Let's Go Blues

Misc. Blues wrote:This is how I would like the Blues next year...

CAPGEEK.COM ARMCHAIR GM ROSTER
2014-15
FORWARDS
Alexander Steen ($5.800m) / David Backes ($4.500m) / T.J. Oshie ($4.175m)
Jaden Schwartz ($1.800m) / Jason Spezza ($4.060m) / Vladimir Tarasenko ($0.900m)
Matt Moulson ($3.133m) / Vladimir Sobotka ($1.800m) / Dmitrij Jaskin ($0.773m)
Magnus Paajarvi ($1.200m) / Maxim Lapierre ($1.100m) / Ty Rattie ($0.773m)
Chris Porter ($0.675m) / Ryan Reaves ($1.125m)
DEFENSEMEN
Alex Pietrangelo ($6.500m) / Jay Bouwmeester ($5.400m)
Kevin Shattenkirk ($4.250m) / Barret Jackman ($3.167m)
Roman Polak ($2.750m) / Jordan Leopold ($2.250m)
Ian Cole ($0.825m) /
GOALTENDERS
Jake Allen ($0.800m)
Jonas Hiller ($4.500m)
------

(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $62,255,000; BONUSES: $1,093,333
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $8,845,000

Looks like Berglund and Elliot are gone in trades, and Miller is not re-signed. Whom else are you trading? Any picks?

ComradeT wrote:

Misc. Blues wrote:This is how I would like the Blues next year...

CAPGEEK.COM ARMCHAIR GM ROSTER
2014-15
FORWARDS
Alexander Steen ($5.800m) / David Backes ($4.500m) / T.J. Oshie ($4.175m)
Jaden Schwartz ($1.800m) / Jason Spezza ($4.060m) / Vladimir Tarasenko ($0.900m)
Matt Moulson ($3.133m) / Vladimir Sobotka ($1.800m) / Dmitrij Jaskin ($0.773m)
Magnus Paajarvi ($1.200m) / Maxim Lapierre ($1.100m) / Ty Rattie ($0.773m)
Chris Porter ($0.675m) / Ryan Reaves ($1.125m)
DEFENSEMEN
Alex Pietrangelo ($6.500m) / Jay Bouwmeester ($5.400m)
Kevin Shattenkirk ($4.250m) / Barret Jackman ($3.167m)
Roman Polak ($2.750m) / Jordan Leopold ($2.250m)
Ian Cole ($0.825m) /
GOALTENDERS
Jake Allen ($0.800m)
Jonas Hiller ($4.500m)
------

(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $62,255,000; BONUSES: $1,093,333
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $8,845,000

Looks like Berglund and Elliot are gone in trades, and Miller is not re-signed. Whom else are you trading? Any picks?

Berglund and 2nd for Spezza. You got to think the Sens want to dump some of his salary since he's a 7M cap Hit for them. Berglund has value for some reason around the league. Jaskin is the same player no need for two Berglunds...

With the Penguins' Game 7 flameout, do you think there is any chance of poaching any of their forwards while they look to change things up? Kunitz? Neal? Malkin?

Regarding Spezza:
I would like it if that means we could produce three lines that could actually be a threat to the opposition. This year we've had our first line and then whichever line had Schwartz-Sobie on it. Third line was always a no-show, with Roy, Berglund, Morrow, Ott, Paajarvi etc. Just a mixture of players that could never get it done, no matter how much Hitch tried to jumble the lines. We need a decent third line, so if we could get Spezza and someone else (probably through free agency), I'd be happy. It's either that or going for a high-priced asset, which would give us a worse third line but two incredibly effective top lines.

Now, the question here is what we would have to give up. I don't know that I believe that Berglund and a 2nd would get us Spezza. Definitely not since Bergie is coming off a really bad year. Plus (and you need to help me out here), aren't the fact that Bergie is a RFA going to get us less for him? I mean, that is if we don't sign him before we make the trade. Wouldn't trading Bergie just give Ottawa the negotiation rights? It seems this would mean we'd have to give them more in a trade. Moreover, I'm not too keen on keep giving teams our highest picks (see Miller, Bouwmeester etc). Like someone here said: We really only have Jaskin and Rattie as possible impact players in our organization. Behind them I don't see many players being able to step onto the big scene in the future, but we'll see.

