Let's Go Blues

a few more points on this trade

first of all, I hope, really really hope, that I am wrong. That Miller is the guy to be the difference. I'd love to eat the crow and ask for seconds.

When I say I'm the only one that doesn't like this trade, I mean I and the guys at St Louis Game Time, who had some choice things to say about a trade for Ott the day before it went down.

A lot of people have said they don't mind dealing 2 #1 picks for a Cup, but we didn't do that. We dealt for Ott and Miller. Whether this will get us to the Finals, or even out of the first round for a change, is yet to be seen.

Even with Miller, if and when we play LA or Anaheim or Boston, we still have the second best starting goalie in the series.

One might venture to compare the acquisition of Ott to the Calgary Flames acquisition of John Tonelli in 1986. A gritty veteran with playoff chops who got his team over the unfortunate division rival speedbump that was the Edmonton Oilers, and the Blues' Monday Night Miracle for that matter. (If we win the Cup, I may do so myself.) But for now....a few problems with that scenario. The first is Ott is not John Tonelli. Tonelli went 7-9-16 in 22 playoff games for the Flames that year, which would be a pretty good half season for Ott. The second is the Flames had talent and lacked grit and needed to beat a team that was even more ludicrously talented. The Blues arguably had plenty of grit and really need more high end scoring. The Kings have beaten us the past two years by out Bluesing the Blues. They are as gritty, as stingy, as steady in goal, and have higher end scoring talent. Making us grittier doesn't seem like a formula to finally best them. Lastly, the Tonelli trade gets lots of props because of his Cups with the Isle and his locker room leadership, but the Flames also landed a guy named Joe Mullen that deadline and all Mullen did that playoff was lead the Flames in scoring with 12-7-19 in 21 games.

also, regarding not dealing any of the 'top' prospects, we did deal our 2nd round pick from last year. And the whole point about losing the draft choices is the loss of future 'top' prospects. Once we get past our top 4 or so guys, things get pretty thin. And if we keep dealing all our top picks, we aren't adding much to the system. This is following the same path (with the command from on high to cut payroll leading to the pronger deal) that resulted in us stinking in the mid-oughts.

Too many ifs with pondering over who the 'lost' draft picks and Carrier will end up being. It's too late to concern ourselves and with those picks in Buffalo, on the WORST team in the league, I wouldn't worry too much about it since Buffalo won't give them up and the only time we'll ever have to worry about those players for the next 5-10 years is if we're playing in Rochester or meeting the Sabres in the finals, which is just too far away a possibility to worry about.

I think we should affix ourselves on where we're at:

Stewart, who didn't work in Hitch's system, is gone.

We get a Center back in the form of Steve Ott, who brings experience, toughness and is rewarded with a trade from the WORST team in the league to a real contender. Watch him catch fire.

Halak, who has been a no-show in the playoffs beyond a loss and an injury and who COULD own ONE franchise record, provided Ells doesn't get a few more shutouts over him, is shipped to the East, where he will thrive provided he doesn't suddenly have an attitude problem ala Nabokov. I'm betting on the attitude though after him and Hitch went at it.

We get back Ryan Miller, who posted similar numbers to Halak on the WORST team in the league and is a bona fide, without a doubt, starter, something Halak has never been able to convince anyone that he was reliably enough.

I am a happy camper. I don't think Army is done quite yet, though.

flyingnote38 wrote:a few more points on this trade

first of all, I hope, really really hope, that I am wrong. That Miller is the guy to be the difference. I'd love to eat the crow and ask for seconds.

When I say I'm the only one that doesn't like this trade, I mean I and the guys at St Louis Game Time, who had some choice things to say about a trade for Ott the day before it went down.

A lot of people have said they don't mind dealing 2 #1 picks for a Cup, but we didn't do that. We dealt for Ott and Miller. Whether this will get us to the Finals, or even out of the first round for a change, is yet to be seen.

