuck with him if no one else offers? Lord, I hope not.

theohall wrote:Hedman signs 63M 8-year extension with Tampa. Going to be interesting to see how they manage the cap these next two seasons - they have 9 RFAs and 3 UFAs left between this season and next. 13M cap space right now with 4 RFAs and on UFA unsigned. No matter what, that 13M in space drops to 9 next season when Hedman's extension kicks in so whomever they sign this season has to fit under that nine while still having 5 RFAs and 2 UFAs, including one Ben Bishop, to deal with next season. And some of these guys are key players - Killorn, Kucherov, Palat, Johnson. Not so much Sustr, but Drouin is an RFA next season - with all the crap do they move him or re-sign him? If Stamkos is playing C, Drouin is relegated to being a 3rd/4th line center again which is what led to the issues in the first place. Interesting team to watch to see how they manage the cap considering the praise Yzerman has received for building that team. They are going to be up against it come July 2017 unless some players sign very cap-friendly deals.

I'm still surprised the Lightning re-signed Stamkos. For as well as they did without him I thought for sure Yzerman wasn't going to have him back. But, all things considered, the guy left millions on the table in re-signing with the Lightning, so he DID do them a huge favor.

Yea the Lightning are soon going to find themselves where the Blackhawks are. Kucherov is a stud, you can't let him go IMO. Drouin would be my #2 priority. Beyond that, the other names are important pieces but if you have to make some tough decisions those are the tough decisions I would trade. Wouldn't be happy about it but that's the reality of life in the salary cap universe.

With Vasileskiy I think they are really going to test him this year to get a better picture if he can take the #1 reins after this season. Sounds like that's what their plan is.

Regardless though this year really is THE golden opportunity for the Lightning to win another cup. Won't be any easier to do it down the road than it is right now.

I wonder if Tarasenko will tell Perron his knock-knock joke?

Tarasenko stood to tell his joke. The room grew silent.

“Knock, knock,” he said.

“Who’s there?” teammates responded.

“Boo,” he said.

“Boo-who?” they answered.

“Stop crying, Perry!” he quipped.

The punchline, a poke at former teammate David Perron, brought down the house.

Wooohooo, Blues just signed Paarjvi to a one year deal. Team is looking up now.

Love it

Sent from my R2 unit

Thank the lord, i was getting worried we might lose him.

Not sure Poojabber could make it in a gay porn, as a fluffer, with all his "speed." Next year will be interesting nonetheless, I am not having high hopes right now.

What sucks more, ISIS or resigning Prrajajaviii?

Schwartz filed for arbitration.

ComradeT wrote:Schwartz filed for arbitration.

Army's killing it this summer.