Regarding the Miller-situation:
First of all, I think a lot of you are missing one massive point here. When comparing Miller to Elliott in the last few years, and by comparing I mean by their numbers, you mustn't forget this:

1. Against Kings last year, we dominated most of the games. A lot of people thought the Blues were the morale winners of that series. I would say the Blues played better defensively in those games than they did this year against Chi. The Chicago-series was more even.
2. And this is the biggest one: The Blackhawks are a WAY more skilled team than the Kings. There's a reason behind the fact that they score more than teams like the Blues/Kings. They don't shoot the puck as often, they make a lot more plays, which makes for more quality chances and when they get these chances they have your Toews, Kanes, Sharps, Hossas etc. They just have a better offensive game than the Kings, which means they're gonna get more breakaways, more open chances and create more difficulty for the goalie than a team with a shoot first-mentality. Miller was facing way more quality chances than Elliott.

This is the biggest reason, IMO, that Miller's numbers are worse than Elliott's if you compare these two series. Miller played good enough for us to win. His numbers weren't great, but his overall play was good enough. Whether it was good enough for us to spend another 1st pick and tie up a lot of money for the future, that's another question. And I'm really on the fence about that one. If it'd been just Miller's money to Elliott's money, I'd take Miller, but giving up another first rounder to get Miller instead of Elliott/Allen? That stings. It really stings.

Frusciante wrote:Regarding Spezza:
I would like it if that means we could produce three lines that could actually be a threat to the opposition..... We need a decent third line, so if we could get Spezza and someone else (probably through free agency), I'd be happy. ....
Now, the question here is what we would have to give up. I don't know that I believe that Berglund and a 2nd would get us Spezza.

Garrioch commented on what it would take in two seperate columns:

First in general

"The asking price for Spezza would be: A No. 1 pick, a player who can help right now and a top prospect. "

then more specific to the Blues

"ST. LOUIS: This makes the most sense because the Blues need a big centre.

Sources say the Blues held talks with the Senators at the trade deadline in March, but wanted to hold off because GM Doug Armstrong wanted to see what happened in the playoffs.

Well, the Blues were eliminated in the first round by the Chicago Blackhawks. It was a huge disappointment for St. Loius because Armstrong made a deal for Ryan Miller and expected to go far.

The Blues will likely offer Swedish centre Patrik Berglund and, perhaps, prosect winger Ty Rattie."

I added the italics.

flyingnote38 wrote:

Frusciante wrote:Regarding Spezza:
I would like it if that means we could produce three lines that could actually be a threat to the opposition..... We need a decent third line, so if we could get Spezza and someone else (probably through free agency), I'd be happy. ....
Now, the question here is what we would have to give up. I don't know that I believe that Berglund and a 2nd would get us Spezza.

Garrioch commented on what it would take in two seperate columns:

First in general

"The asking price for Spezza would be: A No. 1 pick, a player who can help right now and a top prospect. "

then more specific to the Blues

"ST. LOUIS: This makes the most sense because the Blues need a big centre.

Sources say the Blues held talks with the Senators at the trade deadline in March, but wanted to hold off because GM Doug Armstrong wanted to see what happened in the playoffs.

Well, the Blues were eliminated in the first round by the Chicago Blackhawks. It was a huge disappointment for St. Loius because Armstrong made a deal for Ryan Miller and expected to go far.

The Blues will likely offer Swedish centre Patrik Berglund and, perhaps, prosect winger Ty Rattie."

I added the italics.

Well, if you look at his first assessment, I don't see how it would be enough with just Bergie and Rattie. It would also take a first rounder...
In my mind, if it was just Bergie and Rattie, I'd go for it. If you have to give up a first or even second rounder, I'm not so sure anymore.

In my opinion, this is a player that would do well for the Blues, but he's by no means a savior. Worst case, he'd be another Derek Roy, someone who's put up good numbers before but is starting to fade in his career. To give up a prospect like Rattie, a 1st and then a player who has good upside (even though not showing it on a regular basis) for Spezza, I'd much rather sign someone off free agency, not risking as much in the future.