Even with Miller, if and when we play LA or Anaheim or Boston, we still have the second best starting goalie in the series.

One might venture to compare the acquisition of Ott to the Calgary Flames acquisition of John Tonelli in 1986. A gritty veteran with playoff chops who got his team over the unfortunate division rival speedbump that was the Edmonton Oilers, and the Blues' Monday Night Miracle for that matter. (If we win the Cup, I may do so myself.) But for now....a few problems with that scenario. The first is Ott is not John Tonelli. Tonelli went 7-9-16 in 22 playoff games for the Flames that year, which would be a pretty good half season for Ott. The second is the Flames had talent and lacked grit and needed to beat a team that was even more ludicrously talented. The Blues arguably had plenty of grit and really need more high end scoring. The Kings have beaten us the past two years by out Bluesing the Blues. They are as gritty, as stingy, as steady in goal, and have higher end scoring talent. Making us grittier doesn't seem like a formula to finally best them. Lastly, the Tonelli trade gets lots of props because of his Cups with the Isle and his locker room leadership, but the Flames also landed a guy named Joe Mullen that deadline and all Mullen did that playoff was lead the Flames in scoring with 12-7-19 in 21 games.

So your argument is to compare the trade to a trade that was almost 30 years ago? Different eras and a different team. Twice...this team got pushed around by LA. Elliott was OK ,but the Blues need someone with the mental makeup to go against Quick. Now, Miller might not be as good as Quick but he has a little more "strut in his step". So, the Blues could have kept with the same ole...but instead they went after the BEST option around...Miller. And better to have the #2 rather than the #18. Go for it all, the time is now.

And Ott brings more to the table than Stewart. The problem with Stewart is that he disappears. Ott, you know what you get. I trust Hitch will know what to do with pieces that are consistent rather than the guessing-game that is Stewart. And what high-scoring talent do you think the Blues could get that would be the "Joe Mullen" of this year...within the cap and within the talent that is available?

northwest dave wrote:

flyingnote38 wrote:a few more points on this trade

first of all, I hope, really really hope, that I am wrong. That Miller is the guy to be the difference. I'd love to eat the crow and ask for seconds.

When I say I'm the only one that doesn't like this trade, I mean I and the guys at St Louis Game Time, who had some choice things to say about a trade for Ott the day before it went down.

A lot of people have said they don't mind dealing 2 #1 picks for a Cup, but we didn't do that. We dealt for Ott and Miller. Whether this will get us to the Finals, or even out of the first round for a change, is yet to be seen.

Even with Miller, if and when we play LA or Anaheim or Boston, we still have the second best starting goalie in the series.

One might venture to compare the acquisition of Ott to the Calgary Flames acquisition of John Tonelli in 1986. A gritty veteran with playoff chops who got his team over the unfortunate division rival speedbump that was the Edmonton Oilers, and the Blues' Monday Night Miracle for that matter. (If we win the Cup, I may do so myself.) But for now....a few problems with that scenario. The first is Ott is not John Tonelli. Tonelli went 7-9-16 in 22 playoff games for the Flames that year, which would be a pretty good half season for Ott. The second is the Flames had talent and lacked grit and needed to beat a team that was even more ludicrously talented. The Blues arguably had plenty of grit and really need more high end scoring. The Kings have beaten us the past two years by out Bluesing the Blues. They are as gritty, as stingy, as steady in goal, and have higher end scoring talent. Making us grittier doesn't seem like a formula to finally best them. Lastly, the Tonelli trade gets lots of props because of his Cups with the Isle and his locker room leadership, but the Flames also landed a guy named Joe Mullen that deadline and all Mullen did that playoff was lead the Flames in scoring with 12-7-19 in 21 games.

So your argument is to compare the trade to a trade that was almost 30 years ago? Different eras and a different team. Twice...this team got pushed around by LA. Elliott was OK ,but the Blues need someone with the mental makeup to go against Quick. Now, Miller might not be as good as Quick but he has a little more "strut in his step". So, the Blues could have kept with the same ole...but instead they went after the BEST option around...Miller. And better to have the #2 rather than the #18. Go for it all, the time is now.

And Ott brings more to the table than Stewart. The problem with Stewart is that he disappears. Ott, you know what you get. I trust Hitch will know what to do with pieces that are consistent rather than the guessing-game that is Stewart. And what high-scoring talent do you think the Blues could get that would be the "Joe Mullen" of this year...within the cap and within the talent that is available?

For what we can afford, I'd say, oh I don't know...Matt Moulson?

Moulson would have been nice. If you're Murray, you don't let us pick between Ott and Moulson with the same deal though. So, we'd have to give up more. If you're Army, and Murray says we can have the deal as constructed or we can have Moulson instead of Ott, but we have to throw in another 1st round pick, do you make the deal?

I don't know if it would be another 1st rounder or what it would have cost. But, it would have been more most likely. And, while I like the trade we made, we are also kind of at the cusp of where giving up more of our future could bite us in the ass. I mean, we have a solid core locked up for the foreseeable future, but if we keep giving away 1st rounders, we'll be in trouble when our core moves on.

In any case, I'm satisfied with Ott. I think we're really gonna like him.

I think we have enough talent/scoring on the wings to compete even with LA. Our problems this year (and last too, although I haven't looked at stats and may be wrong) were always at center, and always at faceoffs. With Sobotka going down, our position at centered weakened even further, so Ott makes perfect sense. You don't buy a second engine for the car that already has one, you get the parts you need. And we got the parts we needed. Getting Moulson would be like putting a bigger spoiler on it. Getting Ott is like getting a better suspension. I was on the fence about Miller before Olympics but after seeing Halak lose it in Olympics, I say we got a big upgrade on the breaks with Miller.

ComradeT wrote:I think we have enough talent/scoring on the wings to compete even with LA. Our problems this year (and last too, although I haven't looked at stats and may be wrong) were always at center, and always at faceoffs. With Sobotka going down, our position at centered weakened even further, so Ott makes perfect sense. You don't buy a second engine for the car that already has one, you get the parts you need. And we got the parts we needed. Getting Moulson would be like putting a bigger spoiler on it. Getting Ott is like getting a better suspension. I was on the fence about Miller before Olympics but after seeing Halak lose it in Olympics, I say we got a big upgrade on the breaks with Miller.

I would have to disagree with you here.

We don't have anyone who is a consistent 30+ goal scorer in our top six forwards. We have guys that have done it, but no one that brings that kind of play every year.

I really believe this is where teams get the next level in the playoffs when scoring gets harder and harder. Guys with consistent 30+ skill get it done and our guys miss open nets and pee down their collective legs.

Go look at the top four teams in the West and Pitt with the following names: Kane, Toews, Sharp, Hossa, Malkin, Crosby, Getzlaf, Perry, Pavelski, Thorton. I'd take any of those players on our top line over any of the guys currently there. These are the teams that will be fighting us for the cup in six weeks. We could use more skill up front.

flyingnote38 wrote: When I say I'm the only one that doesn't like this trade, I mean I and the guys at St Louis Game Time, who had some choice things to say about a trade for Ott the day before it went down.

You have a link to this? I would like to see what you are referring to.

not_a_wings_fan wrote:

ComradeT wrote:I think we have enough talent/scoring on the wings to compete even with LA. Our problems this year (and last too, although I haven't looked at stats and may be wrong) were always at center, and always at faceoffs. With Sobotka going down, our position at centered weakened even further, so Ott makes perfect sense. You don't buy a second engine for the car that already has one, you get the parts you need. And we got the parts we needed. Getting Moulson would be like putting a bigger spoiler on it. Getting Ott is like getting a better suspension. I was on the fence about Miller before Olympics but after seeing Halak lose it in Olympics, I say we got a big upgrade on the breaks with Miller.