I wouldn't mind having Spezza, but 1st + Berglund + Rattie is too much. Berglund + a 2nd rounder, I'd do.

Frusciante wrote:

flyingnote38 wrote:

Frusciante wrote:Regarding Spezza:
I would like it if that means we could produce three lines that could actually be a threat to the opposition..... We need a decent third line, so if we could get Spezza and someone else (probably through free agency), I'd be happy. ....
Now, the question here is what we would have to give up. I don't know that I believe that Berglund and a 2nd would get us Spezza.

Garrioch commented on what it would take in two seperate columns:

First in general

"The asking price for Spezza would be: A No. 1 pick, a player who can help right now and a top prospect. "

then more specific to the Blues

"ST. LOUIS: This makes the most sense because the Blues need a big centre.

Sources say the Blues held talks with the Senators at the trade deadline in March, but wanted to hold off because GM Doug Armstrong wanted to see what happened in the playoffs.

Well, the Blues were eliminated in the first round by the Chicago Blackhawks. It was a huge disappointment for St. Loius because Armstrong made a deal for Ryan Miller and expected to go far.

The Blues will likely offer Swedish centre Patrik Berglund and, perhaps, prosect winger Ty Rattie."

I added the italics.

Well, if you look at his first assessment, I don't see how it would be enough with just Bergie and Rattie. It would also take a first rounder...
In my mind, if it was just Bergie and Rattie, I'd go for it. If you have to give up a first or even second rounder, I'm not so sure anymore.

In my opinion, this is a player that would do well for the Blues, but he's by no means a savior. Worst case, he'd be another Derek Roy, someone who's put up good numbers before but is starting to fade in his career. To give up a prospect like Rattie, a 1st and then a player who has good upside (even though not showing it on a regular basis) for Spezza, I'd much rather sign someone off free agency, not risking as much in the future.

I doubt we give up our first rounder this year now that we pick #20 and Choppers kid (Center Ryan MacInnis) will be there. I would rather they pick Josh Ho-Sang (Center with unbelievable talent) but if Al's boy is there the Blues will take him. We have a 2 seconds this year a high and low. This draft is weak and we would be better off trading that high 2nd. Next year we don't have a #1 so it gotta be this year and I don't think the Blues can afford to waste 2 years of #1's again...

Trade worse players for better ones. That's my assessment.

gaijin wrote:With the Penguins' Game 7 flameout, do you think there is any chance of poaching any of their forwards while they look to change things up? Kunitz? Neal? Malkin?

For the first time ever, an analyst discussing the Penguins on NHL sirius network radio mentioned the possibility of the Penguins shopping Malkin to shake things up. My jaw hit the floor. IF, and I mean IFFFFFF the Penguins are even HEARING offers for that guy, you mortgage the f***king farm and you get his @$$ in a bluenote almost no matter what it takes.

This team has been dying for a #1 center and playmaker and if the Penguins are even fielding offers I don't know how you don't jump on that in a heartbeat. It'd be a gigantic price (we'd probably have to be willing to trade two first round picks, prospects, talent, a big dman that the Penguins need a la Polak or Petro)

Malkin is one of a small handful of players in this league I'd consider trading Pietrangelo for. The Blues need a superstar THAT badly. But you make it happen. But I'd be truly shocked if the Penguins were that desperate to shake up the team that they'd be trading Malkin. That'd be a blockbuster deal though if ever there was one.

Trade proposal: Berglund, Glenn Metropolit, Chris Duncan, Ray King, Yo Murphy, and a 7th for Sidney Crosby.

dmiles2186 wrote:Trade proposal: Berglund, Glenn Metropolit, Chris Duncan, Ray King, Yo Murphy, and a 7th for Sidney Crosby.

Only if we trade Crosby away immediately.

so if you could add one forward to the Blues this offseason and only one. Among the forwards likely to find new homes, where would you put Spezza on your list as being 'the guy' you want the Blues to land? I don't think Spezza alone would be enough of an addition especially if we subtract from our current forward situation. Elite free agent wingers look a little sparse this offseason, so we'd likely need to add a winger via trade.
Ignoring draft picks and prospects, would the Blues be 'vastly improved' if we dealt Berglund, Rattie and Shattenkirk and netted Spezza and Eberle? or Spezza and Hall? Then signed a dman to replace Shattenkirk?

To answer my own question, I do not think Spezza would be in my top 3 or top 5 or top 7. He'd be a sorely needed upgrade at Center, but.......given how we've already diminished our depth and emptied the cupboard, I get a "Doug Weight"trade feel to this deal. Dealing for a playmaker in hopes the guys he plays with will be better at scoring due to his slick passing. Maybe Spezza and Tarasenko would light up the NHL together, but maybe not. For an equivalent package, salary and cap hit I'd probably prefer one of the young Edmonton forwards, Kesler, Neal or Eric Staal via trade, Stastny, Vanek or Gaborik as a free agent, or for likely more assets Malkin, Marleau, or Ovie.

fix the offense:

It was questioned around the deadline why there seemed to be an opinion that the Blues needed scoring. People pointed to their goal differential and goals for being among the league's best and felt that the focus on their lack of individuals with elite talent/scoring was petty. What are they watching it was asked? Well perhaps the two playoff series against the Knigs? Or maybe just the Blackhawks.

In case you missed it (and it isn't just eating your guts from the inside for some reason) the Hawks finished off the Wild last night. Since Toews and Kane joined the Hawks, they are 8-0 in game 6s when leading the series 3-2. That is the 'stepping on the throat/stab them in the eye with a knife' character that Armie and Hitch say we lack. 6 of these wins came on the road. The Hawks head to the conference finals again and thus, with 8 wins so far, Toews has 4 game winners and Kane has 3. Both have 2 OT winners.

TSN columnist Scott Cullen
http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/story/?id=450956
has used a simple win prediction formula to predict playoff series the past two years. In the first round series, he went 7-1 last year and 5-3 this year. For comparison, using the higher seeds as the basis for prediction would have gone 4-4 in both seasons. Now going 12-4 is not earth-shattering by any stretch of the imagintion (unless you are predicting wins against the spread in football), but his predictions are of interest to us for 2 reasons;
1) he used just 2 stats to base his predictions
2) he correctly predicted the Blues losing both of their series. That should probably prick your interest.

What are the two stats? Shot differential and save percentage. Pretty straight forward. The better you are at getting shots on goal and at keeping pucks out of your own net, the more likely you are to win.

We don't need to rehash the Miller trade arguments as most people here are firmly entrenched in their opinions on the subject. But looking forward, the other cup contenders all have above average to elite goaltenders and for the most part these teams aren't going away. To out goaltend LA or Boston and arguably Chicago, Anaheim, Rangers, Columbus..., we would either need to count on their goalie having a bad series (not a good strategy) or find some goalie who is elite level despite being completely unknown (doubtful). So that leaves shot differential.

The Blues system is already built on limiting shots against and its seems unlikely we could significantly reduce from where we are at currently. Leaving.......getting more shots on net.

The Blues led the league in 'goalposts' (officially) and missed shots (just my guess). Is this fixable with a tweak? Our offensive approach is predictable: gain control in the zone, feed the point men for the shot, and unfortunately too often "miss the net". Perhaps the tweak is systematic: focus more on getting shot opportunities for the forwards e.g. the low post power play set up we didn't seem to possess. But some overhaul of the offense is clearly needed. I still set the number of needed elite offensive talents at 2.

I watched the goal highlights from the Monday Night Miracle yesterday on SLGT, Monday was the 28th anniversary by the way, and was struck by two things:
1) whenever I watch highlights from the '80s my first impression is always "the goaltending sucks" maybe it did suck or maybe I'm so used to the ubiquitous butterfly that seeing goalies on their feet after being scored on low just looks weird.

2) the Blues did something in that game I don't recall them doing at all this playoffs -- scored on a rebound.

flyingnote38 wrote:To answer my own question, I do not think Spezza would be in my top 3 or top 5 or top 7. He'd be a sorely needed upgrade at Center, but.......given how we've already diminished our depth and emptied the cupboard, I get a "Doug Weight"trade feel to this deal. Dealing for a playmaker in hopes the guys he plays with will be better at scoring due to his slick passing. Maybe Spezza and Tarasenko would light up the NHL together, but maybe not. For an equivalent package, salary and cap hit I'd probably prefer one of the young Edmonton forwards, Kesler, Neal or Eric Staal via trade, Stastny, Vanek or Gaborik as a free agent, or for likely more assets Malkin, Marleau, or Ovie.