I would have to disagree with you here.

We don't have anyone who is a consistent 30+ goal scorer in our top six forwards. We have guys that have done it, but no one that brings that kind of play every year.

I really believe this is where teams get the next level in the playoffs when scoring gets harder and harder. Guys with consistent 30+ skill get it done and our guys miss open nets and pee down their collective legs.

Go look at the top four teams in the West and Pitt with the following names: Kane, Toews, Sharp, Hossa, Malkin, Crosby, Getzlaf, Perry, Pavelski, Thorton. I'd take any of those players on our top line over any of the guys currently there. These are the teams that will be fighting us for the cup in six weeks. We could use more skill up front.

Yeah, I can't say I disagree. However I feel that the Blues would be force to give up too much up for a player like that and whether one proven star can get you there is a huge toss up. We may not have any "proven" 30-goal scorers but we have several players peaking this year on path to be 30-goal scorers, so I guess I am willing to take my chances. I have seen the Blues try to go out for that one star too many times, often getting a washed-up "have been", so maybe it's a once bitten, twice shy situation. I like the path they are taking.

I guess an argument could be made that we have given up a lot to get Miller and Ott and might have been able to get more for the same. On the other hand, Army knows the market, so it's possible that to get more, Blues would have to pay through the nose.

And I think it's a price thing, too. Likely a defenseman that we don't want to give up.

Also note the teams surveyed have two guys like that, so getting one might be a waste, idk.

The big thing here is bad luck. Their was no consensus on a #1 scorer the year we took Johnson. Backstrom kessel and Toews were the names there in 2006.

I have no idea how we fix it without moving a top 3 defender or striking gold in the draft.

not_a_wings_fan wrote:I have no idea how we fix it without moving a top 3 defender or striking gold in the draft.

Same here. Draft hasn't been kind to the Blues.

I'm reading from multiple sources that Buffalo is picking up the salary difference between Halak and Miller. With stew for ott we got about 1.25 mil in cap space from the deal.

flyingnote38 wrote:also, regarding not dealing any of the 'top' prospects, we did deal our 2nd round pick from last year. And the whole point about losing the draft choices is the loss of future 'top' prospects. Once we get past our top 4 or so guys, things get pretty thin. And if we keep dealing all our top picks, we aren't adding much to the system. This is following the same path (with the command from on high to cut payroll leading to the pronger deal) that resulted in us stinking in the mid-oughts.

It's exactly what we were doing in the late 90's, early 00's and that's why we blew up the ship in 2005 we had virtually nothing in the system. But unfortunately, being a top team that is making a serious run for the cup, that's the way you do it: build your core of great young players, retain them, and then trade picks, etc to add pieces here and there at the deadline. Most of the best teams in the league do it and it's a cyclical process. You just hope you win a cup or two in the time you're at the "high" before you've overspent and end up on the downswing as Calgary and Buffalo are at.

STLADOGG wrote:

Nice. At least he doesn't have to get different pads

Curious what his helmet will look like!

WaukeeBlues wrote: Curious what his helmet will look like!

I'm guessing it will be a belly-up cartoon buffalo with red x eyes and a saber flying a bluenote flag sticking out of its belly. Sorry I don't have better art skills or I would have made up a mock up.

Arguably the best part of this trade is that now Berglund can play wing where he actually serves a purpose on this team.

STLADOGG wrote:

He looks like a brick wall with that Note on his chest.

not_a_wings_fan wrote:I'm reading from multiple sources that Buffalo is picking up the salary difference between Halak and Miller. With stew for ott we got about 1.25 mil in cap space from the deal.

hmmm, that's interesting. How does that affect the salary cap? Do we effectively have Halak's cap hit and they have Miller's? Or do they have Halak's and we have Miller's, but they are just writing the Blues a check? That could just be semantics, or it could be gaining extra cap space for another move. I dunno, maybe it's something we pushed for because our budget sucks.