This^

I think we should really pursue Stastny and Vanek in that order Stastny may be that 30+ goal scorer for the next couple of years. Vanek has a desire to come to the west(minn) and if we can land him here a nice solid contract and being closer to where he wants to be may push his production back into the 30 goal range. I really like the idea of trading for James Neal. Maybe we can find a creative way to get Stastny and Neal.

Also we can throw offers sheets out.....Tyler Ennis, Ryan O'Reilly, Tyler Johnson ect ect ect....Ennis being the only one I think that may not get locked up right away, but the kid produces on a shit team I think he definitly could work here.

flyingnote38 wrote:so if you could add one forward to the Blues this offseason and only one. Among the forwards likely to find new homes, where would you put Spezza on your list as being 'the guy' you want the Blues to land? I don't think Spezza alone would be enough of an addition especially if we subtract from our current forward situation.

If you add a forward, you are automatically subtracting from our current forward situation because you have to make room for him to play. And I'm fine with them moving Berglund...they should have done that last year.

Elite free agent wingers look a little sparse this offseason, so we'd likely need to add a winger via trade.

We have NEVER added an elite free agent in his prime. Ever. The best free agents we have ever signed have been former elites on the downsides of their career. I'd love to see that change...but don't get your hopes up.

Ignoring draft picks and prospects, would the Blues be 'vastly improved' if we dealt Berglund, Rattie and Shattenkirk and netted Spezza and Eberle? or Spezza and Hall? Then signed a dman to replace Shattenkirk?

Berglund, Rattie & our high 2nd Rd pick next year. If that gets Spezza, then we have to do it. If it has to take our 1st Rounder...ugh...I dunno. I guess you still have to do it. We have to add a player of his caliber and you have to give quality to get quality...unless you trade with Calgary.

To answer my own question, I do not think Spezza would be in my top 3 or top 5 or top 7. He'd be a sorely needed upgrade at Center, but.......given how we've already diminished our depth and emptied the cupboard, I get a "Doug Weight"trade feel to this deal. Dealing for a playmaker in hopes the guys he plays with will be better at scoring due to his slick passing. Maybe Spezza and Tarasenko would light up the NHL together, but maybe not. For an equivalent package, salary and cap hit I'd probably prefer one of the young Edmonton forwards, Kesler, Neal or Eric Staal via trade, Stastny, Vanek or Gaborik as a free agent, or for likely more assets Malkin, Marleau, or Ovie.

Spezza is more than just a playmaker. He's a goal scorer as well. Is he amongst the best goal scorers? No. But he's a dynamic 30+ goal guy...and that's what we need.

Keep in mind that he only makes $4 million next year...so that may allow us to nab another forward, or goalie, or whatever. It's not just his skillset that is desirable...it's his low salary as well. If he were to make $6 or $7 million, I wouldn't be as high on him...I'd still want him, but I wouldn't be giving up a 1st rounder for him at that salary.

cprice12 wrote:If you add a forward, you are automatically subtracting from our current forward situation because you have to make room for him to play. And I'm fine with them moving Berglund...they should have done that last year.

a free agent signing would be additive. a straight up trade, depth neutral. a two for one is depth reducing. while you have to make space for Spezza or Stastny, its a big difference if you do so by eliminating a 2nd liner from your system or move said person to third line and trickle down from there

We have NEVER added an elite free agent in his prime. Ever. The best free agents we have ever signed have been former elites on the downsides of their career. I'd love to see that change...but don't get your hopes up.

agreed that this looks unlikely to be the path we take. (Scott Stevens? Brendan Shanahan? we thought we were with MacDonald, Murphy, Sean Hill, etc)

Berglund, Rattie & our high 2nd Rd pick next year. If that gets Spezza, then we have to do it. If it has to take our 1st Rounder...ugh...I dunno.
Spezza is more than just a playmaker. He's a goal scorer as well. Is he amongst the best goal scorers? No. But he's a dynamic 30+ goal guy...and that's what we need.

its a pity we didn't do more than kick the tires at the deadline. "If only I had back the money that me and Cathrine sent that TV preacher" at the deadline.....even if the results we're the same we'd be sitting with Spezza, have Berglund still to use as trade bait and everyone would be clamoring to sign Miller this offseason with a half way reasonable idea that would be the missing piece.

Keep in mind that he only makes $4 million next year...so that may allow us to nab another forward, or goalie, or whatever. It's not just his skillset that is desirable...it's his low salary as well. If he were to make $6 or $7 million, I wouldn't be as high on him...I'd still want him, but I wouldn't be giving up a 1st rounder for him at that salary.

The year remaining on his contract is very friendly, but its just one year and he turns 31 in June. So while he would be a solid addition for the package you project, we'd need to resign him to get reasonable value from the deal and thats likely to make him as expensive as any of the other semi-equivalent options.

flyingnote38 wrote:

cprice12 wrote:If you add a forward, you are automatically subtracting from our current forward situation because you have to make room for him to play. And I'm fine with them moving Berglund...they should have done that last year.

a free agent signing would be additive. a straight up trade, depth neutral. a two for one is depth reducing. while you have to make space for Spezza or Stastny, its a big difference if you do so by eliminating a 2nd liner from your system or move said person to third line and trickle down from there

We have NEVER added an elite free agent in his prime. Ever. The best free agents we have ever signed have been former elites on the downsides of their career. I'd love to see that change...but don't get your hopes up.

agreed that this looks unlikely to be the path we take. (Scott Stevens? Brendan Shanahan? we thought we were with MacDonald, Murphy, Sean Hill, etc)

Berglund, Rattie & our high 2nd Rd pick next year. If that gets Spezza, then we have to do it. If it has to take our 1st Rounder...ugh...I dunno.
Spezza is more than just a playmaker. He's a goal scorer as well. Is he amongst the best goal scorers? No. But he's a dynamic 30+ goal guy...and that's what we need.

its a pity we didn't do more than kick the tires at the deadline. "If only I had back the money that me and Cathrine sent that TV preacher" at the deadline.....even if the results we're the same we'd be sitting with Spezza, have Berglund still to use as trade bait and everyone would be clamoring to sign Miller this offseason with a half way reasonable idea that would be the missing piece.

Keep in mind that he only makes $4 million next year...so that may allow us to nab another forward, or goalie, or whatever. It's not just his skillset that is desirable...it's his low salary as well. If he were to make $6 or $7 million, I wouldn't be as high on him...I'd still want him, but I wouldn't be giving up a 1st rounder for him at that salary.

The year remaining on his contract is very friendly, but its just one year and he turns 31 in June. So while he would be a solid addition for the package you project, we'd need to resign him to get reasonable value from the deal and thats likely to make him as expensive as any of the other semi-equivalent options.

I meant to say "we have never signed a UFA in his prime". Stevens and Shanny were both RFA. And technically, we signed Shanny before his prime...which is great, but still...not in his prime. And MacDonald, Murphy and Sean Hill...I wouldn't consider them "elite". Were they supposed to be good? Yes...but elite? No. My whole point of the Blues not signing a UFA in his prime was because you'd have to outbid other teams when there is no compensation to give up, so more teams are involved and the salary offers are usually higher. The Blues have never won that kind of bidding war for a UFA in his prime...not even in the Keenan/Quinn Days when they were signing everyone and pissing off the rest of the teams in the league by driving prices up on players.

cprice12 wrote:[
I meant to say "we have never signed a UFA in his prime". Stevens and Shanny were both RFA. And technically, we signed Shanny before his prime...which is great, but still...not in his prime. And MacDonald, Murphy and Sean Hill...I wouldn't consider them "elite". Were they supposed to be good? Yes...but elite? No. My whole point of the Blues not signing a UFA in his prime was because you'd have to outbid other teams when there is no compensation to give up, so more teams are involved and the salary offers are usually higher. The Blues have never won that kind of bidding war for a UFA in his prime...not even in the Keenan/Quinn Days when they were signing everyone and pissing off the rest of the teams in the league by driving prices up on players.

Not sure why I included MacDonald since we dealt for him, maybe I was thinking of Kariya.

Spezza is only 30 and while I like Rattie's prospects, you have to give to get.